The United Nations Is ________ (Fill in the blank)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I think the best single word to fill the blank is dysfunctional.




posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
how many Canadians did it take for Tampa to win the Cup?
17 out of 24 players.


Perhaps, but we still got STANLEY!
ha ha hahahahahaha!
(evil laugh)

[edit on 11/30/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
The UN is in New York.



*Ok! Ok!
Don't everybody smack me at once!!
Hey, look at it this way, at least I'm right on topic for once!





posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The United Nations is______ No different from every other "government" in the world: corrupt, full of hidden agendas, and of highly questionable authority over the individual- who I consider sovereign above all.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
The United Nation is

the assembly which adopted on November 29, 1947 Resolution 181.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
The United Nation is

the assembly which adopted on November 29, 1947 Resolution 181.


..... yeah.. and look at the trouble that caused.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by intrepid
how many Canadians did it take for Tampa to win the Cup?
17 out of 24 players.


Perhaps, but we still got STANLEY!
ha ha hahahahahaha!
(evil laugh)

[edit on 11/30/2005 by FlyersFan]


Actually, the Stanley Cup is in the Hockey Hall of Fame, about an hours drive from here.


I've been there, it's in a beautiful rotunda.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
The UN is the check which infuriates all those who would love for the US to have unlimited power to do as it sees fit in this world... and that's the best argument for the UN there is.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
The UN is the check which infuriates all those who would love for the US to have unlimited power to do as it sees fit in this world... and that's the best argument for the UN there is.


If not for the minor problem that they aren't checking us.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Guess you slept through that Oil for Food thing, eh? You know ...
the BILLIONS that the UN security council accepted in order to vote
against liberating Iraq. The BILLIONS that were stolen by Saddam
from the people of Iraq. The UN taking $$$ and just watching the
Iraqis die by the hundreds of thousands.

Oh ... and there is the inaction of the UN in regards to Rwanda
and Somolia. How many hundreds of thousands dead there too
because of UN inaction. Wonder if the UN was getting illegal
$$$ from someone there too.


Ouch... Someone got burned there.

The U.N. is... check my signature link.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
The UN is the check which infuriates all those who would love for the US to have unlimited power to do as it sees fit in this world... and that's the best argument for the UN there is.


Again... 80% of those in the UN are tyrants and dictators, not unlike Saddam, who are posing as statesmen.

America uses its power to try and spread liberty and freedom, which it has done for decades. That's a bad thing?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Again... 80% of those in the UN are tyrants and dictators, not unlike Saddam, who are posing as statesmen.

America uses its power to try and spread liberty and freedom, which it has done for decades. That's a bad thing?


Might I remind you that Saddam was armed by the U.S. through the 1980's? Apparently he wasn't so bad a tyrant back then.

And no, spreading liberty and freedom in itself is not a bad thing... but in my view the Iraq war is *not* about spreading liberty and freedom, and it never has been. Not saying that the United States hasn't worked to help other countries... the Iraq situation doesn't strike me as selfless motivation on the part of the Bush administration.

As for the UN being made up to 80 percent by tyrants... that would mean that 80 percent of the world is governed by tyrants, as the UN represents the world's national governements... so in this case it's not the UN you guys should be denouncing, it's the rest of the world.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
"Might I remind you that Saddam was armed by the U.S. through the 1980's? Apparently he wasn't so bad a tyrant back then".
Reply: Contrary to popular belief, the only thing America gave to Saddam was intelligence. The U.N. report is bogus.
There have been many times in history where America has supported leaders from countries where it was in the best interests of both ourselves and other countries, then they turned on us. America once befriended Russia, too, before they turned communist. Sad, but it happens, and is sometimes required. We befriended Saddam in the Iran war, then he turned on just about everyone.

"And no, spreading liberty and freedom in itself is not a bad thing... but in my view the Iraq war is *not* about spreading liberty and freedom, and it never has been. Not saying that the United States hasn't worked to help other countries... the Iraq situation doesn't strike me as selfless motivation on the part of the Bush administration".
Reply:The only countries who had an interest in Iraqs oil, as it pertains to the war, was France and Russia and Mr. Kofi (the 'oil for fraud' program) which is why they were against the war. Is America interested in their oil? Most definately. But we prefer to buy it, like we did before. America does not control the oil from any country; we have no American oil tankers there.'

"As for the UN being made up to 80 percent by tyrants... that would mean that 80 percent of the world is governed by tyrants, as the UN represents the world's national governements... so in this case it's not the UN you guys should be denouncing, it's the rest of the world".

In a way you're correct. There are very few countries in the world where their people actually have freedom and liberty. That doesn't mean America will go to war with them.

