Jump to content

The Bush Doctrine


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

The free press (trust me, it's quite free) is our single most effective tool against corruption. They are the ones who are driven by cold, hard cash. Therefore, they are relatively difficult to corrupt.

I disagree. The privately owned press is inherently corrupted by its own desire to make money rather than seek the truth. Stories that exaggerate and quote out of context are much more profitable for the media than the real facts.

quote:

Socialism and communism, both theoretical alternatives to capitalism, are doomed to failure on the large scale, since they require absolute consensus to function without eventually resorting to widespread oppresion, which inevitably leads to the downfall of government.

Have you read Hayek's work?

He writes quite a bit about the problems with Socialism, some of which are very true. One of these is the difficulty in achieving consensus for a planned economy in a democratic system. Marx wrote a lot of groundbreaking works on the flaws of Capitalism, it's a pity that his discussions on an alternative were mere speculation. It's up to today's Marxists to determine a proper one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Blaming the US again, I see. The reason they are impoverished is because they have a DICTATOR in power that cares MORE about POWER than the needs of his people.

Is there anything in the world that IS America's fault?! Maybe I have unknowingly stepped into a parallel universe where America is ruled by angels with golden rings above their heads. Get real! The trade block exists, and it's ruining the Cuban economy whether Castro likes power or not.

quote:

Oh? They said that they killed this person's family? They said that they support

oppression?

No. They said that they provided military aid to the government of El Salvador knowing what it was going to be used for.

quote:

What, we should allow any pissed off student the ability to RIOT? To put OTHERS

in danger because they are out of control?

Read the post again!

"Riots: Numerous times in the past several years, in a city that has an outstandingly

low crime rate (Columbus OH, my city). We have had riots. Almost yearly at this point. What do they all have in common? They all started the moment the police arrived in riot gear. There was no riot prior. There was a riot shortly after. You figure it out."

Have you figured it out yet?

The same thing happened in Brisbane on the 1st of May. A group of protesters blockaded the stock exchange just by standing in front of it. It was completely non-violent at first. Then the police arrived and started attacking the protesters, even the ones who weren't resisting arrest.

quote:

Oh yeah, because it disagrees with you, it is biased.

I would think that the story would be biased towards the STUDENTS, if the police were actually at fault, thanks to the liberal media.

Hold it right there! First you tell me that I am not American, therefore I don't have the knowledge and experience of what America is like, now you are implying that Gomez has no idea what's going on in his own hometown! Sounds like YOU are calling him biased because you disagree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I leave for a couple of days and look what happens, even got a lurker to post, good job gentleman.

Too bad the lurker doesn't have his facts straight, sorry Gomez, but if you are going to argue, please have facts to back you up.

China is NOT a superpower, no matter how much they pretend they are. We cut them off from trade and they are toast!! China depends on the US far too much to be a superpower.

Now as far as the Cuban trade embargo, the US is the ONLY country that does not trade with Cuba, The British do, the Australians do, the Chinese do, everybody but us. And they are still a poor little 3rd world country, it is NOT the US's fault, if the other countries trade can't keep it on it's feet then the US opening trade with a little dictator is not going to help their economy at all. It is an embargo of principle, and I for one want that embargo to stay, although Cuban cigars are rather nice, but if I want one of those, I go north to BC and I can get them all day long.

The US is the ONLY Superpower, that is a fact, sorry, time to get over it. If we want to do something, well, who's going to stop us?

And as far as Elsalvador is concerned, what is better for US security, a capitalist dictatorship, or a Marxist despot? Wars are hell, people die, whether it's a guerilla war or an all out one. There are civilian casualties, it's a terrible fact, but it is a fact.

The UN is a joke, it has outlived it's usefullness, it is now a 3rd world country world club, a way for them to try and get money out of the first world countries to prop up their little dictatorships, and human rights violating governments. The US should withdraw from that little piece of garbage and kick them out of the country, from what I understand the EU has invited them to move their headquarters over there. I for one, wish they would.

I would love to cut them off from all US funds and watch them kick and scream into the ashheap of history, as Reagan put it about the USSR.

The UN is nothing but a bunch of US hating, jealous little countries that Want what we have, but are not willing to work to get there, they expect us to agree with their little socialist dreamworld and just hand over ourselves to their whims!!

We are the one Superpower, it is time to act like it. You want US help, you instill US policies, Democratic Republic, right to vote, innocent until proven guilty, free press, Capitalism, etc. If not, screw you and the high horse you rode in on. I am an isolationist in all honesty, free trade, great, but if you have a problem, deal with it your damn selves. I am so tired of every little pissant country running to us with their problems and then blaming us for them.

Quit playing the blame game, the US is the ONLY reason you other countries have an economy at all!!! The faster you figure this out the happier you'll be. For one, I am tired of all your whining and *****ing, we're here, we're strong, we ARE the ONLY superpower, so get over it!!!

And I am also tired of the American citizens who say how bad it is here, well, I for one would love to see you go ahead and leave if you don't like it. I don't have a gun to your head forcing you to stay, we have open borders, you can leave whenever you would like. All you need is a passport!! And quit apologizing for the US governments actions, there are reasons we do what we do, I am SOOO tired of you goofy american apologists, if you don't like it, leave!!! We had a president that pulled this crap for 8 years, and for one, I am glad we finally have a president with a backbone!!!

I LOVE THE US, I am a PROUD US citizen, and If you don't like the way we do things, you have an open invitation from me to leave!!

OK, went WAY overboard with this post, but I am so pissed at these doughheads that think they know more about how the US should be run, and they can't even keep a damn job or don't even live here!!! See the crazy rioter during the WTO, or a number of other anticapitalism type sitins etc. Why don't these people have a job, why aren't they working to make their lives better. That's right, they're socialists and expect mommie government to take care of them, the sad thing is, my taxes probably pay for their stupid antics. They gotta eat right?

I am going to stop now, before I really go off on all this stupidity!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Is there anything in the world that IS America's fault?!

Sure, just not everything.

quote:


Maybe I have unknowingly stepped into a parallel universe where America is ruled by angels with golden rings above their heads. Get real!

