PDA

View Full Version : Americans are NOT stupid


True_Avery
07-09-2007, 10:42 PM
YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e87uuThuh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

Articles:
http://www.informatics-review.com/FAQ/reading.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-03-07-teaching-religion-cover_N.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/4/82551/91265
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1184126400&en=41369d08d4b6302b&ei=5070
https://webspace.utexas.edu/cokerwr/www/slide1.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4761294.stm
http://www.coreknowledge.org/CK/index.htm
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=18421

America, the greatest country in the history of the universe and planet earth. The only country in the western world without free health care. The only country with true freedom. The only country that has God looking down at us. A country on the only planet that has the sun orbiting it. The country that is number 31 in health care. The country with the worst first world education system. The richest country on the planet. The country with the highest debt on the planet. The country that spends $600,000 a day on every soldier in Iraq. A country that teaches its people to fear its government. One of the few first world countries that makes people pay for college. One of the few countries that screams for lower taxes while it falls apart due to lack of tax dollars.

All for one, none for all!

In summary:
America is NOT stupid.
God Bless Us.

I am offically making plans to move out of this hole in the ground. There is absolutely nothing about this country that makes it better than any other first world country. News Flash: AMERICA IS NOT THE LAND OF THE FREE. Europe has freedom. Canada has freedom. Many places in the world have freedom. In fact, many other countries look out for their people instead of this ravaged capitalistic society we have that loves the rich of one and cares little for the poverty of many. The poverty rate in America is disgusting and far too high, while 1 white man can have billions upon billions of dollars to spend on his custom 10 cars and 3 mansions.

Please, give me a reason to stay here. I was born in this country, raised in this country, educated in this country. I have a lot of hopes and dreams for this chunk of land, yet I see absolutely no reason to stay here because when I crunch the numbers... living in Canada or Europe would benifit me so much more. Please... I need a reason to have faith in this place and the final straws were the statistics on the stupidity of Americans and watching Sicko yesterday with my mother. Free health care, less debt, and (in some places) a free college education is really tempting.

P.S. I am not going to have a lot of computer access for awhile, so I will not be around the forums much.

TK-8252
07-09-2007, 11:38 PM
Just so you know, America is actually not capitalist, which is a very common misconception. If it were capitalist it would be way better. As of now we have a corporatist government (which is where government and business work together to oppress the people, read: fascist, corrupt, cronyism) that tries to pretend that it is for the free market and personal liberty, but that's just propaganda. In reality, the American government is a huge mafia that is out to plunder the people's wealth for their own purposes.

Fredi
07-09-2007, 11:49 PM
HEY! becarefull when you say Americans***** we latin's are american too we live in america!!.... We are not stupid.

And damn viewing the videos no wander they call the american stupids

SilentScope001
07-09-2007, 11:52 PM
America is neither Corparsitist or Capitalist.

It's a Mixed Market Economy, with capitalism and socialism rolled into one. Hong Kong may be an example of a purely capitalist society according to my economic textbook though.

And, while Americans may NOT be stupid, that does not mean you should flee it. You pay lower taxes (for a country you got no control over, you might not get anything better in other nations, and if you believe that you have to rely soley on yourself, lower taxes are always a plus), you get the nominal title of being part of a superpower, you can speak whatever you want (in some Euorpean nations, actually, in a lot of European nations, you have limits on speaking about Nazis, otherwise you get thrown in prison), and you could always attempt to gain some sort of political power if you try to stay within America.

And you always have the right to criticize America if you live in America. If you don't, then people will scream, "Ah, but she's not living in America, so she has no right to laugh at us!" Might be valid.

I do dispute your assertion of what places do have freedom. Canada and Europe do not have freedom at all. They do have economic limitations all around, which is good for liberals (high economic control, low social controls), but bad for conservatives who want the free market to make desicions. You WILL pay higher taxes over there. Like the services, then that's great. But America will alway have a different style of freedom than the rest of the world...the country is terrible, true, but you have control over the money you have, meaning you have control over how you live or die, not the government.

It's the eternal liberal vs. conservative delimma here. America is conservative, Europe and Canada are liberal. Nothing I can really do to dissude you from leaving USA, but I do believe that if you stick in America, you could surivie any sort of war that might happen in Europe, because the fear of World War III is always just around the corner, between China/Russia and the USA. The first battles (or nukes) may happen right in Europe.

But WHY Canada and Europe? Why not China or India? Why not join up with the potential superpowers of the future, see it in action, and engage in their prosperity, rather than just go to those nations for some measure of "freedom", especially when you go there, and might criticize those nations for giving you poor services and forcing you to pay for it? Might as well join those who are winning rather than nations who may very well lose. (And India is a liberal democracy, so you might prefer that to China, who is Authoritian)

TK-8252
07-10-2007, 12:03 AM
It's a Mixed Market Economy, with capitalism and socialism rolled into one.

That's kinda what corporatism is... it may start off mixed, but gets corrupted as cronyism and authoritarianism take root.

but you have control over the money you have, meaning you have control over how you live or die, not the government.

Actually you don't have control over your money or how you live or die. If I want to go buy some weed, or sell some, I could get arrested, fined, and imprisoned.

And if I get in a bad car accident, for example, and don't have health insurance or I don't have enough coverage, then I am going to be financially raped by the hospital.

I would agree that liberal countries like Canada and Britain have too much government controls, but it's hard to argue with the statistics that citizens of those kinds of countries have a higher standard of living than the U.S. Plus, the war in Iraq just sucks, even if you don't have any friends or family in the war. The fact that we're pissing away so much money on a lost cause when we could spend it on education, or health care, or eliminating poverty, etc. is just asinine.

Not to mention that our government is packed with criminals from the top down.

John Galt
07-10-2007, 01:41 AM
As I've said before, America is no longer the free-est place in the world, nor is it the fairest. However, we CAN look back to a time when we were the free-est(or most of us were, anyway), but no nation is truly perfect, especially in this day and time. It is being ruined by a combination of fundementalism, a false political dichotomy, and deeply ingrained uncapitalistic relationships between large corporations and the government. The Federal Government is a corrupt, bloated mockery of the relatively efficient limited system it once was.

But there are still people, such as myself, who think that Americans CAN reclaim some of the freedoms we once had and make the country a better place to live for all of us, rich and poor. Because there remains the possibility, however fleeting, that America could indeed be the 'Land of Opportunity' again.

Europe has no such legacy of freedom to reclaim, and no apparent intention to create one, although areas of Southeast Asia or maybe even Australia might be headed in the right direction.

edit: It is not the government's job to provide money or services to those who "need" them. I suppose the retirement system will have to be bankrupted by the glut of retiring boomers to show some Americans that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" just doesn't work. In my estimation government's sole purpose for existing is to protect its citizens from force, and Uncle Sam is quite good at keeping us (mostly) safe from foreign invasion.

Jae Onasi
07-10-2007, 02:48 AM
In my estimation government's sole purpose for existing is to protect its citizens from force, and Uncle Sam is quite good at keeping us (mostly) safe from foreign invasion.
Humor mode on:
I'll remember that as thugs rule the streets raping and pillaging, houses burn down all around us, and the sewage and garbage piles up creating a massive public health disaster since we've gotten rid of the police, fire and sanitation departments.

But damn, we'll be good at defending our country.

:)

TK-8252
07-10-2007, 03:08 AM
I'll remember that as thugs rule the streets raping and pillaging [...]

That wouldn't happen, because with limited government, people would have the right to defend themselves and not be prosecuted for it. For example, as of now, if you are attacked on the street, and you take out a gun and kill the person meaning you harm, you may be charged with murder. Next, people would have the ability to hire private police to patrol their streets, kind of like how malls and theme parks hire their own security.

Although the post John Galt made didn't imply eliminating the police department, since the police protect people from force too, not just the military. (I agree with John's post 100%, BTW.)

[...] houses burn down all around us [...]

Private fire department!

[...] and the sewage and garbage piles up creating a massive public health disaster [...]

Private trash collection (we have that where I live and it works pretty well)!

[...] since we've gotten rid of the police, fire and sanitation departments. [...]

Private companies could probably do better jobs at this than government bureaucracies.

Darth InSidious
07-10-2007, 09:05 AM
As some graffiti I once saw put it, "in America, liberty is a statue."

Nancy Allen``
07-10-2007, 10:16 AM
Now you'd probably guess that I'd have something to say about this thread. I am proud of America warts and all, it is not only a world leader it is in many ways the greatest country in the world. Those who dislike it as much as they do are not being forced to live in America, in fact I can highly recommend a move north of the boarder. But before you run out and start burning the flag you should check to see where your clothes, car and tv are made. Where is your food from? Your house or parts of your house? If it's American you better burn those as well.

Jae Onasi
07-10-2007, 11:09 AM
Private fire department!
Private trash collection (we have that where I live and it works pretty well)!
Private companies could probably do better jobs at this than government bureaucracies.

Who's going to pay for all that? How are you going to administer it and make sure these private companies are meeting certain minimum acceptable standards and not dumping sewage into the drinking water instead of processing it in their drive to make a profit?

If everyone is armed, then the strongest/best armed person still 'wins', and if that happens to be the thugs, then good people still suffer.

ET Warrior
07-10-2007, 02:13 PM
you should check to see where your clothes, car and tv are made.China, Japan, and Korea?

Rogue Nine
07-10-2007, 02:28 PM
You forgot Taiwan.

SilentScope001
07-10-2007, 02:33 PM
I think she meant where the cars and televisions were invented. And who owns the factories that create the clothes, the cars, and the televisions.

mimartin
07-10-2007, 03:28 PM
Private fire department!

We can put that fire out for $199.99. Call Fires R Us anytime day or night.
Sorry closed all state and national holidays

I just wonder what would happen if there was a slow fire season, would these private companies resort to arson to drum up business.

Privatization of the police force would not work either because then only the wealthy could afford justice. Oh, wait that is already the case.

JediMaster12
07-10-2007, 03:52 PM
There are a lot of things wrong and a lot of things right in the US. There are ups and downs. Everybody has them. There are things I'm not happy about and they tend to differ from everybody else. I don't approve of the govt and its actions now because I thing the domestic situation should take precedence. The health care problem should be left to the individual states. That is part of the police powers granted to the state as stated in the Constitution. The local police again is state powers. The federal, that's the govt territory dealing with commerce, etc. Education is a sketchy thing being as it is not uniform but I rather spit on the policy of No Child Left Behind and a lot of the crapola dealing with social promotion and the like.

Not all Americans are stupid but some things that have been done are stupid. We're human. We are not infallible. Getting up and moving elsewhere won't fix the problem because everybody has problems no matter where in the world. If you truly want no problems, go live with the hunter-gatherers located in some of the most unsuitable areas for agriculture. Go raise a herd of llamas in the Andes or live with the Jivaro or Kapayo.

SilentScope001
07-10-2007, 03:54 PM
Why not have countries go in the Free Market?

Say, you got America and Canada competing for citizens. In order to join up with the Citizenship club, you pay a small monthly (or annually) fee to America or Canada to use their services (Defense, Police, Fire, etc). We could call that a "tax". If you decide that you dislike paying that "tax", or dislike the really stupid regulations or "laws" they place on your membership within said nation, and see that another country, say, Canada, would offer better services, admittingly, at a higher cost, then you'll just move over there and renounce your membership.

Oh, and add in the fact that as a member, you can vote to see who lead that nation, maybe as a Director, or President of said Country. Countries that do well in the free market has higher citizenship and higher reveunes overall, which will have them produce better services. Countries that do not do well in the free market will just declare bankrupcy and maybe merge with a country that does do well in the Free Market.

Free market works wonders, doesn't it? :)

JasraLantill
07-10-2007, 05:05 PM
If everyone is armed, then the strongest/best armed person still 'wins', and if that happens to be the thugs, then good people still suffer.Yeah, doesnít that already happen in places like Afghanistan, the northern provinces of Pakistan, the southern states of Mexico, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Somalia? Hmmm... I think Iíll stick to a country with a centralised government, pay my taxes, and count my blessings. :)

@True_AveryóYes, the U.S. could do with a nationalised healthcare system, but that has its problems, too. (Point in case, I heard a story from someone today about how sheíll still have to wait between 12 weeks and 6 months to see a surgeon for a health problem her G.P. diagnosed two months ago. ) Iíve lived in a lot of different states in the U.S., and lived in Germany, and have been living in the U.K. now since 2001 (mainly because my husband is British and thatís where he wants to live.) And, yes, there does seem to be more socialised advantages here, but then again, there are quite a lot of restrictions here as well. For instance, we have 17.5% VAT on our goods and services (more if you have to pay any import duty on the goodsóno imports from the USA for me.) There are long waits for specialised healthcare treatment. (See above.) Fuel (petrol/diesel) is expensive (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=824492007): costs over £0.90/litre (so about $8 USD/gallon). Employers are responsible for paying maternity leave and yet even though they can claim back a statutory pay from the government, many women still get fired/laid off when itís known theyíre pregnant. (Sad, but very true. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4225941.stm)) You canít build your own house or extend your current one or, in some cases, even put up a play house for your kids (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/2981035.stm) without extensive planning permission (which includes the permission of not only your local council but any and all neighbours who can see your house.) When applying for a job, you must use your current or last employer as a reference (so, better make sure you leave on good terms or itíll be a while before you get another job. Or, you could always forge a reference like this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6177583.stm) did.)

Point is, it doesnít really matter where you liveóyou do the best you can with what you got. People will always find problems with the current system and complain for a need for improvement. Itís the Ďgrass is always greener over the fenceí syndrome. Iím happy where I am living now, but I donít think I was any less happy living in Colorado a few years back. :)

@SilentScope--And we already have a 'free market' of sorts with countries. Hence the immigration (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6228236.stm) to the western countries from those countries that have less economic prosperity.

SilentScope001
07-10-2007, 06:02 PM
@SilentScope--And we already have a 'free market' of sorts with countries. Hence the immigration to the western countries from those countries that have less economic prosperity.

Exactly. Hence the smiley face.

