Amorymeltzer, I think I just might go for that grudge match if the line isn't too long. lol. Frankly I really doubt I'd win if I argued my true
beliefs, because my views on government and international relations are cynical at best, or the seeds of neo-conservatism at worst. All the same,
I've spent the last four years (since government class in highschool) building a theory to elaborate on Locke's explanation of government and I'm
always happy to discuss it. In short, all rule is by force. As Heinlen wrote, "violence (is) the supreme authority from which all other authority is
derived". I hope Heinlen actually wrote that- I actually just watched the movie. But at any rate, I am convinced that there can never be freedom.
Only war and oppression. If I waved a magic wand and fixed all of the worlds problems right now, approximately 3.14 nano-seconds later, somewhere in
the world, a father would tell his kids they were ordering pizza, they would argue over toppings, and thus conflict (war) and oppression (the
limitation of your ability to do exactly what you want) would reenter the world.
WyrdeOne suggests that Americans should first reclaim their independence.
America and Americans are among the most free of all nations and people, although that's not saying much as every single difference of opinion in
this entire world is a miniature war which results in someone's subjegation, to one degree or another.
America is free/independent because we usually win our wars, from the shooting ones right down to the very smallest ones such as extradition
Americans are free because most of the wars they fight as individuals in their daily lives are small by comparison to the difficulties of foreign
citizens. The biggest war we really lose as individuals is taxation, and we do not surrender unconditionally. We get a hell of a lot of bang for our
buck compared to other nations which get very little more for much more significant sacrifices. Just for example, because our nation is so large, has
so much wealth, and requires so much in the way of infrastructure, our government needs things built to last, so our government always uses union
tradesmen. The concession- more taxation to pay higher union wages. The gain- quality infrastructure, a substantial reduction in the burden on other
federal handout programs (as anyone however poor has the option to make something of himself by learning a trade at a union apprenticeship program),
and of course a stronger economy for all to enjoy, as this system creates a strong flow of wages to working people to stimulate circulation of money
and economic growth, as opposed to many nations where no aspect of public works escapes the ability of big business to rape the working man,
stagnating the economy for everyone so that the rich can horde wealth for foreign expenditure (usually expending that cash into the US economy in
As it is, the holiday is little more than an excuse to drink beer and blow stuff up.
We're supposed to have an excuse prepared when we do that?
I've always just plainly declared my intention to drink beer and blow stuff up, and
nobody has ever bothered me about needing a reason. Now quit your complaining and go buy some good ol' American-made whiskey. Deep down you know
you're grateful that somebody finally got it right and you love us for it.
I also wanted to say, I think some of y'all have been watching too many presidential debates, and taking inspiration from the big boys' nasty
There is a reason for virtually every attribute of such a debating style.
First you have to consider that the judges probably have a political affiliation of some kind and respect some politician somewhere, and when they
assign a voice to your arguements you want it to be the voice of their favorite politician, because that's someone they think of as being well
informed, worth following, and correct on the issues. By using a certain vocabulary and syntax, by presenting your arguements in a certain format, etc
you want to emulate a popular public figure to the extent that the judges will percieve it and say "wow, this guy should write speeches for (Fill in
Then of course you want to confuse your opponent. You want to be just complex enough that he might misunderstand something or fail to respond to
something because he couldn't figure it out, but you want to do this without going so far over the top that a -majority- of the judges will fail to
understand too. If I get it just right, maybe 60% of the judges will understand what I'm saying and my opponent will not, and the point in question
will go my way without contest. Better still, my opponent might mistake my meaning and open up an opportunity for me to roast him for not paying
Third, there is no intellectual openness in politics. The other side COULD NOT be right to any extent. You want to imply this without saying it in
these debates. The way to do that is to mirror what we see in political debates- hammering youir most salient points in series and follow them with a
slow and strongly emphasized blanet-statement against your opponent's argument. For example-
setup: There is no doubt that Chewbacca lives on Endor. There is no explanation for why Chewbacca would live on Endor.
punchline: My opponent would have you believe this that and the other, but he can't explain what Chewbacca is doing on Endor!
See how you get to summarily dismiss "this that and the other" with great certainty, without explicitly saying that "this that and the other"
isn't true, just because your opponent can't reconcile that with Chewie? That's why you emulate a politician- so you can dance around the facts