No, you're trying to create a world where EVERYTHING is the fault of the US.

quote:


The trade block exists, and it's ruining the Cuban economy whether Castro likes power or not.

The trade block wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Castro. So, the Cubans are letting ONE power-mad man destroy their economy. Not our fault.

quote:


No. They said that they provided military aid to the government of El Salvador knowing what it was going to be used for.

Nothing wrong with that.

quote:


Read the post again!

I don't have to.

quote:


"Riots: Numerous times in the past several years, in a city that has an outstandingly

low crime rate (Columbus OH, my city). We have had riots. Almost yearly at this point. What do they all have in common? They all started the moment the police arrived in riot gear. There was no riot prior. There was a riot shortly after. You figure it out."


So? Are you saying that ADULTS can't exhibit any sense of control in the face of the POLICE? Interesting...

Another blow to personal accountability.

quote:


Have you figured it out yet?

I've figured out that you don't think people need to be accountable for their own actions.

quote:


The same thing happened in Brisbane on the 1st of May. A group of protesters blockaded the stock exchange just by standing in front of it. It was completely non-violent at first. Then the police arrived and started attacking the protesters, even the ones who weren't resisting arrest.

I don't know the specifics of that incident, and I don't care. That is unrelated to the US situation.

At any rate, people DO have a RIGHT to protest. However, they do NOT have a right to INTERFERE with the activities of OTHERS. That is the deprevation of the rights of others. In other words, if the police show up and ORDER protestors to disperse, they MUST disperse. PERIOD.

Everyone has rights, and NO ONE has the right to take away the rights of others.

But apparently these protestors feel that their right to protest is more important than MY right to conduct MY business in PEACE.

quote:


Hold it right there! First you tell me that I am not American, therefore I don't have the knowledge and experience of what America is like, now you are implying that Gomez has no idea what's going on in his own hometown!

I'm NOT telling him what is going on in his hometown. I'm simply saying that I don't believe all the supposed "facts". I have a RIGHT to not believe things that do not have EVIDENCE.

quote:


Sounds like YOU are calling him biased because you disagree with him.

No, I'm calling him BIASED because I know how the media works. If there was police responsibility there, I GUARANTEE you that the media would have come down on them VERY hard.

That's the way of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the USA has some serious problems. Problems that will not be solved any time soon. I see only decay of this American Civilization. Bush is not the answer, neither was Clinton. Honestly, I am half tempted to say that representative-democracy is not the answer. I've always been fond of true democracy. The people make all the laws. But I also agree with the libertarians on occasion, why have so many laws? Laws are taking away our freedom. Chipping it little by little, till we are in a facist government, with no freedom at all. Oh wait...we might already be there....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait - you're half on removing freedoms but half on keeping them?


Where in my quoted statement, did I advocate taking away freedom? Nowhere. I do NOT advocate taking away freedom. I have never advocated it. On the other hand, the majority of the USA population advocates it on a daily basis. Racism and sexism are serious problems in this glorious USA that you are so proud of being a part of. Considering equally qualified individuals, a woman makes less than a man of the same ethnicity, in the same job. A man of an ethnicity other than white, makes less than a white man in the same job. This takes away freedom of these groups. Money, as we all know, is a major way of pursuing happiness, which is supposedly a right to all citizens of the USA.

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If any one country gets too powerful with regards to nuclear weapons, that's it. Game over for humanity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not hardly. The ideology of the country with that power is important. Would the USSR use it faster than the US? Yep.


Would the USA use it if it was economically the easiest solution? Yep. Look at the results of the Kyoto treaty. Economics overruled destroying the environment. Well, same thing with nukes. It destroys the environment, kills people (both civilian and military), and ruins territory. So does destruction of the environment. Try living in the middle of the Sahara at some point. The Sahara desert is growing at an unprecidented rate. And most scientists involved in researching why, agree that the depletion of the ozone is why (as well as a few other ecological impacts caused by pollution). Kyoto would have reduced that impact. So what's the difference? How immediately the impact is. That's it. Nuke 'em till they glow. Then they won't be a problem to anyone ever again. The USA is NOT above this. Neither is any other country. We have NOT outgrown the need for the ABM treaty. I seriously doubt we will for hundreds of years.

quote:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Until the USA, 30-40 years after the treaty was signed, decides to go against it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can we go against a treaty that is no longer politically viable? We can't.

Further, what difference does it make? It's not like, in today's climate, the US would launch a strike on ANYONE? So, all we're are doing is protecting our interests.

I didn't know that was criminal.


Protecting our interests. That is a HIGHLY flexible term. In fact, the Germans were only protecting their interests when they invaded Belgium and France. The USSR was only protecting it's interests when it was dealing with the Cold War and we almost obliterated ourselves. The USA's interests are money, money and money.

Hypothetical situation, a country is accused of human rights violations. The UN decides to invoke sanctions against them. But that doesn't stop them. So the UN bands together a peace keeping force and starts bombing the capital city (sounds familiar eh?). Now, the UN has it's way of doing things, and it's an expensive one. But the USA has another agenda, greed. It's far too costly to send over troops, keep them fed, arm them, etc. Not to mention losses. So why not just nuke the living daylights out of the country? It's more cost effective that way. Why not? Because then we are guilty of those same human rights violations. Well, who cares? You can't touch us. We're the USA and we're the biggest and strongest. Not to mention we're immune to nuclear weapons. This is ALL within OUR interests. We lost no lives. We spent as few tax dollars as was possible. And heck, if the government wanted to, they could make it sound good enough that the people would support it.

I don't like this idea one bit. The ONLY viable solution to the ABM treaty is a global project, where ALLLLLLL countries would be protected from nuclear attack. No ONE single country, no matter how good their motives are can be permitted to be immune to nuclear weapons, unless they, themselves do not have, nor ever will have, nuclear weapons. I don't care what people say about his Holiness, the President, or his Archangels, the Congress. They are NOT above nuking the hell out of some country because it is profitable.

quote:

Oh yeah, because it disagrees with you, it is biased.

I would think that the story would be biased towards the STUDENTS, if the police were actually at fault, thanks to the liberal media.