The Source
07-10-2007, 07:19 PM
I am going to come out and admit that: Yes, we do have a certain limited ability to function in the United States. If you think about the lives we lead, rich or poor, we really do very little with them. Most of the US citizens believe they have absolutely no power to change our country, thus we have dwindled our lives into a few flickering moments. Instead of making a stand against government officials who tarnish the consitution, we surpress our urges into watching television, playing games, and utilizing the internet. Over the past 300 years or so, the government has created laws against insurections and civil wars. Within the latest incarnation of the US government, the people have absolutely no power when it comes to money-policy-makers. Truthfully, the corporations have becomes so embeded into our government, and they have been selling our lives to the highest bidder. We use to have a government, which allowed the average joe to run for president. Now, you need millions of dollars to buy the votes you need to win. The nature of the United States has changed over the years, and the corporations have been able to regulate how we eat, breath, and speak. No one will make a stand. All we do is go online and spew garbage about how we feel, and we don't make a stand in our front lawns. Irony.

Nancy Allen``
07-10-2007, 07:41 PM
Like I said, if you don't like America then no one's forcing you to stay. If you hate it that much then why do you live there?

mimartin
07-10-2007, 11:23 PM
With all due respect, I have not seen anyone write they hate the United States of America in this tread. Being critical or criticizing your country does not mean youíre unpatriotic or treasonous. This country was founded on those very notions. There is a document located in The National Archives Building signed by 56 brave men. The document sets forth the rights of humans to declare their freedom from those that would seek to oppress them.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

They did not leave it, they changed it for the better IMO.


Do not believe the propaganda it is all Americans duty to question the direction of their government. Weíve been lulled into the perception that we are here to serve the government, but in truth it is the government that is here to serve us. Weíve been taught that there are three branches of government; Legislative Branch, Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch. They check and balance each other preventing anyone from becoming too powerful, but there is another even more important and powerful check and it is the American citizen.

We exercise or duty of checks and balance by voting and by contacting our senators and congress person. If you look at the voter eligible population (excludes non-citizen and felons) 60.93% of all voting age eligible voted in the last Presidential election compared to 41.3% in the last off year election. I donít understand why it is call an ďoff year electionĒ when Legislative Branch is just as important to this country's function as the Executive Branch.

2004 Election
Bush 62,040,606
Kerry 59,028,109

That is a difference of 3,012,497 votes with only 60.93% of the eligible population voting. With the division in this country one person one vote was never more important. Personally I feel voting is my obligation to a debt I will never be able to repay. I vote for those the came before me and gave their life so that I may have that right. Iím not just speaking of the American Solider, but also those that fought for civil rights and equality for all American no matter their race, religion or gender (or any other excuse we use to separate ourselves).

Please, give me a reason to stay here.

It is your home. If you donít like what is happening in this country work to correct the problem. Do not believe the propaganda you can make a difference. Look a Rosa Parks she helped change the course of American History all because her feet hurt. If you want National Health Care vote, contact your Senators and Congressman to make them aware of your desire. Then vote for those that support your cause and then contact them all over again (beware this may be what got me on the TSA watch list).

When those on the right tell you it will not work here point out that the U.S. Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy is lower than most Western European countries and Canada. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

Like JasraLantill wrote ďyou do the best you can with what you got.Ē You would not move out of your house if the carpet was dirty, you would clean the carpet. This is no different, if you are feed up with the state of this union work to change it.

I heard a story from someone today about how sheíll still have to wait between 12 weeks and 6 months to see a surgeon for a health problem her G.P. diagnosed two months ago. )

I agree with 99% of what you wrote, but this happens in a 'free market' too. A coworker of mine is having to wait 3 months to get a skin cancer cut off her arm because that is the next open appointment the Dermatologists on her insurance plan has open.

P.S. Never mistaken my being critical as hatred of my country. I love my country and would not want to live anywhere else. I never feel more proud to be an American then when I see another citizen burn the flag. I want to tear that person arms off and beat the person to death with them, but I love that this country gives that person that freedom. If you love it work to change it for the better is what I would recommend over leaving.

TK-8252
07-11-2007, 12:43 AM
Who's going to pay for all that?

Who pays for it now? We do, through taxes. The difference is that it would be through bills instead.

How are you going to administer it and make sure these private companies are meeting certain minimum acceptable standards and not dumping sewage into the drinking water instead of processing it in their drive to make a profit?

Because it would be a PR nightmare for them. If their customers paid attention, then they would take their business to a company that has standards. If that didn't happen, then environmental groups could perhaps sue them out of business and use the money to clean up. This is pretty much how it is as of now. Big companies dump their crap into the river, and then pay off the government so they don't get in trouble for it.

If everyone is armed, then the strongest/best armed person still 'wins', and if that happens to be the thugs, then good people still suffer.

The strongest/best-armed people would probably be the security forces. As of right now, everyone suffers, because the only people armed at all are thugs and cops, who are basically just thugs too.

Nancy Allen``
07-11-2007, 12:50 AM
I was saving this for another thread but given the implication police officers are thugs it's worth putting up. Senior Constable Jessica Evan is with the Victoria Police in Geelong, and is looking at joining either the Special Operations Group or Criminal Investigation Bureau. I asked for her comments.

In the police force we are trained to do everything possible to preserve life, including drawing your service revolver\automatic and aiming it at the threat in the hope of being able to intimitate them into a state of nonagression and compliance. However we cannot save people from doing stupid things no matter how much we would like to, we can only do our level best to convince them not to, and in a situation where we believe our lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger then the procedure is to aim at the largest portion of the upper body, the head, the chest, and keep firing until the target is no longer a threat. This is because the first bullet does not always finish the job. Now every time a police firearm is discharged there is an inquiry into the shooting to judge whether or not it was justified. Every shooting has to be shown that it was the correct course of action, that's common sense. But as much as we dread the thought of having to use our weapon on a living thing if you refuse to do so because you worry about being moral, or you stress over being moral when you need to draw your firearm, then you are no good to anyone.

mimartin
07-11-2007, 01:05 AM
The strongest/best-armed people would probably be the security forces. As of right now, everyone suffers, because the only people armed at all are thugs and cops, who are basically just thugs too. What will keep the strongest/best-armed people from being thugs? At least there is some control over police officers.

Yeah, doesnít that already happen in places like Afghanistan, the northern provinces of Pakistan, the southern states of Mexico, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Somalia? Yes, and it happens here too. See Texas Concealed Handgun Law

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

Even though I donít like the law, I did take the class and have my license.

Very good point Nancy Allen, how many times do we not hear about a shooting and/or death because police officers are properly train to ďpreserve lifeĒ? I believe there would be a lot more deaths if the ďstrongest/best-armedĒ were protecting us.

John Galt
07-11-2007, 01:42 AM
First of all, there are certain functions of security that the government must carry out, because they would be impractical for private corporations to carry out. These include defending the nation from outside attack(on the national level), and protecting citizens from violence and natural disasters(including fires), in a more federalized manner at the national, state, and(mostly) local levels. Most other functions currently carried out by the government could be performed by private corporations or individual citizens.

TK-8252
07-11-2007, 02:02 AM
What will keep the strongest/best-armed people from being thugs? At least there is some control over police officers.

Well the strongest/best-armed people would be private security, and if they are thugs, then they get fired and probably would get sued, imprisoned, etc.

There is very little control over police officers - considering that it's the cop's word over the citizen's in most cases, unless there's video or lots of credible witnesses.

I believe there would be a lot more deaths if the ďstrongest/best-armedĒ were protecting us.

As of now, no one is protecting us. If you think that police really can do anything to protect you, you've fallen victim of our government's propaganda. All they can do is show up after an incident and collect evidence. If they catch the criminal, the person may or may not be punished, and you, as a victim, will recieve nothing to compensate you for injuries or property losses. If your car is stolen for example, and the cops find it, they might keep it as evidence instead of giving it back to you.

Most of the time, cops are out looking for harmless drug users and prostitutes and people like that. You know, people who are just trying to live their lives, but have to live in fear of the police as a result of insane laws made by stupid politicians.

SilentScope001
07-11-2007, 02:34 AM
mimartin: Uh, while I love to have many people serve in the great US (only 33% of people living in the USA actually voted, the 66% number are the ones that bothered to register, but some people don't even register to vote), let face the facts here.

100,000,000 people voted in the last Presidental election.

You vote.

You get to control 0.000000001% of the popular vote! Weeee! And you wonder why we think that people complain they have no say in the government? Democracy is a great idea, but when you realize that everyone else get to vote as well, you start to feel that you are useless, and the mob is the only thing that matter. (If it turns out your vote happens to be the deciding vote, then an automatic recount is in order, because it is quite obivous that there is a high chance of error...so even then, your vote does not count).

Truth is, voting is NOT how you change the government. Getting other people to vote the same way is how you do so. Trying to form PACs, buying out politicans, writing opinon pieces, creating TV ads, THAT'S how we gain influence and power. If you want to reform America to your idea of "perfectness", you cannot rely on democracy, because not only you can vote, but so can your enemies as well, and if your enemies outnumber you, you lose. Simple.

(Maybe the reason America does not see our grand ideas as perfect is...because...they may not actually believe in them. Hey, look at the title of the thread: Americans are NOT stupid.)

Have to serve my patoritic duty to criticize. :)

TK-8252: I do think the police officers are doing quite a fine job in defending the USA from criminals. I feel safe...at least. But cops can't stop everything, either in Free Market or outside of Free Market.

However, thanks to Private Military Contractors, the military is about to be controlled by the Free Market. The bad news is that senators may be less worried about cost-benieft anyalsis of the competiting corporations and more of kickbacks and bribes. Still, worth a shot. And if it does well here, it could be used in the cities as well.

TK-8252
07-11-2007, 03:56 AM
TK-8252: I do think the police officers are doing quite a fine job in defending the USA from criminals. I feel safe...at least. But cops can't stop everything, either in Free Market or outside of Free Market.

I'm glad you feel safe. A lot of people feel safe, that is, until they get robbed or raped. Then they demand justice, which they might not get.

Allronix
07-11-2007, 04:38 AM
I plan on staying put and being a pain in the choobies. I'm mad as hell and sick of my home being run by the religious nuts and corporate thieves. Why give the #$!@#$ the satisfaction of leaving?

The Constitution is a fine work of art. That is at least one reason to stay.

Nancy Allen``
07-11-2007, 08:46 AM
Most of the time, cops are out looking for harmless drug users and prostitutes and people like that. You know, people who are just trying to live their lives, but have to live in fear of the police as a result of insane laws made by stupid politicians.

Why do you think that is? So they can find out who supplied them the drugs, ****ing ****s that push the addiction onto eight year old children, make them take up a life of crime so they are able to feed that habit that destroys them. Not so harmless is it?

I'm glad you feel safe. A lot of people feel safe, that is, until they get robbed or raped. Then they demand justice, which they might not get.

Don't blame the police, they cannot be everywhere to solve every crime. Blame the courts who are leniant on criminals. You might like to have a look at yourself as well. What part do you play in active crime prevention?

I plan on staying put and being a pain in the choobies. I'm mad as hell and sick of my home being run by the religious nuts and corporate thieves. Why give the #$!@#$ the satisfaction of leaving?

Maybe because you hate it with every fibre in your body? If you hate it so much why stay and force yourself to witness the things you hate about America?

Totenkopf
07-11-2007, 09:34 AM
We can put that fire out for $199.99. Call Fires R Us anytime day or night.
Sorry closed all state and national holidays

I just wonder what would happen if there was a slow fire season, would these private companies resort to arson to drum up business.

Versus the fire department resorting to arson to ensure it's budget doesn't decrease? :xp: :p

OT, I think that JL's point about the grass being greener is spot on. This country may not be great (we're human too, afterall), but you need to figure out what you want vs what you can get no matter where you end up living. If you can't shake you're bad feelings about America, I'd say that perhaps Canada or Scandanavia may be in your future. Just one question: What will you do if wherever you go doesn't pan out? There are only something like 200 countries in the world, and most of them are much worse than here for a whole host of reasons (oppression/violence/bigotry/unsanitary/etc..).

Jae Onasi
07-11-2007, 12:59 PM
Most of the time, cops are out looking for harmless drug users and prostitutes and people like that. You know, people who are just trying to live their lives, but have to live in fear of the police as a result of insane laws made by stupid politicians.

I'm glad the crime issues are boring by you, then. Around here, the cops are not looking for 'harmless drug users and prostitutes', though they will handle that because of the ties with organized crime. Here in my part of the world which is not too far from Chicago and Milwaukee, they deal primarily with very serious crimes--rape, severe child abuse (the life-threatening version--DCFS handles it otherwise), bank robberies, violent assaults, shootings, murders, organized crime rings, gang issues, and so forth. Milwaukee just had a serious incident where a guy got beaten severely by a gang for trying to defend a woman from getting attacked and likely raped, and they have multiple gang problems right now. In fact in some parts of the city right now, the gangs have more control than the police or citizens do, and they are destroying the ability of regular people to go to work, school, or other places with any kind of safety.

About 500 people get murdered in Chicago every year, and Milwaukee's murder rate is around 100 the last few years. I don't think the police around here are just sitting around eating donuts while waiting to bust the next hooker who walks by.

The Source
07-11-2007, 01:03 PM
I feel safer in the United States than anywhere else in the world. Even though we have our bad moments, we do have certain freedoms that other countries do not practice. Some countries kill you for drunk driving, or they chop off a hand for stealing. The United States is probally the best country to live in. Since we are fighting an unpopular war in Iraq, I think the world just looks at us awkwardly. There are countries out there that say, "Americans stay out of our way." Once an outsider country gets attacked, "Americans we need your help." If we act upon something that is humanly wrong, we are condemned by every other country in the world. If we take an inactive action towards another country, we are condemned for not doing enough. Yeah, we have our issues. Yeah, we have problems with our gorvernment. However, where on Earth are you going to find the most self-sacrificing bunch of as* ho*es to step in front of a bullet for a stranger? We do it for liberty, peace, freedom, and prosperity for all of mankind.

US, Canada, Russia, Europe, and some of Asia are sacrificing their people, so the common good will preveal.

Yeah, our government has issues, but our push for freedom for all is unmatched (next to Canada and Europe that is).