The papers here in Columbus, are not "liberal" media. They almost always bias their stories towards the viewpoints of the highly conservative population of the city. The television and radio media are more akin to the type of media you are familiar with. And as far as whether they are "liberal" or not, well...I seem to recall a certain part of the Bill of Rights stating freedom of the press. They have the right to publish what they find out. Admittedly, this is an imperfect situation. They publish things skewed to their own view point. Often times skewed past the point of being true. But they are permitted, by law, to do so, so long as it is within a certain range of the truth, or has enough evidence to suggest that possibility. Outside that, you hit areas like liable. Now, another issue concerning our media. You say that the media would eat up the fact that the students were unfairly assaulted by the police. How many students do you know, that are regular subscribers to a newspaper? And how many people living in the suburbs (who would be disturbed by excessive use of force against students) are regular subscribers? The papers and television media in general, are NOT going to report what the vast majority of their readers do not want to hear.

quote:

China is NOT a superpower, no matter how much they pretend they are. We cut them off from trade and they are toast!! China depends on the US far too much to be a superpower.


If we cut off China, we would similarly be ruined. We depend on them for the products they make. Heavily. Just as much as they depend on us for quite a bit. I would say, cutting off China would hurt both sides. Next time you buy something, check the label. It probably says Made in China, or Made in Hong Kong. There are always exceptions, but this is pretty commonplace.

quote:

Then leave. There isn't a better country out there. Name one and I'll tell you how screwed you'd be living there.

Again, if you don't like it, feel free to leave. The US ain't gonna miss you.


Another reason I don't like the USA. Arrogance. I agree there isn't anywhere else on this planet to live. Because ALL the governments of the world are corrupt, biased, contemptable. I don't want to live in any of the other countries. This is especially true since my family and my wife's family live here in this country. You say the US won't miss me. I rather think it will. For without people who rock the boat. The US will die!

quote:

Actually, chief, you're wrong. And right. Clinton taxed the hell out of us, UNNECESSARILY. That's part of the reason.


Erm....I don't recall any substantial tax increases recently. Not within the last decade. 40% tax bracket still pays only 40%. That's how it's been since about Reagan. Local taxes aren't the President's doing. Neither are State taxes. If those have gone up where you are, you should be talking to your congressmen locally, not whining about an ex-president. Furthermore, I didn't say Clinton caused the surplus. I said he rode the benefits of a previous administration, just like Bush is doing. Bush may have pushed through a tax cut, but where does that get the average American? Most Americans don't even realize they pay taxes. They "get refunds". As I corrected one of my friends, a refund is money you already paid to the government, that was over and above what you should have paid. My guess, is that this tax cut will have 1 of 2 effects (possibly both).

1: The next president in office will be cursed because he has to raise the taxes again.

2: VERY wealthy individuals will get a good break on taxes, but moderate to poor individuals will get virtually nothing.

IMHO what they should have done, instead of reducing taxes from the top, is reduce the bottom part only, and to a larger degree. Although I hate the "tax the rich" idea, I have to admit, that they are the ones who can afford it more than the average person. So why not instead of dropping the over all taxes, drop the low end taxes by a degree that results in the same money reaching the federal government? This would please the HELL out of average citizens, and be absolutely status quo for the rich. This has been my thoughts on the subject for a long time.

quote:

Does the person matter more than the idea? Nope.


For once, I agree with you. So why does everyone say "It's Bush's idea!" "It's Clinton's idea!" Who the hell cares who's idea it is! Is it good? Bad? Meaningless?

quote:

Surprise! I don't totally believe you.


Shameless flame ignored.

quote:

So? Are you saying that ADULTS can't exhibit any sense of control in the face of the POLICE? Interesting...

Another blow to personal accountability


I am saying that adults exhibit emotions of anger, when they are faced with a mob of police armed with billy clubs, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The event that I spoke of was a party. It was an out of control party. It was NOT a riot. By morning, all the drunken fools would have been unconcious or asleep. Very little would have been broken. There would have been a mess (beer cans and other trash). However, the police showed up in riot gear, and attempted to break up the party. They did this by shooting tear gas into the crowd, macing people, shooting rubber bullets, pushing people with riot shields and HORSES, and various other assaults. In the end, we had a riot, not a huge out of control party. Drunk people generally respond to violence WITH violence. They do not think clearly. And those that were thinking clearly and NOT doing anything wrong, were assaulted just like the rest. Some of this was captured on film. A nice scene of some guy standing on HIS porch, being told to go inside. He was armed with the almighty CAMERA! The police maced him, because he wouldn't go inside. He was merely recording the event. Oddly enough, so was someone across the street, who recorded the whole conversation with the vicious cameraman on tape. Now, why wouldn't the guy go inside. #1, he was on his own property. #2, he was not doing even the slightest thing illegal. #3, he was making sure that the cops who DID do things illegally, were caught on film and similarly punished for it. #4, his house was down the street from the riot, not in the riot itself. He was outside it, unarmed, harmless, not drunk, not disorderly, not commiting any other crime except video taping something. Last I checked, video taping isn't a crime. Who is personally accountable for causing a disturbance? The students who were drunk. Who is accountable for inciting to riot? The police! Who is accountable for unscrupulous breaches of laws this country was founded on? The police! What we are talking about is oppression. Not shifting blame. I hold the police personally accountable for that riot.

The television showed some of this. The papers sided with the police entirely. They both know their audiences. Metro area of Columbus is over 1 million. Total population of students, 55,000. If the media said the police were accountable, the media would be dead.

Where do I get my facts? Personal experience with the exact same situation. Not the same exact riot, but similar circumstances. Also, I get quite a few from watching the events unfold. I had the opportunity to catch the news just as it was happening. Much unlike those in the suburbs who most likely read the newspaper the next day. Additionally, the Columbus Police Department has been under investigation for excessive use of force, and police brutality for about 10 years. I would note, that you don't hear a damn thing about this riot in the news these days. The subject is killed locally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Protecting our interests. That is a HIGHLY flexible term. In fact, the Germans were only protecting their interests when they invaded Belgium and France. The USSR was only protecting it's interests when it was dealing with the Cold War and we almost obliterated ourselves. The USA's interests are money, money and money.

Hypothetical situation, a country is accused of human rights violations. The UN decides

to invoke sanctions against them. But that doesn't stop them. So the UN bands together

a peace keeping force and starts bombing the capital city (sounds familiar eh?). Now, the

UN has it's way of doing things, and it's an expensive one. But the USA has another agenda, greed. It's far too costly to send over troops, keep them fed, arm them, etc. Not to mention losses. So why not just nuke the living daylights out of the country? It's more cost effective that way. Why not? Because then we are guilty of those same human rights violations. Well, who cares? You can't touch us. We're the USA and we're the

biggest and strongest. Not to mention we're immune to nuclear weapons. This is ALL

within OUR interests. We lost no lives. We spent as few tax dollars as was possible. And

heck, if the government wanted to, they could make it sound good enough that the people would support it.

I don't like this idea one bit. The ONLY viable solution to the ABM treaty is a global

project, where ALLLLLLL countries would be protected from nuclear attack. No ONE single

country, no matter how good their motives are can be permitted to be immune to nuclear

weapons, unless they, themselves do not have, nor ever will have, nuclear weapons. I

don't care what people say about his Holiness, the President, or his Archangels, the Congress. They are NOT above nuking the hell out of some country because it is

profitable.

Excuse me? Dude, pull your head out and smell the coffee, The US would NEVER do a first strike, even if the UN asked us to. If you really, really think this, then do something about it, like vote the creeps, as you see them, out!! But that would take too much work wouldn't it? nah, we'll just have riots, take away other peoples rights in order to show that we mean business. Well, sorry dude, if you wanna riot, go do it in someone elses town, because I will be right behind the officers bashing heads in. I am tired of this adolescent behavior and so are the police, I can understand their overeaction, although I don't consider it such. If a crowd riots, and has overwhelming numbers compared to the police, what do you expect. And as far as trying to get a man down the street into his house, the police are trained to do that to keep the public safe. If that man wants to film through his window, out of range of the crowd etc, that is one thing, but to stand in his front yard like a doofus, when a riot is going on down the street, he needs to be protected from himself!! My god, I hate this blame the police and the government, they're all corrupt, profit this and profit that, blah, blah blah!! SHOW ME PROOF!!! Damn, this propaganda that you're spouting is nothing but that, propaganda. A great little emotional saying to get to the masses, but not backed by facts!!

You go ahead and hate this country and the congress and all that yahoo garbage, but if you don't vote, or if you don't try to change it through the political process in place, then you get what you worked for.

Also, if you actually think that signing a treaty with say Iraq means anything, well you're as nuts as the rest of the liberals and radicals out there. You hate human nature and therefore want socialism, but when it comes to treaties and such you do trust human nature. Geez, Make up your mind!!!

The USSR is DEAD, Reagan Killed it, therefore the ABM and ALL other treaties signed with the USSSR are dead as well!!!

The US is more then willing to share the ABMS with our allies, and we will, but if you think that building a defense means that we should therefore destroy our offensive capability, well you know nothing about real life. defenses never won a war, if we give up our offensive capability we might as well surrender ourselves now!! Well, sorry, I have a family, I have 2 daughters that I want to grow up in a country where they can do whatever they feel they can, and that place is the US and the constitution, and the faster I can destroy the liberal and socialist agenda that has taken hold in this country the happier I will be!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar, you aren't reading my posts very clearly. I am not advocating rioting. I am whole heartedly against it. I am also against inciting to riot. I am blaming the police (locally at least) for inciting a number of riots. Get /your/ facts straight before you start trying to defame another. And, clearly, you have been influenced by the current propaganda that the USA has been spewing since the cold war. I have seen the flaws in that propaganda, so I talk about what I have seen. I HAVE facts to back them up. My own eyes. Unfortunately, the media is so screwed (as you've all said yourselves), that I cannot provide /you/ with facts.

Secondly, the ABM treaty was signed by the USSR, USA, China, UK, France, etc etc etc...all the nuclear powers. It was signed under similar circumstances as the non-proliferation treaty.

By going against it, we are going against what we agreed upon with ALL those countries. We are also showing that we cannot be trusted.

I want a world that I can live in, and that my children can live in. The one I live in now, is not such a world. One where I fear that my own very country could be the next cause of a world war.

I have never suggested socialism or any other economic form. I have advocated only one government form, true democracy.

I do not hate human nature. I have faith that humans can overcome their problems. I have greater faith in large scale treaties, because then, it's not just one country involved. More motivations are involved than just what the US standpoint on something is.

For someone complaining about my not getting facts perfectly straight, you sure do misquote and misinterpret something written right above your own statements quite a bit.

As to offensive capability, what ever happened to the conventional military that so many people bolster is the best in the world? Nuclear weapons have been used twice in the world. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Never again have they been used in any war anywhere. Therefore, our own power with nuclear weapons is not being wielded. We use conventional warfare. We use it well. Who cares about nukes! Let's end this age of being able to destroy the world right here and now! Give the entire world ABMs. It makes little difference to the USA's capability to defend it's interests. If it did, it would have used nuclear weapons many times in the past.

And since you bring up the Constitution, let's talk about that. Where in the Constitution of the United States does it decree that socialism is bad? Or liberalism? Or for that matter, conservatism is good? Nowhere. It dictates the process by which our government will enact laws. It doesn't even discuss enforcement. It does describe the judicial branch to a great degree. But that is not enforcement, more, how we determine whether someone is the criminal once we have a fairly good impression they are. Punishment is dictated to a small degree, in that there is a prohibition against cruelty. Mostly the Constitution says nothing about economics (socialism vs free market vs green vs anything else). Nor does it suggest that any particular methodology (liberal, conservative, etc) behind laws is of particular interest. I support the Constitution completely, in it's present form. Especially that part about FREE SPEECH. I also support the Declaration of Independence completely, in that I have the right to my own pursuit of happiness. Which presently, my own happiness is severely hindered by people who think we should have a fascist government. And yes, that is exactly what extreme right-wing is. Fascism. The way I see the current structure of US government, Liberals are practically centrists now. Conservatives are far-right. And I'm left out here somewhere on a limb. I get called socialist, communist and all kinds of things. But I support NONE of those ideas. I am currently a semi-supporter of the Green party. We're talking ecology meets politics. That's all. I also have some things in common with Libertarians. Freedom in the absolute. Minimal government federally, state and local would be boosted. I probably sit somewhere on the left side, but mostly I sit in the air above it. I don't proscribe any one particular party. I don't believe in a party system, in all honesty.