Prime
07-11-2007, 02:28 PM
I think she meant where the cars and televisions were invented. And who owns the factories that create the clothes, the cars, and the televisions.Well, of these things I own are made by non-American companies. There are lots of clothing, car, and electronic manufacturers that are not US companies...

Like I said, if you don't like America then no one's forcing you to stay. If you hate it that much then why do you live there?I would say that for many people it is because they do not have the means to go anywhere else. They may be too poor to afford to emmigrate, or are not able to get the required visas and permits in order to take up residence in another country. Most countries have immigration policies that favor certain kinds of individuals (certain professions and the like). It usually isn't very easy to just live in another country.

Most of the time, cops are out looking for harmless drug users and prostitutes and people like that. You know, people who are just trying to live their lives, but have to live in fear of the police as a result of insane laws made by stupid politicians.So you are saying that such activites have no affect on others in society, and that law enforcement on such things should discontinued?

SilentScope001
07-11-2007, 02:32 PM
I would say that for many people it is because they do not have the means to go anywhere else. They may be too poor to afford to emmigrate, or are not able to get the required visas and permits in order to take up residence in another country. Most countries have immigration policies that favor certain kinds of individuals (certain professions and the like). It usually isn't very easy to just live in another country.

Not to mention that if you get a good job here, it is harder to relocate to another country and try to get a similar paying job.

TK-8252
07-11-2007, 03:26 PM
Why do you think that is? So they can find out who supplied them the drugs, ****ing ****s that push the addiction onto eight year old children, make them take up a life of crime so they are able to feed that habit that destroys them. Not so harmless is it?

Actually, no one ever really comes up to eight year olds and puts a crack pipe in their mouth and forces them to inhale. That's quite silly to suggest such a thing.

Blame the courts who are leniant on criminals.

They are leniant on criminals because the jails and prisons are overcrowded with people with victimless crime convictions, like drug possession and such. Let these harmless people live their lives in a free society and the real criminals would be behind bars instead of on the streets.

@Jae: I'm glad that police where you live are making an effort towards keeping the streets safe. However, a lot of crime is created by the need for drug money. The reason why drugs are expensive is because they are illegal. If they were legal, they would be much more affordable, because there would be a greater supply available to satisfy the demand. So by the actions of police against drug dealers, they in turn create a legion of criminals.

So you are saying that such activites have no affect on others in society, and that law enforcement on such things should discontinued?

They do have an affect... but the reason why they do is because they are illegal. If they were legal, then there would be no affect. Drug dealers, prostitutes, and other people involved in "vice" are providing a service that is wanted by people. People want hookers. People want drugs. Let the free market do its business!

Emperor Devon
07-11-2007, 06:08 PM
People want hookers. People want drugs. Let the free market do its business!

Wow. A world where 12-year olds who don't know any better can sell themselves and then have the cash to buy some of the cheap, affordable drugs that mommy and daddy snort so much of. Then they can get STDs, pregnant, screwed for life and then pass that behavior down to the kids they'll have next year, go free market!!!

Like I said, if you don't like America then no one's forcing you to stay. If you hate it that much then why do you live there?

If it weren't for the language barrier, financial difficulties and fact I wouldn't know anyone there I'd love to move to Norway.

Jae Onasi
07-11-2007, 06:32 PM
Actually, no one ever really comes up to eight year olds and puts a crack pipe in their mouth and forces them to inhale. That's quite silly to suggest such a thing.
My sister-in-law does foster care and has abused kids come through her home, and I see kids in my office who are foster kids because we take Medicaid. Some parents, who should never have had kid because they themselves are addicted to drugs and alcohol, have actually given their very young children hits off their joints to mellow the kids out, and given them alcohol to make them sleep. It happens far more often than anyone of us want to see. If someone told me that a 'parent' had put a crack pipe in the mouth of an 8 year old and forced them to inhale, I would not be surprised in the least after what I've seen and what I've heard from my sister-in-law.

A thief in my town had been hitting a gas station every night and the cops finally found out from an informant what gas station he would hit that night, so they set up a sting and caught him. In the back seat of his car was his 9 month old daughter, asleep because he'd put alcohol in her bottle to make sure she slept. She had to be taken to the hospital for observation because her blood alcohol level was that high.

It is terrible that this happens, but it's _happening_, and I'm honestly sorry that I'm the one who has to introduce you to just how horrible people can be to their own children.


They do have an affect... but the reason why they do is because they are illegal. If they were legal, then there would be no affect. Drug dealers, prostitutes, and other people involved in "vice" are providing a service that is wanted by people. People want hookers. People want drugs. Let the free market do its business!
Let's use alcohol as an example, then, since it's a legal 'drug'. Crime will not go away because you legalize prostitution or drug use.

In the case of alcohol use and abuse, you have vehicular homicide and assault from drunk driving. When I worked at Children's hospital I saw the results first hand in the ICU--2 Amish girls had survived a car-vs.-buggy accident. The guy was drunk and was driving 65 in a 35 zone that was in a well-known Amish community. The girls' 2 other siblings, father, and 5-month-pregnant mother died at the scene from the impact. Both girls had massive injuries, one we thought would make it, and the other we weren't sure, but if she did she had such massive head trauma she was never going to be 'normal' again. Since alcohol is legal, is this what you mean by 'it's legal so there's no effect'? I beg to differ. One man drinking and driving completely destroyed a family. Drug abusers, legal or not, won't quit driving, and we will see higher amounts of vehicular assault and homicide due to drug abuse if it's legalized.

There are alcohol-related rapes, domestic abuse, and child abuse. When people are under the influence, they don't act rationally or do rational things. It's even worse with certain drugs--someone on ice or PCP can become extremely violent, and because they don't feel pain normally, they are extremely difficult to bring under control. They'll break bones while fighting and will continue fighting because they don't feel the fractures.

There are people committing theft to buy alcohol because they've lost their jobs due to their alcoholism and now can't afford it. People with end-stage liver disease from alcohol abuse are on disability and need extremely expensive medical care on top of it, which is a big drain on gov't resources. Those who abuse drugs don't have the mental capacity when they're stoned to take care of themselves or avoid risky behaviors, so we'll see more drug addicts in bad health, which will put further strain on gov't resources. In Holland (or Denmark--can't remember which), they've had to create 'nursing homes for drug addicts' because these people can't take care of themselves anymore due to the brain damage from drug abuse, which is legal over there. Not only are these people not contributing positively to society, they're now a drain, and they're fairly young and are going to live a long time on that country's social system. There's no positive to legalizing drugs, and plenty of negatives.

One reason prostitution is illegal (aside from the ethical issues of treatment of women and some men) is because prostitutes are great disease vectors, especially STDs. Since most don't use condoms (because their clients don't like the feel :roleyess: ), that's still the case even in our 'modern age'. Many prostitutes are doing that job because they are addicted to drugs and it's the only 'job' they can hold down due to their addiction. Since they're drug abusers, they do not take care of themselves, and many are HIV+ and carry other STDs. People are contagious before they ever have disease symptoms, be that syphilis, chlamydia, herpes, HIV, or others. One prostitute can infect a number of people a night depending on client numbers/activities, and those people go on to infect others, and before you know it you have an epidemic on your hands. If you legalize this, you're contributing to a public health problem, because there's no way to regulate the sex industry to prevent disease spread except for stopping it completely.

Corinthian
07-11-2007, 06:55 PM
I never thought I'd agree with Emperor Devon. Well, except for the Norway part. TK, what do you really want? A Free Market, or total anarchy? Because it sounds to me like you're more advocating the latter.

Nancy Allen``
07-11-2007, 07:15 PM
Actually, no one ever really comes up to eight year olds and puts a crack pipe in their mouth and forces them to inhale. That's quite silly to suggest such a thing.

Actually they do pressure them to try and buy drugs. I can provide evidence if I must.

If it weren't for the language barrier, financial difficulties and fact I wouldn't know anyone there I'd love to move to Norway.

Well if that's the only thing stopping you save up, learn the language and go for it. I wouldn't mind moving myself actually.

Emperor Devon
07-11-2007, 08:00 PM
Well if that's the only thing stopping you save up, learn the language and go for it. I wouldn't mind moving myself actually.

Um, for the reasons I just listed it's not something that can simply be saved up and gone for. Moving just a few states can cost thousands of dollars, (moving across an ocean - even more) there's the cost involved in being taught the language, the time it would take to learn it, the time to get settled down in Norway, the fact it would completely isolate one from friends and family, and let's not even get into the business of getting a visa and actually being allowed to move... (That and the fact I am nowhere nearly wealthy enough to do all that)

My point: People can't simply leave America if they don't like the way it's being run as you've been implying they can.

Pho3nix
07-11-2007, 09:57 PM
I think you would do quite well in Norway just by speaking English. At least if you're planning to move to Oslo or Bergen.

Prime
07-11-2007, 11:40 PM
They do have an affect... but the reason why they do is because they are illegal. If they were legal, then there would be no affect. Drug dealers, prostitutes, and other people involved in "vice" are providing a service that is wanted by people. People want hookers. People want drugs. Let the free market do its business!So dealers should be free to try and sell crack and meth to my little girl? What if she gets addicted and OD's? Or what of those people who get robbed by a crackhead looking to get money for their next fix? How can you say there is no effect?

TK-8252
07-11-2007, 11:49 PM
Actually they do pressure them to try and buy drugs. I can provide evidence if I must.

I'm sure that there have been instances of such an event, but does every crack dealer on the corner see eight-year-olds as potential customers? Of course not. Just because someone has chosen to sell crack to make money doesn't turn them into monsters. Demonizing drug dealers as child abusers basically isn't fair. Drug dealers aren't on the corner sticking crack pipes into kids' mouths. If they are, then I'd like to know where the kid's parent is if they let their kid run wild in the streets.

So dealers should be free to try and sell crack and meth to my little girl? What if she gets addicted and OD's? Or what of those people who get robbed by a crackhead looking to get money for their next fix? How can you say there is no effect?

No they shouldn't be free to sell to kids. Just like how a kid can't go into a store and buy cigarettes or alcohol. The reason why crackheads have to rob to get money is because the drugs are expensive - and it's expensive because it's illegal. Legalize and the price drops, reducing crime rates dramatically.

Nancy Allen``
07-11-2007, 11:57 PM
Try outside the school, even in the school where older kids have drugs. The local park. The shops. To say just wrap people up in cotton wool is to ignore the issue over pieces of **** who push drugs.

Jae Onasi
07-12-2007, 12:13 AM
I'm sure that there have been instances of such an event, but does every crack dealer on the corner see eight-year-olds as potential customers? In a free market, everyone's a potential customer.


The reason why crackheads have to rob to get money is because the drugs are expensive - and it's expensive because it's illegal. Legalize and the price drops, reducing crime rates dramatically.

Alcohol is legal. It hasn't made crime rates go down at all since Prohibition ended. People rob to get money for their alcohol, too. People will still rob to get their drugs, no matter what the price is, because they're so stoned they can't keep a job to make _any_ money to buy them.

Emperor Devon
07-12-2007, 12:20 AM
No they shouldn't be free to sell to kids. Just like how a kid can't go into a store and buy cigarettes or alcohol.

A law, which, I might add, is poorly enforced. Honestly, how rare is it to see teens who've gotten their hands on cigarettes/alcohol? They use both all the time and in half the parties they throw, even though it's totally illegal...

Allronix
07-12-2007, 12:53 AM
Maybe because you hate it with every fibre in your body? If you hate it so much why stay and force yourself to witness the things you hate about America?

Because it's my home, damn it. If your only definition of "loving America" is to blindly salute a flag, then I'd call it missing the point. I'm a firm believer in Sinclair Lewis's warning that "when facisim comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." I'm also no optimist, especially when it comes to following the money.

I'm sick of the Enron and the 700 Club crowd calling the shots. I'm tired of seeing people die from lack of health care, tired of seeing 5% of the population with 95% of the wealth, and REALLY sick of war profitering, abuses of power, and religion-based laws. In my book, they insult and violate the "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" outlined as fundamental rights. I'm furious because I care about the people here and the things we're supposed to stand for.

I'm angry with the things Source describes...but the reason I don't tend to be around Kavar's Corner much is because I'd rather do something. I've put Congress's "public comments" number on speed dial. I go to the rallies and marches. I spent July 4th with a voter reform group reading the Constitution and Declaration in front of the Federal Building. I call the radio stations, the TV stations, and write the newspaper. And I've only missed one election since signing up to vote on my 18th birthday. (Was 60 miles from the polling place). It may do as much good as spitting into the ocean, but I won't sit on my butt, either.

We've come a long way. When this nation was founded, women were chattel, black folks were property, the natives were "savages," and the poor couldn't vote, either. We have remedied these, but we're dealing with a LOT of fallout and fallacies. Just because we aren't forced to wear burquas and operate under sharia law doesn't mean that we don't have undue influence of religion in the public square. Just because Jim Crow's gone doesn't mean we have destroyed institutiuonal racism. As good as we are, we can always do better. We can always learn...and the more we self-congratulate, the further behind we get in every area from infant mortality to schooling, to standard of living, to elder care.

I still believe there's something here worth fighting for here, and while I believe we have a hell of a long road to travel before we live up to our ideals, I still like the ideals. I may not "love America" the way the current definition of patriotism wants it, but it does not mean my home's not worth it.

I love my country, therefore I use my First Amendment right to bitch loudly and proudly.

John Galt
07-12-2007, 01:21 AM
Think of the drug situation this way: since drugs aren't forced underground, they could be distributed from a brick and mortar establishment, and drugs could be mixed and purified to scientific standards, therefore less dangerous to the users due to reductions of impurities. If domestic production was legal, it would reduce drug smuggling from latin america significantly, if not eliminating it entirely. Under a system like that instead of pushers and dealers we'd have advertisments and store owners, much like the shift from speakeasies and bootleggers back to breweries and bars/liquor stores after the repeal of prohibition.

Basically legalizing drugs would "civilize" them, and possibly return them to a status somwhat reminiscent of that they held in the late 19th/early 20th century. Legalizing drugs would simply give the government an opportunity to tax and regulate an activity that occurs despite a disastrous 30-year "war on drugs."