As to trying to change this government...

I have missed only 1 election since I was 18. It was a May election (off year for federal and state gov't) on some local issues that I wasn't concerned about. Yes, you read that right. I vote even in the May elections, not just the November.

Have my votes had much of an effect? No. Ohio voted for Bush. Locally we have a zillion republicans in office. And Democrats for that matter. I don't support either of them.

This next section is aimed at most of the comments made in reference to my posts. Not one individual.

My vote is important. And I will continue to utilize it as best I can. Your vote is just as important. Everyone's votes are important. That's what you call a Democracy. However, your attitude is all wrong. I welcome your vote, but you hate what I stand for therefore you'd rather I left your country instead of vote. You make judgements on me based on stereotypes. I try to ignore stereotypes and not pass judgement as a whole. This doesn't make me a better person than you. I have my problems, just like everyone else. This does, however, make me a less prejudiced person than you. Prejudice will be the downfall of our country. It is a multicultural country and ideologies will conflict. The only way we can continue to exist as a country, is if we outgrow our petty hatreds of difference, and accept people for who they are. Ignore the stereotypes, color, gender, and lifestyle differences. This IS a free country. That is the principal on which it was founded, and it shall remain so. We are all human. We all bleed. We all hurt. We all love. I don't care who you are. You are welcome in my country. Just give me the same welcome that I give you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gomez,

Sorry if I mistated you, but I have been hearing some stuff today and I have been a little PO'd about it!!

I took some of it out on you and for that I apologize, but I still feel that the government is not nearly as corrupt and profit, profit, profit as a lot of these crazy leftists think. Profit is NOT a bad thing, it is what keeps this country and the economy going. Supply and Demand, a free market, capitalistic economy is a power house, and I profit from it and so does everyone else, we complain about poverty, but poverty here is RICH in half the world!! Why, because of the profits, because of the free market economy we enjoy!! I have gotten so off on this subject, I have probably killed this thread, but I have gotten a very rude private message from a little canadian who DOES NOT have a clue, and I'm afraid I was just as rude, and really told the little punk off. So anyway, my apologies Gomez if you feel I took it out of context, from now on I let Aramike, Steve and Charles deal with this stuff, because I know what I think, I just have a hard time putting it into words.

So Cheers!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

No, you're trying to create a world where EVERYTHING is the fault of the US.

I do NOT blame everything on the US. I just think they are responsible for more problems than you think they are.

quote:

The trade block wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Castro. So, the Cubans are letting

ONE power-mad man destroy their economy. Not our fault.

Just because Castro is a dictator, doesn't mean that he is oppressive. So far, you have given me NO evidence that his dictatorship is not benevolent. You have also given me NO evidence that he is mad with power. In fact, Castro became the leader of Cuba by helping to overthrow a power-mad dictator (Batista) who's oppressive government was supported by the US, which raises doubt on why the US actually imposed the trade block in the first place.

quote:

I've figured out that you don't think people need to be accountable for their own actions.

Not true. I just have different opinions on who is actually responsible for those actions. When a student protests in front of a building, he or she is not committing a crime. When a police officer starts beating that student with a nightstick, or sprays the student with mace, or shoots the student with rubber bullets (or real bullets in some cases), guess who's committing the crime?

quote:

At any rate, people DO have a RIGHT to protest. However, they do NOT have a

right to INTERFERE with the activities of OTHERS. That is the deprevation of the rights of others. In other words, if the police show up and ORDER protestors to disperse, they MUST disperse. PERIOD.

There is no law against mass protests (or at least there shouldn't be). If you don't like those protesters interfering with your activities, then you have the right to sue them if any losses result. The police have NO right to order protesters to leave if they're not committing a crime. If there is a law against that type of behaviour, then the students have the right to get themselves arrested in protest of that law. When that happens, the police ONLY have the right to use force if the protester is resisting arrest.

quote:

I'm NOT telling him what is going on in his hometown. I'm simply saying that I don't believe all the supposed "facts". I have a RIGHT to not believe things that do not have EVIDENCE.

OK, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US would not set the precedent for the use of nuclear weapons. Ever. That is why Truman didn't let MacArthur nuke the Chinese army in Korea. If the pressures of war could not induce a nuclear strike, then the relatively insignificant touch of economics certainly would not.

OK, Gomez, I think I see what you're saying. Your underlying concern is that we are slowly but surely moving to the right, and that we will eventually become a fascist police state. I heartily disagree. Just like everything else, time has caused our nation to liberalize. All peoples and nations inevitably become more liberal with time. For example, look at history: The Roman empire: Originally an Estrucan territory, then revolting and establishing a conservative (but highly liberal by ancient standards) republic, where power was concentrated primarily in the hands of the rich. Eventually, this changed, and even the poorest had a voice in government. It began to rot from corruption, until it was granted a reprieve by the Caesar and the imperial period, until the fabric of its government became so corrupt that it dissolved from within, while its subjects became more and more liberal. Eventually, a conservative order was reconstructed in the form of the major European powers of medieval times. As people became more liberal (religion played less and less of a role, government became more democratic), we see America colonized. Soon, it rebelled against its British overlords, just as the ancient Romans did. The founding fathers, who were determined to succeed where the Romans failed, incorporated a similar government, which has worked to this day. America itself has obviously become more liberal: The requirement of owning land to vote was dropped in favor of the poor, there was the abolition of slavery, then women's suffrage, then direct congressional elections, and legalized abortion. Attempts throughout history to forcibly reestablish conservativism have always and always will be doomed to failure. For example, the Catholic church failed to stop the Protestant reformation. Adolf Hitler failed to forcibly institute his 'thousand year Reich' throughout Europe. Gomez, if there is one thing you don't have to worry about, it's reversion to fascism. It simply won't happen any time soon, since historically, liberalism prevails. I consider myself a centrist, since the radical left is just as bad (and remarkably similar, actually) as the far right. Political and socioeconomic stasis is impossible to attain, so I accept (though not necessarily approve of) the inexorable leftward movement of the US. The reason I am not a diehard conservative or liberal is because movement in either direction too quickly is always catastrophic. The Nazis learned that the hard way when rushing to the right in WW2, just as the Roman empire collapsed when hastily sliding to the left. The USSR fell into the same trap Rome did when trying to liberalize too quickly. Socialism gave way to oligarchy, just as the the Roman republic did, then, like ancient Rome, the USSR collapsed.

[ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I do NOT blame everything on the US. I just think they are responsible for more problems than you think they are.

I think that, like all countries, the USA's image is only as good as it's leader's.

Looking back over time, we had these presidents and their major initiatives/conflicts:

  • Kennedy (3 years) and Kruschev, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Apollo

  • Johnson (5 years) and Viet Nam

  • Nixon (6 years) and ending Viet Nam, openings to China and Watergate

  • Ford (6 years) and, um, ... (besides pardoning Nixon)

  • Carter (4 years) and Iran, the oil embargo, Cardigan sweaters, and the great malaise (good ex-president, though)

  • Reagan (8 years) and Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev (aka The Evil Empire), tax cuts, rebuilding the military, Greneda, firing the Air Traffic Controllers, Libya and Lebanon, Iran-Contra

  • Bush (4 years) and Saddam Hussein and the Persian Gulf coalition

  • Clinton (8 years) and illegal FBI files, the unknown hiring of bar-bouncer Craig Livingston as WH security chief, firing the WH travel office and framing Billy Dale for embezzlement to cover it up, Vince Foster, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Somalia, Haiti, tax increases, technology to China, campaign funds from China scandal, Monica Lewinsky, Los Alamos, impeachment, wagging the dog in Kosovo, White House sleepovers, coffee klatches, Elian Gonzalez, pardons to fugitives and drug lords, stealing WH furniture

  • Bush (4 months) and tax cuts -- I don't think that we can honestly attribute anything else to Bush yet, as he has only been in office for 1/12th of a term. Anything else would only be partisan posturing at this point.

Clearly, America's image over the last decade has been dominated by Clinton's behavior as president. It is my opinion that anything and everything that Clinton ever did was motivated by how it enhanced him politically, and impact to others was secondary. If the world is a more dangerous place, it is because other world leaders recognized Clinton as either a man who could not be trusted, or a man who could be bought. If there is world-wide apprehension about Bush, it is because he will not give the other leaders the free ride that Clinton did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The founding fathers, who were determined to succeed where the Romans failed, incorporated a similar government, which has worked to this day. America itself has obviously become more liberal: The requirement of owning land to vote was dropped in favor of the poor, there was the abolition of slavery, then women's suffrage, then direct congressional elections, and legalized abortion. Attempts throughout history to forcibly reestablish conservativism have always and always will be doomed to failure.

Let's be careful with our terminology.

quote:

America itself has obviously become more liberal

I would say that America has obviously become more permissive.

quote:

direct congressional elections

Initially, we had direct elections for the House, and the House elected the Senate. The Senate is now elected directly by the people. Also, we had State elections for the Electoral College and the College elected the president. Direct presidential elections began in 1820.

quote:

legalized abortion

Abortion was always legal, but it was a State's rights issue. Individual states decided whether to allow abortion. Roe v. Wade came about because Texas did not allow abortion and Louisiana did, but Roe was too poor to travel to Lousiana and sued Texas for the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court said that there was a Federal right to abortion throughout the entire country, but there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to make this decree. That is the crux of the argument. If Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court, it would not ban abortion, but only revert it back to the states. I can't think of any state (other than Utah, maybe) that would ban abortion these days.

quote:

Attempts throughout history to forcibly reestablish conservativism have always and always will be doomed to failure

Conservatism is about individual responsibility and accountability. It is about creating an environment where people have incentives to improve themselves to the point where they become self-sufficient, while providing government safety-nets for those who stumble onto hard time. It is not about creating a welfare state as a way of life and ensaring people into a life of dependency on government programs and handouts. That is what today's liberal left agenda is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Senator Jim Jeffords reported that he has received numerous death threats since his announcement that he is becoming an independent. Republican leaders in the senate are reminding their constituents that Jeffords is still a senator not an abortion doctor!"

(Dennis Miller "LIVE" 6/1/01)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I would say that America has obviously become more
permissive
.

That would still be liberal. If you're too permissive- you allow anything- you allow excessive freedom, and anarchy (in the long run) ensues, and if you're not permissive enough, we get theocracy (again, in the long run). As people become more liberal, they generally become more permissive. Essentially, what liberal means is free. Again, too much freedom is bad, but so is too little.

quote:

Initially, we had direct elections for the House, and the House elected the Senate. The Senate is now elected directly by the people. Also, we had State elections for the Electoral College and the College elected the president. Direct presidential elections began in 1820.


I was referring to the senate. We have never had direct presidential elections, however, since members of the electoral college are not (in the vast majority of states) legally required to vote for the more popular candidate.

quote:

Abortion was always legal, but it was a State's rights issue. Individual states decided whether to allow abortion. Roe v. Wade came about because Texas did not allow abortion and Louisiana did, but Roe was too poor to travel to Lousiana and sued Texas for the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court said that there was a Federal right to abortion throughout the entire country, but there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to make this decree. That is the crux of the argument. If Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court, it would
not
ban abortion, but only revert it back to the states. I can't think of any state (other than Utah, maybe) that would ban abortion these days.