I'm not pushing for anarchy in any way, shape, form, or fashion here. I advocate laissez-faire capitalism.

Weave
07-12-2007, 02:21 AM
Just so you know, America is actually not capitalist, which is a very common misconception.

Actually, America supports every form of Burgeouis capitalism and intends to be that way. However, you're right that it is not exactly capitalist.

But I think we should all thank the anarchists and communists back in the 1800's because without them... we (America) wouldn't have hardly any socialist benefits such as: Health care, Insurance, Labor laws, Payed Vacations, Social Security, Increased Minimum Wage, etc, etc, etc...

Those who dislike it as much as they do are not being forced to live in America, in fact I can highly recommend a move north of the boarder.

Sorry to burst your nationalist bubble but... the point of staying in America is to hopefully change it for the better.
"You must be the change you want to see in the world,"
--- Mahatma Ghandi

Getting up and moving elsewhere won't fix the problem because everybody has problems no matter where in the world.

Well said. :D

The nature of the United States has changed over the years, and the corporations have been able to regulate how we eat, breath, and speak. No one will make a stand. All we do is go online and spew garbage about how we feel, and we don't make a stand in our front lawns. Irony.

There are some of us who do take direct action you know. But for the most part, I'd have to agree with you..
ANTI-APATHY: something everyone should have in common.

Drug issue:

The only drug I would consider legalizing is Marijuana...
Cocaine, Meth, and Heroine however, I think should not be.
Did you know that it's cheaper to make paper out of hemp than it is with the paper from trees? Plus, it's stronger too! :D


I'm a firm believer in Sinclair Lewis's warning that "when facisim comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."

I, too, am completely anti-fascist. Therefore I agree. I'm also agnostic but I believe religion to be a very good thing... just not the people who make it corruptable (i.e, the followers: Nazis, Islamofascists, Hindu Extreamists, and other wacked out martyrs and nuts). Plus, the church system's pretty chalk full of pharisees too (I used to go to church thank you very much).

A Free Market, or total anarchy?

Not anarchy comrade.
Anarcho-Syndicalism: The unified organization of labor to both defend the immediate interests of workers and to allow them to operate without capitalist control and to work for their individual needs. Syndicalisme means trade union in French (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). Essentially, trade-unionism without archons (rulers). In non-stateless societies, it is used to prepare for radical social change directed towards Libertarian Socialism (i.e. Anarchism).

I'm not pushing for anarchy in any way, shape, form, or fashion here. I advocate laissez-faire capitalism.

Why not? hahaha... ever heard of CNT-FAI? or ANTIfa? what about WSA? No? Ever been to a spanish anarchist colony? Ever heard of Emma Goldman? William Godwin? What about the 4 anarchists who were hung simply because they were anarchists?
Not ringing any bells? Let me explain: CNT-FAI: the spanish syndicalist anarchist organization that resisted Fascist Spain during the Spanish Civil War... consists of 1.5 million people (anarchist and otherwise)...
ANTIfa : the american anti-fascist, anarchist orginization
WSA: Workers Solidarity Alliance (they help push for your wages)
Emma Goldman: The Anarcha-Feminist who pushed for birth control rights, labor laws, and the increase of minimum wage.
William Godwin: Anarcho-Individualist who popularized a philisophical anarchism... his neice wrote the book: Frankenstein (I'm sure eveyone knows that book).
We all exhibit some form of anarchism... doing something without being told to is autonomy, which is the root of anarchism.
And don't say anarchism can't work, cause it has. Simply, if you don't believe it will work... it won't... if you do, it will. Mainly because it reflects your tenacidy as an individual and self-control.
Plus, there are many kinds of anarchism... and there is a difference between anarchy and anarchism. Anarchy being the act of mutiny itself (can be considered a bad thing in some cases)... and anarchism being a philosophy of life as well as a political value.
hahaha... Jolee was an anarchist!!! hahahahahaha :shads3:

Conclusion:
I have carpel tunnel now, so i'm stopping... you're all a fun bunch to talk to though... At least you people have interesting political values and can defend them... other people i know can't debate worth a $***.

Verbally assault me if you must... but i'm no push-over...
I WELCOME THE CHALLENGE HAHAHA!!! (laughs like cheese-head Malak).

SilentScope001
07-12-2007, 02:54 AM
The goal of the Free Market is to have total competition between companies, with the main goal of having consumers benieft. The bad news is that, well, companies would rather work together, at the expense of the consumer. If that happens, it is no longer a Free Market. Instead, it would be...gasp...another form of government-control. As long as we can stop forces that encourage cartels and oligoplies, then the free market can work just fine.

NOTE that I believe that if something becomes Truly Free Market, then true power lie with the corporations, and you could make a convicing argument that the corporations, therefore, are the true governments.

But total legalization of drugs, and prositution? Er. Well, um, can't we just legalize murder...and just regulate it? Having duel circles where you can kill someone with supervision, making sure that the murder follows guidelines and cause as least pain as possible? But, I personally oppose drugs and prositution, so you lose my support there. But rather than attempt to force all of your viewpoints on someone, choose and pick your battles.

At least you can blame the hand of the Free Market rather than some humans when things go south.

Weave
07-12-2007, 03:07 AM
The goal of the Free Market is to have total competition between companies, with the main goal of having consumers benieft. The bad news is that, well, companies would rather work together, at the expense of the consumer. If that happens, it is no longer a Free Market. Instead, it would be...gasp...another form of government-control. As long as we can stop forces that encourage cartels and oligoplies, then the free market can work just fine.

Very good point, The WTO is an example of another form of public authority.

Frankly, I'm starting to realize that most Americans, regardless of their political alignment, are NOT stupid. I do dislike people claiming that their way is the right way and if someone disagree with them, they are well, dumb. The bad news is that liberals and conservatives both commit this sin. Why should I move if I hate this place? And if I shouldn't move, then why should I go and try to get others to see this place as evil and change it? Why can't I do nothing (in order to save my energy for more important tasks), like most Americans, why must I choose to fight the power or run away? And in the end, prehaps, if I choose to leave (notwithstanding civil war), it will not be because society turns into a liberal paradise or a conservative utopia, but because both the left and the right compel me to fight in their battles, and they destroy all that I somewhat like about America.

Because everyone feels like they have to wrap everything up in little boxes and label them...
"if you're not this... you're this..."
"why cant i just be me?"
its the sad truth...
:(

What burns me is that people don't realize that there is more than just being liberal or conservative.

Allronix
07-12-2007, 03:13 AM
But I think we should all thank the anarchists and communists back in the 1800's because without them... we (America) wouldn't have hardly any socialist benefits such as: Health care, Insurance, Labor laws, Payed Vacations, Social Security, Increased Minimum Wage, etc, etc, etc...

**Cheers and starts singing "Si, Si Puede (former member of Seattle Labor Chorus, thank you much!)"**

Comrade, we're STILL fighting! A lot of it is because we sacrificed so much and look down on unions for being lazy while our jobs go to places with labor laws resembling the ones folks like Joe Hill and Mother Jones worked their whole lives to be rid of.

Our distribution of wealth is akin to what it was in the gilded age. Americans work longer hours and take fewer vacations than any industrialized nation. We're always in fear of our jobs vaporizing and going to some overseas sweatshop while the CEO is paid 300 times his average worker and gets a golden parachute even if he runs that company into the floor. The majority live in fear while the few who know how to work the system make out like kings. Some folks will call it "free market," I'll call it a miscarriage of justice.


Sorry to burst your nationalist bubble but... the point of staying in America is to hopefully change it for the better.
"You must be the change you want to see in the world,"
--- Mahatma Ghandi


I'll see that and raise you with a great American's quote.

"Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living." - Mary Harris "Mother" Jones

Weave
07-12-2007, 03:21 AM
hahaha... hold fast comrade! Class wars are brutal!
"Ask for work! If the do not give you work, ask for bread! If they do not give you work or bread... take bread! It is your sacred right to survive!"
Emma Goldman.

Samnmax221
07-12-2007, 03:31 AM
But total legalization of drugs, and prostitution? Er. Well, um, can't we just legalize murder...and just regulate it? Having duel circles where you can kill someone with supervision, making sure that the murder follows guidelines and cause as least pain as possible? But, I personally oppose drugs and prostitution, so you lose my support there. But rather than attempt to force all of your viewpoints on someone, choose and pick your battles.Murder takes away someone else's fundamental right to life, as it is the act of killing someone with intent, and without justification. Dueling on the other hand is perfectly acceptable if its consensual, nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to, so wheres the problem?

Weave
07-12-2007, 03:37 AM
Murder takes away someone else's fundamental right to life, as it is the act of killing someone with intent, and without justification. Dueling on the other hand is perfectly acceptable if its consensual, nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to, so wheres the problem?

Well... if society promotes it... it'll potentially solve global overpopulation.

Emperor Devon
07-12-2007, 05:53 AM
nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to, so wheres the problem?

Funny, you could say the same thing about suicide, self-mutilation, toddlers swallowing balloons, neo-Nazi rallies, CEOs making obscene amounts of money, deaths from drug overdose...

Honestly, by saying that you're operating under the (naive) assumption everyone will know what's best for them.

Think of the drug situation this way: since drugs aren't forced underground, they could be distributed from a brick and mortar establishment, and drugs could be mixed and purified to scientific standards,

They're lethal substances than can cause brain damage, ruination of the physical appearance and as the lethal part implies, death. There is really only so much purifying you can do. :p

If domestic production was legal, it would reduce drug smuggling from latin america significantly, if not eliminating it entirely.

Meh, IMO the deaths that will result from overdose, lives that will be ruined by the now-plentiful and cheap drugs, children that will have their futures blighted, and deaths that will also be caused by impaired senses are more important to prevent than drug smuggling.

Under a system like that instead of pushers and dealers we'd have advertisments and store owners, much like the shift from speakeasies and bootleggers back to breweries and bars/liquor stores after the repeal of prohibition.

"Drugz drugz, come to us for your drugs! Want some meth? It's cheap and we've got it! Want some cocaine? We've got it too! Club drugs, inhalant drugs, hallucinative drugs, snort-able drugs, we've got 'em all! Bring the whole family, share the high happy feeling our cheap, affordable drugs give you! Share 'em with the kids, give 'em some great childhood memories of gettin' stoned! Yes indeed, drugs: They're no longer a crime, they're the new family time! The PERFECTLY LEGAL new family time!"

Needs some shortening and maybe a catchy tune, but the gist is good enough...

Basically legalizing drugs would "civilize" them, and possibly return them to a status somwhat reminiscent of that they held in the late 19th/early 20th century.

Times if I may point out were much less civilized than our current ones. Perhaps I'm not quite grasping the concept, but please, enlighten me as to the civilized nature of psychotic, out-of-control emotions, severe mood swings, murder, shortened lifespans and all those other wonderful ways drugs can be civilized.

Legalizing drugs would simply give the government an opportunity to tax and regulate an activity that occurs despite a disastrous 30-year "war on drugs."

A war which I may point out the laissez-faire capitalist system you have advocated below has done little to contribute towards. Look at meth for instance, the prime ingredient in it is pseudoephedrine, something that can be found in everyday cold tablets. It can be obtained legally if purchased in the form of cold tablets. For some inexplicable reason, in recent years producers of it have been packaging them in bottles rather than wrappers, removing the coating of corn starch, (less work if the drug-dealers don't have to bother taking it off themselves - some of the processes involved in that can even be highly flamable) placing poorly enforced limits on the amount of cold medicine people can buy in stores, allowing stores to keep in stock over twice the amount they need...

Even funnier, phenylephrine can't be used to produce meth the same way pseudoephedrine does, can still make perfectly functional cold medicine, yet there are no federal laws requiring its usage in the place of pseudoephedrine.

My point? For all your claims of laissez-faire capitalism making drugs more civilized (still not quite sure how that is :)), it's one of the biggest reasons for why the whole war on drugs has been so disastrous. Capitalists want to actively work against work against the war on drugs, it cuts into their profits, never mind if those profits only come at the expense of the lives of others...

I advocate laissez-faire capitalism.

I'd like to keep my minimum wage, social security, public works, taxes, public school system, public libraries, payed vacations, health care, minimum working age, public fire department, other labor laws, outlawed substances and all those other great socialist concepts, thanks. :)

Samnmax221
07-12-2007, 06:51 AM
Funny, you could say the same thing about suicide, self-mutilation, toddlers swallowing balloons, neo-Nazi rallies, CEOs making obscene amounts of money, deaths from drug overdose...
First off a toddler's wellbeing is the responsibility of the parent. If (mature) people want to harm themselves they're free to do it. Hurting themselves or getting help is their own decision.
Honestly, by saying that you're operating under the (naive) assumption everyone will know what's best for them.
Rest assured most people have a better grasp of what is to their benefit than you do.

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-12-2007, 09:14 AM
I have to say I am in favor of legalized dueling just because of the sheer amount of badassery that would entail.


Honestly, by saying that you're operating under the (naive) assumption everyone will know what's best for them.Meh. Let them kill themselves. Survival of the fittest.

mimartin
07-12-2007, 04:31 PM
mimartin: Uh, while I love to have many people serve in the great US (only 33% of people living in the USA actually voted, the 66% number are the ones that bothered to register, but some people don't even register to vote), let face the facts here.

This is where I got my data; they played with it to make the numbers appear higher by removing felonies and non-citizens from the general data.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

I do agree with you, whatever number you use the voter turnout rate in the country is pathetic. When a higher percentage of voters turns out in Iraq at risk of death then all I can say is the American people are truly pathetic (including myself).

You get to control 0.000000001% of the popular vote! Weeee!
How much more control is that over someone that didnít vote? Weíve seen election come down to just a few votes in recent years and I feel voting has never been more important than it is right now. Now if we can just get the government to count every vote.

Democracy is a great idea, but when you realize that everyone else get to vote as well, you start to feel that you are useless, and the mob is the only thing that matter.

I actually like our system. I would be happy if everyone eligible voted, even if they did not agree with my idealist views.

Truth is, voting is NOT how you change the government. Getting other people to vote the same way is how you do so.

True, but it all starts with the first vote. The PACs is no good if no one in the PACs actually goes to the polls and votes.

(Maybe the reason America does not see our grand ideas as perfect is...because...they may not actually believe in them. Hey, look at the title of the thread: Americans are NOT stupid.)

And maybe the reason Americanís is this way is because everyone is not stupid, but because we only care about one thing, ourselves.

Well the strongest/best-armed people would be private security, and if they are thugs, then they get fired and probably would get sued, imprisoned, etc.

Law suites are a big deterrent to American corporation today why would that suddenly be a deterrent to these businesses? Just like todays cooperate world, if the bean counters say it is cheaper to pay the suites then it is business as usual until the expense outweighs the gain. It is also kind of hard for a dead person to file said suite.

JediMaster12
07-12-2007, 05:27 PM
(Maybe the reason America does not see our grand ideas as perfect is...because...they may not actually believe in them. Hey, look at the title of the thread: Americans are NOT stupid.) And maybe the reason Americanís is this way is because everyone is not stupid, but because we only care about one thing, ourselves.

A simple way to bring to light all our selfish dealings. :D

You have 52 million Americans screaming for something different. The only thing you all seem to agree on is that you don't want higher taxes. The voice of the people my fanny-My Fellow Americans

Yes I have my humor mode on but that seems to be the best to address this. To address Silentscope's quote it's not that we don't believe in them it's that we don't care maybe because the specific issue is not one that we choose to address. Mimartin addresses our selfish attitudes which was nice and to the point by the way.

The US is a Republic. We practice democracy yes but we are not a true democratic state. A true democratic state is what yo have with the ancient Greek city states. That is true democracy. We here in the US are a Republic because at the size of our land mass, it is nigh impossible to operate as a true democratic state would. We still though take into consideration the principles of democracy. We have our bad days yes and really bad leaders. Heck it makes me wonder where our govt. is heading to if an actor can run for president and win. Still there things that people take for granted here that others from around the world would give their left arm for.

TK-8252
07-12-2007, 06:19 PM
pieces of **** who push drugs.

Pharmacists?

In a free market, everyone's a potential customer.

A free market can still have laws and regulations.

It hasn't made crime rates go down at all since Prohibition ended.

...I'm sorry, but did you just say what I think you said? That crime rates never declined as a result of repealing alcohol prohibition? If you really mean to say that, then you are blatantly wrong. It is one of the most well-known facts about alcohol prohibition that during its era, crime rates skyrocketed, and then dramatically fell after the repeal.

People will still rob to get their drugs, no matter what the price is, because they're so stoned they can't keep a job to make _any_ money to buy them.

Another very common misconception - that no one with a job uses drugs. And besides, people are robbing people right NOW for drug money, so what has criminalizing the drug done to stop this violence? It has locked up lots of non-violent people who aren't robbing but just want to use the drug. That is injustice.

A law, which, I might add, is poorly enforced. Honestly, how rare is it to see teens who've gotten their hands on cigarettes/alcohol? They use both all the time and in half the parties they throw, even though it's totally illegal...

That's more of a parental issue. If parents don't want their kids getting drunk at parties, don't let them go to parties.

Honestly, by saying that you're operating under the (naive) assumption everyone will know what's best for them.

It's not about what's best for people. It's about the freedom to do what you want to do (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else)! Ever see the movie Jackass? Should the stunts in that movie be criminalized because they're stupid and dangerous?

They're lethal substances than can cause brain damage, ruination of the physical appearance and as the lethal part implies, death. There is really only so much purifying you can do.

I agree with you mostly on this one - although there would be many fewer OD's with it legal than illegal, because people would be educated on what is "proper" use of the drug, as opposed to just being told that ANY use is abuse.

Meh, IMO the deaths that will result from overdose, lives that will be ruined by the now-plentiful and cheap drugs, children that will have their futures blighted, and deaths that will also be caused by impaired senses are more important to prevent than drug smuggling.

But all of those things happen NOW as it is, WITH the drug smuggling. What's your point?

Times if I may point out were much less civilized than our current ones. Perhaps I'm not quite grasping the concept, but please, enlighten me as to the civilized nature of psychotic, out-of-control emotions, severe mood swings, murder, shortened lifespans and all those other wonderful ways drugs can be civilized.

It's funny because you have the very same arguments that people used against alcohol during prohibition. That didn't turn out too well.

My point? For all your claims of laissez-faire capitalism making drugs more civilized (still not quite sure how that is ), it's one of the biggest reasons for why the whole war on drugs has been so disastrous. Capitalists want to actively work against work against the war on drugs, it cuts into their profits, never mind if those profits only come at the expense of the lives of others...

Somehow you've actually made me think more highly of drug companies than I did before. Good for them for sticking it to the man!

I'd like to keep my minimum wage, social security, public works, taxes, public school system, public libraries, payed vacations, health care, minimum working age, public fire department, other labor laws, outlawed substances and all those other great socialist concepts, thanks.

All of those things suck.

(Except paid vacations, I'll give you that. :) )

Nancy Allen``
07-12-2007, 07:36 PM
No, criminals who sell drugs that are supplied to them by terrorists. The people responsible for September 11? The ones behind the London bombings? So you may not like the fact efforts are being made to prevent criminal and ultimatly terrorist elelments from being funded, as well as the problems associated with drugs harming others. Like it or not however you would like a crime being committed against you by someone who needs money for food because they spent it all on drugs or by someone who has lost their mind on drugs even less.

TK-8252
07-12-2007, 08:01 PM
No, criminals who sell drugs that are supplied to them by terrorists. The people responsible for September 11? The ones behind the London bombings? So you may not like the fact efforts are being made to prevent criminal and ultimatly terrorist elelments from being funded, as well as the problems associated with drugs harming others. Like it or not however you would like a crime being committed against you by someone who needs money for food because they spent it all on drugs or by someone who has lost their mind on drugs even less.

If they were legal and then they'd stop importing drugs from Afghanistan. They could be grown locally (hey, it creates jobs)!

(And BTW, a lot of drugs are from Latin America, places like Columbia, so not all drugs give funding to the Taliban and stuff.)

Emperor Devon
07-12-2007, 08:21 PM
First off a toddler's wellbeing is the responsibility of the parent. If (mature) people want to harm themselves they're free to do it. Hurting themselves or getting help is their own decision.

It all sounds so simple and just when you phrase it that way. If they could confine harming people to only themselves it might even be true.

That's more of a parental issue.

That many small businesses are willing to sell alcohol/cigarettes to minors is a parental issue? That the law is extremely poorly enforced is a parental issue? Well, I suppose the parents of those store-owners and cops were somewhat at fault for not teaching them better morals.

It's about the freedom to do what you want to do (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else)!

If you can prove drugs do not harm people other than their users then your argument might have some merit. Since their side effects can range from secondhand smoke with cigarettes to drunk driving with alcohol to aggressive behavior with many others, however, your argument has none.

But all of those things happen NOW as it is, WITH the drug smuggling. What's your point?

Of course they are happening now, but at least if we don't let people simply buy heroin at their local pharmacy and make them risk running afoul of the law if they want any we can keep it to a minimum.

It's funny because you have the very same arguments that people used against alcohol during prohibition. That didn't turn out too well.

Not relevant to my argument. I was debating how the side effects of drugs can be considered civilized.

All of those things suck.

If opinions were facts that would have been very persuasive. Please, try and back up your opinions with some of those.

Somehow you've actually made me think more highly of drug companies than I did before. Good for them for sticking it to the man!

:eyeraise:

Let me get this straight: You think for the sole sake of being able to sell their products to drug dealers, cold companies should be allowed to use pseudoephedrine rather than phenylephrine despite how the latter is unable to be used in meth, yet can still make just as good cold medicine? This isn't like the prohibition, removing pseudoephedrine from cold medicine and regulating the factories that produce it would kill the meth epidemic completely. Drug dealers would not have the necessary ingredients and would be incapable of making any more. There would be none left for people to even steal or murder for.

That you can support the continued existence of such a drug despite the ease in which it could be eradicated and the horrible effects it has I fail to grasp. If you approve of corporations making bigger profits at the expense of the lives of others we obviously have such different moral values there is no further point in even debating this issue.

Nancy Allen``
07-12-2007, 11:14 PM
Tell me if this is going too far, but would it be fair to say that if you support something that is clearly harmful you can kiss your creditbility goodbye?

TK-8252
07-13-2007, 12:23 AM
That many small businesses are willing to sell alcohol/cigarettes to minors is a parental issue? That the law is extremely poorly enforced is a parental issue? Well, I suppose the parents of those store-owners and cops were somewhat at fault for not teaching them better morals.

The stores don't sell to minors. They sell to adults, who then supply the minor with said alcohol or cigarettes. It's not the store's fault, so don't blame them.

If you can prove drugs do not harm people other than their users then your argument might have some merit. Since their side effects can range from secondhand smoke with cigarettes to drunk driving with alcohol to aggressive behavior with many others, however, your argument has none.

The act of smoking a cigarette, or getting drunk does not directly hurt anyone but yourself. When someone then goes out and gets behind the wheel, that is where the danger begins. But someone getting drunk at a house, and then not going out and driving, how does that hurt anyone? Drunk driving is very wrong and hurts lots of people, but not ALL people drink and drive. Just as how not ALL crackheads and other stoners rob people, so why criminalize ALL of them?

Of course they are happening now, but at least if we don't let people simply buy heroin at their local pharmacy and make them risk running afoul of the law if they want any we can keep it to a minimum.

And that is, of course, the same argument that people such as alcohol prohibitionists used. That drinking would be controlled if it were illegal, and as we learned, alcohol just got more dangerous when banned. And don't say that this isn't relevant. It is entirely relevant, because drug prohibition is just like alcohol prohibition.

If opinions were facts that would have been very persuasive. Please, try and back up your opinions with some of those.

Well, I don't feel like going into all that right now. Besides, that comment was meant to be more facetious than I guess it turned out to be.


Let me get this straight: You think for the sole sake of being able to sell their products to drug dealers, cold companies should be allowed to use pseudoephedrine rather than phenylephrine despite how the latter is unable to be used in meth, yet can still make just as good cold medicine? This isn't like the prohibition, removing pseudoephedrine from cold medicine and regulating the factories that produce it would kill the meth epidemic completely. Drug dealers would not have the necessary ingredients and would be incapable of making any more. There would be none left for people to even steal or murder for.

Well of course you're forgetting what all prohibitionists forget, which is that banning something doesn't make it go away. Making the drug companies take the ingredient out of their medicine means that meth cookers would just smuggle the ingredient from other sources. You act as if drug companies had the power to make the meth addiction go away entirely. And, if they really did make meth go away (just for the sake of argument), what would happen to all the meth addicts? They'd need severe medical treatment to get off of a meth addiction cold turkey.

Remember, where there is a demand, there will be a supply. No matter what.

That you can support the continued existence of such a drug despite the ease in which it could be eradicated and the horrible effects it has I fail to grasp. If you approve of corporations making bigger profits at the expense of the lives of others we obviously have such different moral values there is no further point in even debating this issue.

Expense of the lives of others? You mean like tobacco companies or something? Their cigarettes contribute to the deaths of thousands of Americans every year! And they have the power to stop these deaths so easily! They are making profit off these lives they destory! [/Castro]

Drug companies have NO power to stop meth in America. If they removed the ingredient from their product then the ingredient gets smuggled in, and the meth addiction goes on as before.

Tell me if this is going too far, but would it be fair to say that if you support something that is clearly harmful you can kiss your creditbility goodbye?

Aren't cigarettes harmful?

And of course I was entirely facetious when I said that about drug companies and meth, which I guess you and Devon didn't realize.

mimartin
07-13-2007, 12:45 AM
That many small businesses are willing to sell alcohol/cigarettes to minors is a parental issue? That the law is extremely poorly enforced is a parental issue? Well, I suppose the parents of those store-owners and cops were somewhat at fault for not teaching them better morals.

The stores don't sell to minors. They sell to adults, who then supply the minor with said alcohol or cigarettes. It's not the store's fault, so don't blame them.

You are both right. Adults give minors alcohol and tobacco. Even some parents give their children alcohol and tobacco. However, kids also buy tobacco and alcohol from stores. They have sting operation all the time here where police officers send minors into stores to purchase alcohol and they issue citations to the stores that fail their sting. They use a hidden camera and show this on the local news along with the name and the address of the violating store.

Iíve used alcohol since I was 16 years of age and tobacco since I was 13. Iíve never had an adult by either for me till I was the adult doing the purchasing. It had nothing to do with the clerksí morals; the only thing they were guilty of was being too lazy to check my ID. It was not their fault or my parents fault, or the governmentsí fault the entire responsibility for my action was mine and mine alone.

Bee Hoon
07-13-2007, 12:54 AM
I'm running late, so I'll make this really short.

The act of smoking a cigarette, or getting drunk does not directly hurt anyone but yourself. Ever heard of second-hand smoke? Light up around the kids, let them slowly succumb to infections. Or maybe they'll get lung cancer first. But we all lurrrrve kids.

You must be joking about the selling to minors. Honestly, is the guy in 7-11 being paid the minimum wage going to give a damn whether you're of legal age to turning your lungs to coal?

For taking a liberal attitude to drugs, have a look at the Netherland's policy. I'll post links to articles when I have time.

TK-8252
07-13-2007, 01:56 AM
For those saying that store clerks don't care about selling to minors: you bet they care, because during my training to work at a grocery store, they told all the new employees that if you are caught selling cigarettes to minors, YOU personally (as in not the store, but the clerk) will be fined $500.

Ever heard of second-hand smoke? Light up around the kids, let them slowly succumb to infections. Or maybe they'll get lung cancer first. But we all lurrrrve kids.

Smoking around kids is bad, but outdoors, in bars, etc., seems fine to me.

John Galt
07-13-2007, 02:03 AM
"Meh. Let them kill themselves. Survival of the fittest."
Interesting thought. But their survival(to the extent they can ensure it) IS their responsibility, and no-one else's(unless they're children).