Abortion was always federally legal, since it was considered a state issue. I was referring to the nation as a whole, not the federal government. Were it not for Roe vs Wade, most states would still have had their antiabortion laws in place, and as a nation, abortion might still be illegal in the majority of states today. I say this because Roe vs Wade was the catalyst for change in this issue- such reform would have taken much longer otherwise. Besides, the fact that the Warren court was liberal enough to allow abortion reflected on the changing attitudes of America. Had there been a more conservative court, this wouldn't have happened.

quote:

Conservatism is about individual responsibility and accountability. It is about creating an environment where people have incentives to improve themselves to the point where they become self-sufficient, while providing government safety-nets for those who stumble onto hard time. It is not about creating a welfare state as a way of life and ensaring people into a life of dependency on government programs and handouts. That is what today's liberal left agenda is all about.

I disagree. Conservatism is merely resistance to change, whether for the good or bad. Liberalism is simply willingness to change, whether for the better or the worse. Though it is true that the form of socialism you discribed in your 'welfare state' is radical liberalism, I would argue that equally radical conservatism is equally as bad, just as extreme liberalism- communism, has the same disastrous results as extreme conservatism- fascism. Fascism is indeed radical conservatism- conservatism is bad, bad, bad when carried to extremes, just as liberalism is when incorporated absolutely. Conservatism isn't about anything but satisfaction with the status quo, however good or bad it is, just as liberalism is nothing but a mindset to change it, regardless of whether such change is needed.

[ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

He is EXTREMELY oppressive. Simply by demanding power so vigorously, he oppresses Cuba's economical status.

Dictatorships do not invariably lead to poor countries. Germany became an economic superpower under Hitler's rule, and the USSR became a superpower under Stalin's rule. As soon as Russia became democratic, it lost its economic status. I don't necessarily support the idea of dictatorships, but if the leader is benevolent, and so far you have not given me a hint of evidence that Castro is not benevolent, then I'll have no problem with it.

quote:

Go look up the facts, and you'll find a lot more about Castro's crap than you've ever thought would exist.

Give me some links, and I'll read the documents.

quote:

If that student DISTURBS *MY* peace, he is then committing a crime by depriving MY rights.

The purpose of a police department is to enforce laws. What you perceive to be your rights is irrelevant in that context. Laws are supposed to protect people, they are not supposed to discriminate between the civil rights of different people. Any law that does so is overstepping legislative authority, thus corrupting the system. If that student is not violating the law by protesting, then the police have no authority over his or her actions. If you have a problem with those actions interfering with your peace, then you can sue the student for damages, although I doubt that you would win the case, because annoyance does not count as damage.

quote:

Yep, and, from what I've seen PERSONALLY (and in the media), protestors tend to resist arrest in protest.

Protesters also tend to resist excessive use of force when they were not resisting arrest. Both types of actions can look very similar on television. I hope you're not mixing them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I disagree with you on your views of conservative and liberal. I do not think that Conservatism means restricting change. It means traditional values. Liberalism does not mean change just for changes sake. It means more freedom (less traditional and yes, to agree with you, a wilingness to change) in your views. A conservative would probably not go to a nude beach. A liberal probably would.

quote:

If that student DISTURBS *MY* peace, he is then committing a crime by depriving MY rights.

quote:

The law is that they must first obtain a permit so as not to interfere with the lives of others.

Careful Mike. You are saying two different things. First you are saying he is not allowed then you say he is.

If he/she/they do not have a permit then you may call the police to arrest them for disturbing the peace. If he/she/they do have a permit then you can shut your window , turn up the radio, or leave. End of discussion.

Give and take. Everything is give and take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

I think you have me confused with Sunanta.

In my post, I said that conservatism is about individual responsibility and accountability, while liberalism is about federal subsidies and government solutions.

[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense intended, but this debate over the elements of ideologies is going nowhere. In fact, neither of you have started scratching the surface let alone an in-depth exploration. Ideologies are very complicated things.

I have a textbook at home with a chapter that contains just about everything you would need to know about ideologies. The sections that deal with Liberalism and Conservatism add up to seven pages of text, with two pages devoted to defining the elements of the ideologies, two pages defining the various branches of the ideologies, and the rest providing introductions and short bios of the people who contributed to the formations of those ideologies as we know them today.

Here is a list of the elements and branches of each ideology.

Liberalism

Elements: Individualism, Freedom, Reason, Equality, Toleration, Consent, Constitutionalism.

Branches: Classical Liberalism, Modern Liberalism, Neoliberalism (The New Right).

Conservatism

Elements: Tradition, Pragmatism, Human Imperfection, Organicism, Hierarchy, Authority, Property.

Branches: Paternalistic Conservatism, Neoconservatism (The New Right).

Without the definitions attached, this list could be misinterpreted. If this happens, I'll try to clear things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, Menchise. You're absolutely right, so I'll try to add some depth to my arguments here.

One of the elements that you have listed confuses me a bit. For example, under liberalism, you listed 'individuality.' Does the radical left really emphasize individuality? It always seemed to me that socialism and communism are more about the good of the whole, rather than the good of the one. Equality, reason, and freedom I can certainly see, since many, many liberal reforms have had to do with the application of reason (such as Galileo vs the accepted principles of Aristotle). Communism advocates class equality, so equality certainly is an aspect of liberalism, and, in my opinion, since liberalism is about freedom, then freedom certainly is in. All the other elements you listed in liberalism I can certainly see. I was saying that liberalism is movement away from the status quo, and this seems to be the case with the concepts you listed, for they are (not surprisingly) diametrically opposed to the ideas of the opposing ideology. It is interesting that as history has played out, you will see that out of anarchy, the powerful emerge on top and the average people on the bottom in a well defined order, which you made reference to in the conservative concepts of hierarchy and organicism. Eventually, as civilizations inevitably liberalize, the lower classes demand more and more of the liberal concept of equality that you mentioned. In fact, the more liberal the system of government, the more politically and socioeconomically uniform the population, until we have anarchy. Then, of course, structure begins to form again at the conservative extreme.

This is fascinating, and what I realize is that it's all entropy. You have order, in extreme conservatism (such as feudalism), which eventually 'decays' into more and more liberal political systems (like a republic, then a democracy), until you have chaos- anarchy, when the cycle can start again. All this supports my argument that time causes everything- people, governments, ideas etc. to liberalize. For the opposite to happen would simply be impossible, since entropy always increases until it cannot increase any further. You couldn't have communism, for example, which 'orders' itself into American-style democracy, which slowly 'evolves' into fascism, which becomes a theocracy, then feudalism, and finally anarchy. It couldn't happen. Any period of anarchy that isn't a natural decay of the most liberal government requires revolution, and for the revoluionaries to willingly choose anarchy as the end result of their efforts is absolutely ridiculous.

If we just look at entropy in itself, we see that it simply is a measurement of disorder. The more entropy, the greater homogeny. Therefore, you could say that ultimately, liberalism strives for greater homogeny in a system (in this case, society), whereas conservatism strives for greater heterogeneity.

[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

One of the elements that you have listed confuses me a bit. For example, under liberalism, you listed 'individuality.' Does the radical left really emphasize individuality? It always seemed to me that socialism and communism are more about the good of the whole, rather than the good of the one.

For some unknown reason, Americans and conservative Australians seem to be the only people in general who think that Socialism and Communism are somehow related to Liberalism, probably because of the similarities between Social Democracy and Modern Liberalism, both of which advocate Keynesian economics. The fact is that Socialism is very different and even opposes Liberalism in some respects. Here is another list for you to consider. Remember that these lists do not name concepts that ideologies advocate, they list elements of ideological thought. If there's anything from these lists that you want to learn more about, I'll quote some more from the textbook.

Socialism

Elements: Community, Fraternity, Social Equality, Need, Social Class, Common Ownership.

Branches: Marxism, Social Democracy.

Marxism

Elements: Historical Materialism, Dialectical Change, Alienation, Class Struggle, Surplus Value, Proletarian Revolution, Communism.

Branches: Orthodox Communism, Modern Marxism.

[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to permits for protesting, not every city has that law. It is a city by city thing. Most cities have it, not all. According to the constitution, (can't remember exact text off hand) people have a right to gather peacefully. This is what a protest is supposed to be. The problem is, invariably, someone becomes hot headed, either protestor or protestee, and starts a fight (verbal at least) with the other side. The end result, the cops are called to quell the /near/ riot. A riot breaks out shortly thereafter. People get injured (or killed) and all hell breaks loose until the police arrest nearly everyone nearby.

Now, admittedly, sometimes the riot is already in progress. But most cases I have seen (and some in first person), the riot is not in progress prior to the police action. What this amounts to, is that the police are indeed not helping the situation. They end up being a catalyst. I don't know what /should/ be done about such things, but I DO know that the efforts the police take to quell a /near/ riot are indeed wrong.

Where things take a drastic turn, is where we are not talking about a peaceful protest, but for instance, a party, or concert. These are not riot situations, but situations where the police perceive a riot might take place. Surprise surprise, a riot DOES take place, but not because the people were going to riot. Instead, because the police presence enraged them to the point of rioting. I personally was in one of these situations a number of years ago, which is why I am so adamant about this problem. I could go into details of the event, but I will spare you all that. Let's just say there was no riot, but the police outside the concert decided there was going to be one.

Switching topics...

About the decay of civilizations into more liberal systems. I wouldn't necessarily use the word decay. Yes, it's true, that society has moved towards a more liberal system since the dark ages. But this is a good thing! Decay/Entropy are not usually considered a good thing.

Furthermore, I think most of us here would consider it decay, if our current system moved into a facist police state. Which would clearly be extreme conservatism. So decay is a bad term to use when suggesting liberal motion.

On the other hand, decadence is a solid form of decay. And decadence is something our country is experiencing. This of course has nothing to do with Conservative/Liberal, but more greed. The USA and a fair amount of the rest of the world (not targetting anyone in particular since I don't know specifics) have moved to an extremely materialistic viewpoint on life. "The more I have, the better I am." I wholeheartedly disagree with this ideal. There are more aspects to life than material worth. Spiritual worth being one. One sad statement, is that most world religions have a large quantity of followers that do not actually follow their religion.

Of course, that is completely off topic and should be dealt with in another thread if at all.

Now, here's an interesting fact. In the USA, did you know that when a crime is committed, the crime is not actually committed against the victim, but against the state. A friend of mine was involved in a car accident recently. He was the victim in the accident. However, when it came to the court case surrounding the laws that were broken, and the determination of guilt, he was NOT subpoenaed. He found out later that because there were no 'witnesses' that the case was thrown out for lack of evidence and thus the lady who hit him was not responsible for covering damages to his car. There was a witness, him. Why was he not called? Because the victim does not have a vested interest in the outcome of the case. These are not my words, I am quoting him. When someone commits a crime, it is NOT against the victim, but against the state. Only the state has a vested interest in the outcome of the trial (according to the state). Again, this sounds like fasicm, yet this is entirely within the USA. Now, I'm not trying to say the USA is a facist system. I am however saying that we are somehow moving towards it.

I must say, that although the general trend is towards more liberal forms of government, it is quite possible for a government to move radically towards the right, without chaos. Hitler came to power in a semi-democracy environment. But he was such a powerful individual, that with a few carefully planned assassinations, he was able to seize power entirely. Minimal chaos lead to total fasicm. With this in mind, I must state that it is entirely possible and plausible that the USA is edging towards fasicm, even if at a snail's pace.

One major flaw I see in the current US Government, is that we have created a monstrous beaurocracy. While one group in it is elected by the people, another group is constantly employed. Yes, the elected people provide the laws, but the employed people provide enforcement and interpretation of those laws. When was the last time you had a vote for who should be a patrolman, or seargeant, or detective? As far as I'm aware, the only person we elect into office in the police department, is the sheriff. And the Sheriff is a county office. Not city. Police chiefs are elected in some places, others not. Mostly, the police department is run by people who are NOT elected, and do NOT have to answer to voters. As a result, we have a system of people who enforce laws, that are not necessarily looking out for the best interests of the people as a whole. Therefore, they feel they can enforce laws a bit more flexibly. Either loosely, or strictly. Either word for word, or by the spirit of the law. Thus, the police have too much power. And that power is corrupting them.

Now, I will say this, I DO support my police. I am not against having a police force. I just think we need a fair amount of police reform in this country.

(I would continue to rant, but I have to go)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...