"But we all lurrrrve kids."
think about that statement for a second... isn't that kinda like saying "I like people, but only for a little while?" /random tangent.

SilentScope001
07-13-2007, 03:00 AM
How much more control is that over someone that didnít vote? Weíve seen election come down to just a few votes in recent years and I feel voting has never been more important than it is right now. Now if we can just get the government to count every vote.

Thing is, according to the concept of polls, the counting of every vote is really not that important. A survey of 1000 random people can produce a result that may be accurate with a precentage point error of +/- 4%. The more people you poll, the lower you decrease the error rate, but you don't really need to poll everyone to get what the people really desire.

The problem is that voting is not a random sample. Instead, Democrats and Republicans do the "Get out the Vote", and usually people go and tell others to go and do their duty and vote, thereby getting a non-random sample of people to come in, and thereby skew the results.

The most important thing is that, due to the margin of error that exist in all elections, if there is only a small gap between the two parties, say, only one vote, then it must be that the election is likely to be wrong, and therefore, an automatic recount is in order, in order to guard against the margin of error. Which means, even if you are quite lucky to have your vote matter, the ensuring recount will mean that new votes will come to go and take away the power of your vote.

I actually like our system. I would be happy if everyone eligible voted, even if they did not agree with my idealist views.

I can understand that, but I would rather that my voting power does not get diluted by other people voting. It's a matter of primarly self-interest, I admit, but I do like my voice to be heard.

True, but it all starts with the first vote. The PACs is no good if no one in the PACs actually goes to the polls and votes.

Understood.

And maybe the reason Americanís is this way is because everyone is not stupid, but because we only care about one thing, ourselves.

Hm. Not sure how muh the "selfishness" factor plays into this. I'm thinking that it's the belief that the status quo works fine, why bother changing, but that may be what you mean by that.

To explain: Many indepedents wants a Third Party, because they hate the Republicans and the Democrats and want to overthrow them. However, the fact of the matter is, the majority of Americans would be against the Third Party, due to the fact that they are aligned to Republicans or Democrats. Hence, the idea of a "third party", which I can see as a somewhat great idea, won't be accepted...for good reason, the majority would be against it currently.

With people proposing grandoise and radical ideas, it must be seen if they actually have the masses supporting that movement. If the masses don't care, or even actively oppose such a movement, it's a goner in American democracy. And, if you become so obbessed with trying to impose such a movement on the rest of society, you could end up doing so without the consent of the American people.

You have 52 million Americans screaming for something different. The only thing you all seem to agree on is that you don't want higher taxes. The voice of the people my fanny-My Fellow Americans

Strange, I want higher taxes. :)

The US is a Republic. We practice democracy yes but we are not a true democratic state. A true democratic state is what yo have with the ancient Greek city states. That is true democracy. We here in the US are a Republic because at the size of our land mass, it is nigh impossible to operate as a true democratic state would.

Prehaps another revelant thing to note is that both Republican Rome and the Founding Fathers feared direct democracy and rule by the mob. A quick look at Revolutionary France and the Great Terror would showcase why they feared the mob, with the many wars and violence. Even Athens ended up falling to demogagues during the Peloponnesian War.

The Republic, as invisioned by Rome, was a combination of the three forms of government at the time, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. In Republican Rome, the Monarchy would be the two Consuls, the Aristocracy would be the Senate, and the Democracy would be the People's Tribunes that are allowed to veto bills. The Monarch would be seen today as the Executive Branch (the Presidency), the Aristocracy element would be the Legalistive and Judicial Branches, and the Democratic wing being the ones that get to elect the Aristocracy and the Monarchy. It was believed that by combing the best of all three governments, the nation would be stable, united under a strong leader (the monarch), his capable advisors (the aristocracy), and the support of the people and the mob (the democracy). Each side will balance against the excesses of the others, leading to a perfect form of government. Republican Rome fell because the aristocracy element (the Senate) primraly dominated over the government, the aristorcracy's feuds end up having them bring in the military (composed of the mob, democracy) to wage their civil wars.

The reason I did do that spiel is that I worry about the democraticizing influence a bit. If it succeds, would we end up turning into another Athens, prone to a demogague? Should the aristocracy and the monarchy elements of this Republic be strengthened instead of weakened?

TK-8252
07-13-2007, 05:53 AM
I've almost entirely forgotten the original topic of this thread by now. Something about moving to Canada or Europe or something? :p

Oh well, all threads eventually end up about wedge issues! :)

I'll look it over tonight when I get home from work (no internet while at work) and figure out where to split it off into the new topic about pros and cons of legalizing drugs. :) --Jae

Nancy Allen``
07-13-2007, 08:42 AM
Aren't cigarettes harmful?

And how much creditbility do cigarette companies have? None. Zippo. 60 Minutes saw to that. Like Constable Evan said we cannot stop people from being stupid. What we can do is our level best to stop people from harming others, as drug pushing does, and besides which it's the law. Come up with some changes to it that make sense and I'll support and enforce it as much as I can.

mimartin
07-18-2007, 12:10 AM
The more people you poll, the lower you decrease the error rate, but you don't really need to poll everyone to get what the people really desire.
I agree 100% except when the numbers fall within the margin for error, like the 2000 election and then every vote does matter. This country is so evenly split right now between the blue and red voting matters and every vote could matter (of course this could be just the accountant in me coming out. :))

The most important thing is that, due to the margin of error that exist in all elections, if there is only a small gap between the two parties, say, only one vote, then it must be that the election is likely to be wrong, and therefore, an automatic recount is in order, in order to guard against the margin of error. Which means, even if you are quite lucky to have your vote matter, the ensuring recount will mean that new votes will come to go and take away the power of your vote.

Not if the system actually worked. Again the problem is the party in charge of each voting precinct controls the rules and regulations of how the recount is done. If it is a close election it usually means the majority is in trouble and they do not want every voted counted. Iím all for the recount, but only if every legal vote is counted. You are correct on this point.

And maybe the reason Americanís is this way is because everyone is not stupid, but because we only care about one thing, ourselves.
Hm. Not sure how muh the "selfishness" factor plays into this. I'm thinking that it's the belief that the status quo works fine, why bother changing, but that may be what you mean by that.

I meant the major problem (as I see it) with this county and much of the world is we are selfish and self-centered. We put ourselves ahead of everything else. Sure we give to charity or the church, but the next minute we are cutting someone off on the roadway so we can get home 15 seconds earlier. We donít care about anyone elseís feelings or well being. I have medical insurance why should I care about the woman down the street that can not afford it for herself or her child? If she could afford the child why did she have it? We callously dismiss others and their values just because they differ from our own, then we can not understand why others dismiss us or our values in the same callous way. If we would only take a moment to put ourselves into someone elseís shoes then maybe we would be a little slower in our dismissal. Maybe we would learn to actually care about each other. Maybe we would want to make sure everyone in this country had a roof over their head, food in their stomachs and access to health care. (I am not coming down on anyone here and I AM GUILTY OF THIS BEHAVIOR. I am also truly ashamed of it.).

Many indepedents wants a Third Party

I donít. I want the system to work and I donít blame the government. I blame myself. We are the people and we must hold our elected official to a higher enough standard than we do today. If they donít keep their promises then boot them out of office with your vote. We are the ones to blame, because we allow it to happen.

Totenkopf
07-18-2007, 01:27 AM
The problem, mimartin, is that we are not a monolithic we. Were we, we would shoulder a greater deal of blame than we actually own. No system is perfect. And, arguably, the only ones to blame are the ones who do a lot of the complaining, but do not participate in the process.

Weave
07-18-2007, 03:11 AM
I'd like to keep my minimum wage, social security, public works, taxes, public school system, public libraries, payed vacations, health care, minimum working age, public fire department, other labor laws, outlawed substances and all those other great socialist concepts, thanks.



All of those things suck.

(Except paid vacations, I'll give you that. :) )

Well, it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what the proletariat thinks. If workers lose the few benefits that they have... you may want to prepare for a few revolts. Proletarians never counted on capitalist societies (or those who strive for it) to be so versitile. The workers are fooled into thinking they have freedom now (or at least some breathing room) because the boss said, "Okay, I'll up the wages a bit, you happy now?". But if you take their few benefits away, workers would be enraged. Especially considering the world's tender state as is. Personally, If I lost any more of my respectability as a worker, or lost my current pay or any of my other socialist benefits... I'd probably stick a sickle through someone's head. Or burn down a few buildings. Or sing hippie and protest songs in the streets. Everyone hates that hahaha... actually, I already do that... nevermind that last part.

SilentScope001
07-18-2007, 03:52 AM
But what about the bourgeoise? Nobody ever stands up for the rights of the Bourgeoise! If you go and help out the poor at the expense of the bourgeoise(forcing the bourgise to pay huge tax dollars to bribe the mob), you will be courting class warfare here!

Middle-Class-Men of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your slave morality!
===
I agree 100% except when the numbers fall within the margin for error, like the 2000 election and then every vote does matter. This country is so evenly split right now between the blue and red voting matters and every vote could matter (of course this could be just the accountant in me coming out.

But then, if that is true, then we cannot truly understand WHO the people really want. Since as we poll more and more people (assuming that the number of people heading the poll is random, which it is not), we will shrink the margin of error, but not get rid of it totally.

So, if say, I get my swing vote bloc of 500 citizens in Flordia to march in and vote for Bush in 2000, thereby sending Bush to the White House. The problem is, does the people of Flordia really prefer Bush or Gore? If the exact same election was reheld, at the same day, and another totally random (or non-random) sample is gathered, could Gore won that election? Prehaps, in a margin of error, huge blocs of votes and "Get out the vote!" drives are effective in changing the results...but then it is akin to choosing your leaders based on the fliping of a coin, or chance, waiting for a majority of people to choose one person when another poll could come up with totally different results..

If my vote counts, then it showcases that it is not really democracy at work, but rather, my vote (or bloc of votes). But for democracy to really be effective, and to prevent the outcome of the election to be basically inaccurate based on the margin of error, the Canadiate must have gotten about 55% of the vote or more...which means that my vote wouldn't count at all.

Not if the system actually worked. Again the problem is the party in charge of each voting precinct controls the rules and regulations of how the recount is done. If it is a close election it usually means the majority is in trouble and they do not want every voted counted. Iím all for the recount, but only if every legal vote is counted. You are correct on this point.

I can see that being possible.

I meant the major problem (as I see it) with this county and much of the world is we are selfish and self-centered. We put ourselves ahead of everything else. Sure we give to charity or the church, but the next minute we are cutting someone off on the roadway so we can get home 15 seconds earlier. We donít care about anyone elseís feelings or well being. I have medical insurance why should I care about the woman down the street that can not afford it for herself or her child? If she could afford the child why did she have it? We callously dismiss others and their values just because they differ from our own, then we can not understand why others dismiss us or our values in the same callous way. If we would only take a moment to put ourselves into someone elseís shoes then maybe we would be a little slower in our dismissal. Maybe we would learn to actually care about each other. Maybe we would want to make sure everyone in this country had a roof over their head, food in their stomachs and access to health care. (I am not coming down on anyone here and I AM GUILTY OF THIS BEHAVIOR. I am also truly ashamed of it.).

But if we worry about how other people live and focus on improving their lives, then how can we enjoy our lives? Even atheists admit we only got a limited amount of time on this Earth before we expire. We can't go around trying to solve all the world's problems, trying to always put ourselves in other people's shoes, trying to make everyone happy. It will only make us miserable.

Not to mention that actually trying to fix one problem requires not only the support of other people (as you desire), but also, well, a good underlining ideology behind it. You can't charge into, say, Medicare, or Poverty, with an axe screaming "Freedom!" without thinking of the consquences. If you like the consquences, then fine, deal with it. But what if, well, the consquences are just as bad, or worse than the problem you are trying to solve? If the common people do gain a sort of awareness you are adovcating here, they may not even be able to think of these consquences, instead advocating for the solution, getting it passed, and unleashing said problems.

Maybe what we really need is not "selfless" common people, but more cunning politicans (with the access to the ideologies who make a living thinking these problems through) who do care about these problems and have the sense to get their way in Congress and in the public arena.

The problem, mimartin, is that we are not a monolithic we. Were we, we would shoulder a greater deal of blame than we actually own. No system is perfect. And, arguably, the only ones to blame are the ones who do a lot of the complaining, but do not participate in the process.

Then again, maybe even they are not to blame. Prehaps some of these people are engaging in a boycott of the elections, not voting because they want to send a message to the United States. Boycotting an election is a political act, and in fact, a way of "participating in the process", if you will. People boycott elections in third-world nations to protest corruption, why not here?

Weave
07-18-2007, 12:31 PM
But what about the bourgeoise? Nobody ever stands up for the rights of the Bourgeoise! If you go and help out the poor at the expense of the bourgeoise(forcing the bourgise to pay huge tax dollars to bribe the mob), you will be courting class warfare here!

Middle-Class-Men of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your slave morality!

Well, the Bourgeoise ALREADY have benefits (or more than the proletariat)... I'm not suggesting taking from small business' or ANY middle-class-men, I'm content to let them live their lives... but large, multi-national corporations... do they really need so much money? Lumber companies and Construction are probably the worst of these... personally, I've done construction on houses and its not too easy, but I hardly get any benefits for an 8-10 hour day 5 days a week...
Why do you think houses are so $h!**? I'm pretty sure it has to do with workers being very reluctant to even work... and companies using as little materials for construction as possible so they save more money. And where I live, companies like Mr. Trim exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor... Mr Trim hires illegal immigrants, knowing that they are in fact illegal... then they give them harder work, longer hours, and since they're illegals... the corporations give them bare minimum pay, or in some cases, even lower than that. We're lucky that people who stow away into America are just plain desperate to make a living or New Mexico would probably be a seperate country with a civil war. The Proletariat holds up the pyramid... if workers stop working... corporations stop making money, and the world economy stops (if everyone stops working theoretically). I'm not saying that the life of a proletarian is more important than that of a middle-class small business owner, but it would help if we could be given a little more slack. Oil companies, the music industry, hell... Mcdonalds... all make extremely large quantities of currency... do they reall need it? The WTO pretty much has the say in whatever happens to the small farm and family business. Why should they have so much power? Almost every revolution has been started because of already persisting tension between the upper and working class (i.e. lower AND middle)... and in almost every case... the revolution was in fact counter-revolutionary because of the working class's extreame lust for retribution and other vengence... I work... but I don't want that happening at all... I simply want a little more slack at the expense of Big business and government capitalism. Class tension will ALWAYS exist since the reason classes are divided into classes is because one has it better than the other. And class descrimination will always be practiced... Hurricane Katrina proved that... afterwards, who got the medical care first? Who got insurance benefits first? The upper-class restraunt owner, or their janitor? Certainly not the janitor.
I do support the family home business, or small coffee shop... I wouldn't want to see them succumb to government or larger corporations. And plus... those are the places I WANT to work at.

mimartin
07-18-2007, 01:10 PM
But if we worry about how other people live and focus on improving their lives, then how can we enjoy our lives?
Iím not saying that we should lose focus on our own lives. Iím saying that it should not be our only focus. Before we make a decision that may bring ourselves a little pleasure, think of how it could impact others.

Cutting my taxes I get $500.00 saving per year, nice but big deal. However in order to give me my $500.00 the government had to cut a after school program and now a child is left alone until his mother get off of work. Who would the $500.00 benefit more me or the child?

Even atheists admit we only got a limited amount of time on this Earth before we expire. We can't go around trying to solve all the world's problems, trying to always put ourselves in other people's shoes, trying to make everyone happy. It will only make us miserable.

I donít know how else to say this so forgive me for being blunt. You are wrong. Which gives you more pleasure setting in front of the Television watching some stupid sitcom or helping a friend with a problem? Some of my greatest pleasures in life have come from helping others and expecting nothing in return. Sure it is easier to set on the couch, but true fulfillment and happiness come not from materialist things, but from our interaction with others.

The fact that our time here is limited makes this all the more important. Not only is our time limited, but so is everyone elseís. So we should strive to make a difference while we have the time.

Not to mention that actually trying to fix one problem requires not only the support of other people (as you desire), but also, well, a good underlining ideology behind it

Iím actually not advocating a plan or a side (here at least). I would just like for people to think about all involved and consequences before jumping into the fire. It is easy for someone to make a campaign promises to cut your taxes, but where is the money going to come from. It is also easy to say that we are going to provide health care to every American, but again where is the money going to come from. What about people in the health care industry? What about those that sell health insurance (like me)? How is this going to affect them? What about the millions that donít have health care now?

Iím just saying by looking at all sides we get a better perspective of the problem and may be able to find solutions that could benefit us all or at least the majority. Instead of the current system were we just bad mouth the other side and their plan.


If the common people do gain a sort of awareness you are adovcating here, they may not even be able to think of these consquences, instead advocating for the solution, getting it passed, and unleashing said problems.

At least it would be their problem and not a problem cause by ďbig businessí or ďspecial interestĒ the common people have to deal with. The lobbyists are writing most of the bills now. The oil industry decides our energy policy in secret. At least if the people are making the mistakes the system will be working as our founding fathers intended.


If the common people do gain a sort of awareness you are adovcating here, they may not even be able to think of these consquences, instead advocating for the solution, getting it passed, and unleashing said problems.

And how is that different from than now?


Maybe what we really need is not "selfless" common people, but more cunning politicans (with the access to the ideologies who make a living thinking these problems through) who do care about these problems and have the sense to get their way in Congress and in the public arena.

True, but as soon as they get to Washington that all goes away. Remember the Republican Revolution they had all these lofty ideas when they took power. Term limits? No. Line item veto? Yes, but they wrote it in a way that they could run right over to the Supreme Court and get it ruled Unconstitutional before the ink was dry on the original bill. Technically they kept their promise, but did they really?

Boycotting an election is a political act, and in fact, a way of "participating in the process", if you will. People boycott elections in third-world nations to protest corruption, why not here?

I agree that boycotting an election is a political act, but I really feel it is not an effective way for someone to voice their opinion.

John Galt
07-18-2007, 02:49 PM
Cutting my taxes I get $500.00 saving per year, nice but big deal. However in order to give me my $500.00 the government had to cut a after school program and now a child is left alone until his mother get off of work. Who would the $500.00 benefit more me or the child?



I don’t know how else to say this so forgive me for being blunt. You are wrong. Which gives you more pleasure setting in front of the Television watching some stupid sitcom or helping a friend with a problem? Some of my greatest pleasures in life have come from helping others and expecting nothing in return. Sure it is easier to set on the couch, but true fulfillment and happiness come not from materialist things, but from our interaction with others.

The fact that our time here is limited makes this all the more important. Not only is our time limited, but so is everyone else’s. So we should strive to make a difference while we have the time.


Right. That $500 is yours, the reward for your labor. YOU are free to decide what your money is used for, and you're free to donate it to a private charity if you wish to do so. However, I think it is unjust for the government to take the product of your labor by force(which is what taxation really is), and give it to someone who hasn't earned it.

Of course or time here is limited, but I don't expect to have to support anyone else, nor have anyone else support me, unless I specifically consent to have my money used to help that person. The problem with big government is that, once the government takes its due from all of us, the cash belongs to "everyone," and therefore "no-one," meaning that politicians and their lackies are basically free to steal from us.

I think that only things that the government should only make me pay for things that benefit(or have the potential to benefit) me, like homeland security/defense, the interstate highway system, mail service, and various state/local programs.

mimartin
07-18-2007, 03:40 PM
I think that only things that the government should only make me pay for things that benefit(or have the potential to benefit) me, like homeland security/defense, the interstate highway system, mail service, and various state/local programs.

I don't care about security, defense, roads, mail, don't have children, I pay for my own retirement and medical insurance. Never called or had any use for the police or fire department. So by your way of thinking I should not have to pay any taxes at all?

Iím also not against tax breaks, but donít think they should be given until the spending is actually cut. I donít believe in saddling my debt on the next generation.

I also donít agree with welfare, food stamps or any other government agency that is misused beyond its original purpose as a safety net of last resort. It is abused, but for the people that truly need it, it can be the difference between life and death. We should go after the ones abusing the system, but to condemn everyone for this abuse is unconscionable. I really donít want to see people starving on the streets of America.

I was not saying that the government or anyone else should support anyone. I was just saying we should look at other side of an issue before jumping to a conclusion. I was speaking to our being selfish and self-centered and only caring about what effect our own self. I was not taking one side or the other side of any argument just using them as examples.

John Galt
07-18-2007, 04:01 PM
I don't care about security, defense, roads, mail, don't have children, I pay for my own retirement and medical insurance. Never called or had any use for the police or fire department. So by your way of thinking I should not have to pay any taxes at all?


No, you're still getting benefits from police, education, homeland defense, etc. They protect you from force, i.e. robbers, other countries, and other unforseen occurances. The money you give to the government is, in all of those instances, being used to your benefit.

example: You are not getting benefits from a bridge to a tiny, economically insignificant island built with federal funding in Alaska. It would be unjust to make you pay for it in that context. However, it would be perfectly sound to use ALASKAN tax money, be it federal or local, to complete that project.

SilentScope001
07-18-2007, 04:08 PM
Iím not saying that we should lose focus on our own lives. Iím saying that it should not be our only focus. Before we make a decision that may bring ourselves a little pleasure, think of how it could impact others.

Cutting my taxes I get $500.00 saving per year, nice but big deal. However in order to give me my $500.00 the government had to cut a after school program and now a child is left alone until his mother get off of work. Who would the $500.00 benefit more me or the child?

Ah, so why not have the best of both worlds? Cut the $500 taxes, but keep the school's programs? That's what is going on now, and with terrible results (the higher debt).

Ah, and what if people spin it around? Suppose you got a $500 tax increase, and now one kid is happily at home, but soon, that money is being used to support "welfare mothers". (Now, I don't believe in that, or even most ideologies, I'm only using it to hone in a point.) And what if that $500 tax increase manages to put a good strain on the local economy, causing some firings, and leaving someone on the street, or causing job growth to go down 1%?

Alright, so that consquences of raising taxes (lower growth, prehaps people getting fired) can be construed as selfish, but I don't think so. You are caring about people other than you, who can get fired as a result of a tax increase, and of the economy, of other people, falling down. You are helping someone else...but at what cost to the other people you are harming?

You need to look at the other issue of any issue.

I donít know how else to say this so forgive me for being blunt. You are wrong. Which gives you more pleasure setting in front of the Television watching some stupid sitcom or helping a friend with a problem? Some of my greatest pleasures in life have come from helping others and expecting nothing in return. Sure it is easier to set on the couch, but true fulfillment and happiness come not from materialist things, but from our interaction with others.

The fact that our time here is limited makes this all the more important. Not only is our time limited, but so is everyone elseís. So we should strive to make a difference while we have the time.

I never mean to say that you should waste your time watching TV or such. What I mean to say is that in the long term, dealing with real problems is going to harm you. You help out a friend, I can see you being happy. But that's because he's your friend. That's selfishness right there, you are supporting those you like.

What about supporting people hunderds of miles away, those who you never even met or know? What about trying to manage the world, trying to come up with the solutions to problems? And when you find a solution, you go and wave campagin signs, scream at the streets, place posters, make speeches, and let your life go to waste over one issue. And you will still never be happy about that one issue, since it will never be solved how you want it to. You will be miserable, and overall, you would have accomplished nothing.

I do advocate not starting up a campagin and trying to get your way until you really think of the consquences if people accept your ideology, and the how terrible those consquences are.

And how is that different from than now?

We have to blame ourselves and not politicans. And we may not even know there is a problem, meaning that, well, that problem may never ever be solved. We don't want to admit that we may have made a terrible mistake, which would be quite terrible. Who want to challenge us when we are wrong?

True, but as soon as they get to Washington that all goes away. Remember the Republican Revolution they had all these lofty ideas when they took power. Term limits? No. Line item veto? Yes, but they wrote it in a way that they could run right over to the Supreme Court and get it ruled Unconstitutional before the ink was dry on the original bill. Technically they kept their promise, but did they really?

Term limits, well, if the people really want to elect a person for life, why not let them, instead of forcing very unskilled idiots into the politican arena? Line-item veto...uh, do you really want Clinton/Bush to veto every single Republican/Democratic pork barrel project and let the other party's pork barrel projects barrel on through? I agree with the Supreme Court that it would grant the Presidency far too much power.

But the Republican Revolution, I wasn't thinking of them as smart politicans. What I mean is politicans who are, well, in the end, indescivce. They DON'T have strong ideas as the Republicans, they don't have a creed, they basically don't know if what they are doing is right. All they have is a list of Pros-and-Cons, and they have to make desicions on saying, "Alright. Forget about the people. Forget about the Party. I am in charge of the future of this country, and whatever I do, I will be responsible. What will lead America to greatness...or at least, be the lesser of two evils?"

I haven't seen any politican anywhere that has that sort of attidue totally. You do see it from time to time, when it pops out in Presidents and key Senators. But rarely.

But, prehaps as the closest we can get, I'd point to John McCain (pre-2000), maybe even Bloomberg, as examples of the Politican I am talking about. McCain has been possibly seen as a stooge for the Republicans, but his underlying weakness is the fact that he does not change his positions. He is a supporter of the Iraq War (so, boom, Democrats hate him), and he wants Immigration Reform (so, boom, the Republicans hate him). He's a goner, and overall, his ideology is just as strong as many other people's. Bloomberg is an awesome candinate as he won't be bought out by special interests. Of course, he's a Third Party candinate, so people aren't going to like him. And he is rich, so he can buy out the special interests in question.

I agree that boycotting an election is a political act, but I really feel it is not an effective way for someone to voice their opinion.

I actually wonder if it is quite effective. By saying, "I'm not going to play this game. It's just stupid," and walking away, you are really making a strong statement, denying the validity of the elections, showing that you no longer care. It's a much less pleasent and clear-cut way of expressing the views as speeches and TV ads, but it does leave a lasting impression on me.

mimartin
07-18-2007, 04:55 PM
You need to look at the other issue of any issue.. Good point.

I do advocate not starting up a campagin and trying to get your way until you really think of the consquences if people accept your ideology, and the how terrible those consquences are.

Weíve gotten a little off here. Iím not advocating anything. Iím just saying America would be a much better place to live if we just gave each just a little courtesy and treated each other with decency. Dismissing anotherís values and beliefs off hand without actually looking at all the facts (not just the facts that serve our on self-interest) is what I consider selfish. I just want us to look at the consequences of our own action and how they affect others and the country as a whole.

The example I gave about cutting someone off on the roadway so that I could get home 15 seconds earlier that is me not thinking about the other driver, who has just as much of a right to get home 15 seconds earlier. That is just me being rude, selfish and self-centered.

Personally I test as a conservative, but my religious convictions have me vote more on the liberal side.

Who want to challenge us when we are wrong? We have to suffer now when mistakes are made. We might as well suffer from our own mistakes and not someone elseís.

Republican Revolution, I wasn't thinking of them as smart politicians Iím not saying they were smart men, but they were very smart politicians. I donít agree with the line item veto or term limits, I was just saying that they were campaign promises that the Republican used to achieve power and then once they tasted that power they were unwilling to do what they once felt was right. They wanted to keep their power, even at the risk of losing that power due to their breaking of the Contract with America. In other words power corrupts.

I actually wonder if it is quite effective. By saying, "I'm not going to play this game. It's just stupid," and walking away, you are really making a strong statement, denying the validity of the elections, showing that you no longer care. It's a much less pleasent and clear-cut way of expressing the views as speeches and TV ads, but it does leave a lasting impression on me.

Agreed, but the politicians they are trying to make a statement to will more then likely only construed it as laziness.

Totenkopf
07-19-2007, 04:57 PM
Given the generally wasteful nature of government spending, I'd sooner send the $500 to a place where I'm reasonably sure the great majority of it will actually be spent on the "poor" person it's targeted for in the first place. Perhaps the solution should be reform the government first, then send it money. Doing it in reverse order does nothing to stem the incompetence and corruption that plague the system. Frankly, it's not selfish to want to keep your $500 and use it in a manner you see as fit. But, if you're wracked with guilt over a mere $500, why not give up even more of your money to the govt and hope it gets to those truly in need? There is nothing wrong with having a safety net for worst case scenarios, but the government shouldn't put itself in the situation of being viewed by elements of the population (legal or not) as their "sugar mamma/daddy".

True_Avery
07-20-2007, 09:37 PM
Sooo.. Nancy... anybody that does not sleep with their American Flag, puff up their chest with a huge amount of pride at the troops, and absolutely adore this country hates it? I'm sorry, but I am an individual... not a blind follower and damn proud of it. At least this country lets me say that.

And the majority of what you said, and many of the posts in this thread, simply make me want to escape faser. America as a country is not "evil" or "corrupt", but I think many of its people are just as bad as the "terrorists" we are currently fighting. Yes, I said it. You should not be allowed to scream for freedom and a peaceful attitude while saying that anybody that is "evil" should be hanged. If you don't remember, that is mainly the reason we left England in the first place.

I am tired of religion (especially "Chistianity") taking pieces of law and government for itself and aproving/banning things that helps its agenda and morals. I am tired of seeing people run out of house and home due to overpriced Health Care. I am tired of seeing bums on the streets while an old white man swims in his pool of wine. I am tired of seeing kids struggle through our terrible schools only to have to give their soul to the Army in order to get a college education, only to end up dead under a tree in Iraq... leaving his wife and kid alone. I am tired of seeing my gay friends live as room mates because selfish ****s wont let them marry. And I am tired of looking at myself in the mirror, thinking of how much hope I have left in humanity and life itself.

But before you run out and start burning the flag you should check to see where your clothes, car and tv are made. Where is your food from? Your house or parts of your house? If it's American you better burn those as well.
Hahaha.

Try China, Taiwan, India, and much of Asia. America makes little to nothing because it is cheaper to pay 5cent an hour to an Asian kid than to an American worker with minimum wage. Drive over to Wallmart for me and look at the labels on everything, especially the toys. America is not making those. We would rather have someone barely live in a factory everyday for a $5 fan then pay them full wage for a $7 fan. We may be free here, but damn does this country love slavery.

Point is, it doesnít really matter where you liveóyou do the best you can with what you got. People will always find problems with the current system and complain for a need for improvement. Itís the Ďgrass is always greener over the fenceí syndrome. Iím happy where I am living now, but I donít think I was any less happy living in Colorado a few years back.
Guess my problem is that I outright despise humanity and am taking it out on America. I should probably just live in a hole in the ground, but sadly I like social activity.

Like I said, if you don't like America then no one's forcing you to stay. If you hate it that much then why do you live there?
Money is forcing me to stay here. It is a little harder to leave a country then you think.

It is your home. If you donít like what is happening in this country work to correct the problem. Do not believe the propaganda you can make a difference. Look a Rosa Parks she helped change the course of American History all because her feet hurt. If you want National Health Care vote, contact your Senators and Congressman to make them aware of your desire. Then vote for those that support your cause and then contact them all over again (beware this may be what got me on the TSA watch list).
If only 1 vote ever meant anything. I vote all the time, but I barely, if ever, get anything I vote for passed or rejected. I don't believe the propaganda that we cannot change anything... but I also do not believe the thought that I as an individual can change anything. If I do not vote, then I am doing nothing. If I vote, then it does not matter because nothing I vote for passes. Nobody is going to listen to my opinions seriously and try to make change, especially considering who I am and my lifestyle. If anything, I'll just find myself on that list and end up with someone busting down my door and dragging me away with a black bag over my head.

I can say right now that I will never be a respected political figure. I will never have millions of dollars. I will never be seen as more than just another person. At first glance I bet that looks simply like a silly rant, but there are a few things about me that will hinder me from being like that.


Maybe because you hate it with every fibre in your body? If you hate it so much why stay and force yourself to witness the things you hate about America?
Things like this I cannot possibly wrap around my mind at all. If only the world was cut into people who love America, and people that do not. And it is kind of hard not to notice what America does, seeing how it crawls down everybody's throat and says HI.

I still believe there's something here worth fighting for here, and while I believe we have a hell of a long road to travel before we live up to our ideals, I still like the ideals. I may not "love America" the way the current definition of patriotism wants it, but it does not mean my home's not worth it.
America has a few hundred years, a few more civil and world wars, and probably a couple Revolutions before it grows from being a teen to an adult. It would be nice to help it along but... nothing changing in my lifetime, so I may as well make it comfortable.

Rome took a similar trip through history. It ended up dieing from the inside out because it was so powerful and corrupt. Some countries try and stay stable, but the superpower always dies. Being the greatest in the world does not make you great, it just sets you up to die harder if you don't save yourself from... well... yourself.

I love my country, therefore I use my First Amendment right to bitch loudly and proudly.
Yep, until you get put on a list and watched the rest of your life.

Some of that is rant, some of it is opinion, some of it is post bait, and some of it is trying to get this topic kind of on track.

So, now, someone cut me down and explain to me why I should not move, why I should like this country, and why nowhere else in the world will ever be better than this.

Nancy Allen``
07-20-2007, 09:41 PM
Sooo.. Nancy... anybody that does not sleep with their American Flag, puff up their chest with a huge amount of pride at the troops, and absolutely adore this country hates it?

Never said anything remotely like that. Your point?

SilentScope001
07-21-2007, 02:46 AM
TA, I tried to tell you why, but apperantly, your whole post turned out to become sort of flame-baity, altough you admit that, and I am sure that is not your intention. You already made up your mind, and you are just trying to get others to agree with you and leave too.

Not only that, but you are attacking the people that happen to agree with you. What's this all about friendly fire, stating that all those who are not on your side is with the enemy? We're indepedent people too you know. If you are going to drive away your allies, then who's going to defend you? Never bite the hand who feeds you.

Listen, flame-baiting, attacking, screaming, calling Americans stupid...that isn't going to get people to agree with your viewpoints. In fact, you could play into the hands of your enemies, be used as a strawman to be easily knocked down. You know what? You likely already have.

People do listen to you. You have an effect. You know it, why else did you post this topic? Do you want a bigger effect? Then spend more time doing more effective stuff. Write letters to editors. Form a PAC. Create a blog. Voting may be useless, but to effect change, you get others to vote the way you want to. And if you complain about having no power in America, then you have no power in Europe or in Canada as well.

But when trying to persuade others, you have to actually think of what you are going to say before saying it, due to fears of losing support. Lastly, you have to be careful about the possiblity that you (instead of your enemies) may be wrong, because that may very well be true for all causes, for all people. You have to always be careful, and be humble, instead of thinking that you are a matyr.

If you want to leave, then leave as soon as you are able and willing to.

Weave
07-21-2007, 02:57 AM
So, now, someone cut me down and explain to me why I should not move, why I should like this country, and why nowhere else in the world will ever be better than this.

Because no matter where you go... there will always be someone who wants to have your allegiance all to themselves. Whether it be the monopoly of your mind (church system fascism), the monopoly of your property (capitalism), the monopoly of your body (marriage being deemed as a civil duty), or the monopoly of your entire individualism (public authority), there will ALWAYS be someone willing to claim you and use you for their own ends. And if you stay down or run away, then they have won already. And it won't go away, because even if they're on your TV screen, thousands of miles away, or right next door in a big white house, they won't stop f***ing up the world. Because America was once Libertarian in the beginning and slowly warped into whatever the hell it is now. Who's to say that another State/government won't do the same, or another, and another? Because if you let them treat you as a statistic, then that is what you are. And War is always helped with bombs and statistics and high numbers.

Because if you get up despite all the $#!*, then you deny them of what they want. And what the decadant want the most, is the thing they cannot have. And in doing so, you beat them. Sure, life sucks. But don't give up. Because what we B!*** about isn't humanity, it is animosity, the animalistic selfishness of a human being, comrade. (There I go again, with the comrade pronouns... oh well).

Because love is the basis of the Radical's unending rage. Because we have such bleeding-hearts. And to give up means that you don't care. And apathy will always kill more people than any nuclear bomb because apathy is ignorance. And ignorance is the most violent element in any society. Damn... I'm laying it on pretty thick, huh?

The point is, even if it seems like nothing you do makes a difference, struggle. Why give them the satisfaction of another open mouth being silenced with despair? And if you don't, you only leave the future to burn. Death may be horrible now, but it will be far more horrific in the future. And if you truly don't care anymore, then leave. Would it matter where you go? Isn't every country only conscerned with their own national interests?

But remember, there will always be someone struggling for you. Because even if you don't know that person or persons, they are helping you because they struggle for the salvation of all humanity... because they strive for tolerance, solidairity, equality, and a hell of a lot more... and that's worth all of society's crap.

:evil5:

Edit:
You have to always be careful, and be humble, instead of thinking that you are a matyr.

Yeah... do it because it's your pleasure to, because it's what you want for yourself and others. Do it because you don't ask for respect or acknowledgement... but because it is change for the better.

Apologies for the double post, COMRADES!!! HAHAHA!!! (Malak's moronic laugh).

Totenkopf
07-21-2007, 03:35 AM
Guess you weaved right past the edit link, huh? :p

@TA--I'm curious as to where you think you might go if you find your own country so inhospitable. Any thoughts about the upsides/downsides of that choice (potential or real)? And, $$ aside, any thought about how you'd go about assimilating yourself into your new home should that happen (ie what skills do you have that would allow you to legally emigrate there, etc..)?

Weave
07-21-2007, 04:38 PM
Guess you weaved right past the edit link, huh? :p

Cute...
Actually, that's not a half bad pun... I sort of groan-laughed :haw:

mimartin
07-21-2007, 08:45 PM
At least this country lets me say that.

Well that is one thing you seem to like about America.
So reason one to stay is Freedom of Speech.


America as a country is not "evil" or "corrupt", but I think many of its people are just as bad as the "terrorists" we are currently fighting.
Actually I have to reluctantly agree with this statement. Anyone that allows ideology to become more important than human compassion runs the risk of becoming a terrorist.
Terrorist - somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. By definition the bombers of abortion clinics, the criminals that beat up people because of the sexual orientation or race and those that would hurt humans to protect animals are terrorists.

I will respectfully disagree with the ďmanyĒ part of your statement. I believe a majority of Americans are good intelligent hard working individuals that respect life and other people. The problem is all we hear from are those that shout their opinions and hate at the top of their lungs.

Guess my problem is that I outright despise humanity and am taking it out on America. I should probably just live in a hole in the ground, but sadly I like social activity. .

Humanity is not going to change if you leave this country. People are people no matter where you go. Sure you may get rid of one set of problem, but you will find more no matter where you go.

I actually love humanity, I love how we are all different yet some how the same. I love how two brothers raised by the same parents can have vastly different morals and beliefs. I am just fascinated by the complexity yet the simplicity at the same time.

If you are at or below sea level I really donít recommend living in a hole. :)

Reason 2 for staying Humanity is the problem not America.

Money is forcing me to stay here. It is a little harder to leave a country then you think.

Reason 3 for staying Money is short supply.

Nobody is going to listen to my opinions seriously and try to make change, especially considering who I am and my lifestyle.

No one will take your opinion seriously unless you take your opinion and yourself seriously. Your opinion got a few people hereís dandruff up. Iíd say they took your comments seriously enough to at least reply.

I donít know who you are or anything about your lifestyle, but if you present your ideas in a knowledgeable, intelligent, professional way people will take you seriously. The first thing you have to do is first take your own self seriously until you do that you can not expect or demand anyone else take you seriously.

If anything, I'll just find myself on that list and end up with someone busting down my door and dragging me away with a black bag over my head.

We havenít gotten to that at least yet. All the do is make you strip at the airport. It is actually good for me as Iím planning another trip and Iíve not been skipping my day at the gym or running.

I can say right now that I will never be a respected political figure. I will never have millions of dollars. I will never be seen as more than just another person.
Tell me what is there to respect about a political figure anyway?

What the point in a million dollars? Everyone you know will have their hands out wanting a cut.

I actually donít see anything wrong with being just another person. To me it is not about how others judge me it is about how I judge myself.

At first glance I bet that looks simply like a silly rant, but there are a few things about me that will hinder me from being like that.

Iím not going to pretend to understand that. So Iím only speaking from personal experience. We sometime hinder ourselves by pretending to understand what other people think of us. I hindered myself do to the death of someone close to me. I held myself responsible for something that was basically out of my control. Short versionÖI broke up. She was somewhere she wouldnít have been if I hadnít. She died three days later. All my friends knew the reason I broke off the engagement. So I assumed they and her family blamed me. I went into a shell that I still have not completely escaped. I know now even her father does not blame me, but I still have trouble forgiving myself (there is more to it but this is enough to make my point). The point is I was so worried about their opinion of me that I stopped living life and did not do talk to my friends about it to help me get over the pain and quilt.
Things like this I cannot possibly wrap around my mind at all. If only the world was cut into people who love America, and people that do not. And it is kind of hard not to notice what America does, seeing how it crawls down everybody's throat and says HI.

That wouldnít work. I can still see its faults, but that does not diminish my love for it. No disrespect to any other country, but I am truly thankful for this being my home.

nothing changing in my lifetime, so I may as well make it comfortable. You never know. One thing about life is nothing ever stays the same and we are constantly changing sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst. Grab a history book and read about how much this country has change over the last 62 years. If you donít like it now wait a few years hopefully this will be just a dark time in our history, but then again you may refer to this as the good old days in your old age.

So, now, someone cut me down and explain to me why I should not move, why I should like this country, and why nowhere else in the world will ever be better than this.

I will not say that anywhere else in the world would not be better than here. I will say you will experience problems wherever you go just as you do here. I will not say why you should like this country as that is something that an individual must decide for themselves. We can only tell you what we love about it or what we hate about it and nothing more.

I rant right back at you!

Jae Onasi
07-22-2007, 01:24 AM
So, now, someone cut me down and explain to me why I should not move, why I should like this country, and why nowhere else in the world will ever be better than this.

The grass is always greener over the septic tank. :) [/Erma Bombeck]