Unlike some here, you seem to be somewhat open-minded, so I have to ask:
Being a "liberal", at least in America, means believing in Socialist/Marxist principles, and other things that are against our constitution. Is that something to proud of?



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Reply: Contrary to popular belief, the only thing America gave to Saddam was intelligence. The U.N. report is bogus.


Would you believe an American report?

The Riegle Report on Gulf War Syndrome contains evidence of our exports of anthrax to Iraq. You can find a good argument on this subject here:
deepblade.net... ; the anthrax comes up first on pages 4 and 5.

This is from the Riegle Report.

Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction


The Riegle Report in turn draws it's information on US exports from Senate Report 102-996, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, 102d Congress, Second Session (October 27, 1992).

The United States Senate seems to believe that we gave Iraq weapons. Where do you suggest that Saddam got his weapons otherwise? Does he carry a bag around and save his farts? Iraq was a pillar of US middle east policy in the 70s and 80s. Nasser's Egypt was pro-soviet, Iraq was a good balance to keep Jordan from going the way of Syria and thereby protect Israel. Iraq was also a convenient pawn for protecting Saudi Arabia from Iran. Aside from direct sales of weapons to Iraq, we also sold a lot of equipment to Jordan and Saudi to be funneled to Iraq, just like the Russians were doing via Egypt and Syria.


There have been many times in history where America has supported leaders from countries where it was in the best interests of both ourselves and other countries, then they turned on us.


Hedging your bet I see. Yes, that is true, except that Saddam didn't turn on us; we turned on him. The fact of the matter is that if the initial Iraqi advance in the Iraq-Iran war had made it to Tehran as Saddam planned and an early victory had been achieved, there never would have been a gulf war. Saddam wouldn't have had to invade anybody to save face, but if he really wanted Kuwait we just might have been willing to look the other way for strong-armed "alliance" which unofficially annexed Kuwait.

That being said, the United States supported and encouraged unprovoked aggression against Iran because we were cheesed off over the hostage crisis and thought we could get some payback while at the same time sticking it to Russia and making money for ourselves.

This was unjust. Furthermore we violated our treaty obligations by facilitationg the violation of the Geneva Convention on Poisonous Gasses so that our proxy could accomplish or unjust goals for us without needing us to put our own men in harms way.


We befriended Saddam in the Iran war, then he turned on just about everyone.


Who turned on who exactly? He invaded Kuwait because Arab leaders tend to wake up dead after losing wars. He needed a victory to stave off a coup. We could have thrown our weight behind him, given him a little cash to patch up the war damage and put a separating force in there to make sure Iran didn't mess with him. Instead we lied to him, indicating that we wouldn't get too mad if he invaded Kuwait, and then we got all blow-hard with him, to the point that Tariq Aziz would not even relay our messages because they were not acceptable diplomatic communications (and would ahve gotten him killed). Then, to cap it all off, when he agreed to back down, we told him too late, but that we wouldn't fire on retreating Iraqis... so much for that though- I'm sure you've heard of the Highway of Death.

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy (hey, maybe we should have taken that into account when we started doing business with an open admirer of Stalin who worked his way up through the Ba'ath Party as an interrogator, strongman, secret police leader, and finally simply arrested his president and declared that he was in charge! You don't make out with Mike Tyson and then act all surprised when he nibbles on your ear!


In a way you're correct. There are very few countries in the world where their people actually have freedom and liberty. That doesn't mean America will go to war with them.


Um... America IS one of them. Phony taxes for Social Security Benefits we'll never collect, complete lack of transparency in the electoral process, DoHS, Patriot Act, Jose Padilla vanishing to some mysterious camp in Cuba, JFK shot, RFK shot, MLK shot... ringing any bells? If you want to tell me that America is a shining city on a hill you can go sell crazy somewhere else- I'm all stocked up.

[quote\Being a "liberal", at least in America, means believing in Socialist/Marxist principles,

Being a poli sci major and being friends with several foreign students, including a Ukranian, I think it stands mentioning that the rest of the world is laughing at our partisanship because our two parties are both so similiar and comparitively moderate (compared to what constitutes a radical elsewhere), and yet they hate eachother bitterly.


and other things that are against our constitution. Is that something to proud of?

State your case. Which articles of the constitution do social programs violate? I was under the distinct impression that the federal government can do what ever is necessary and proper to regulating and promoting interstate commerce and advancing the interests of America as a whole in regards to foreign trade and relations (among other things). Educational infrastructure such as federal grants clearly have a constitutional purpose in that light. So do many other social programs. I'm very much against entitlement programs, but I'm very much in favor of government spending in areas where an investment is necessary to advancing the future interests of the United States, which can include a great many types of investments in the lives of citizens. Afterall, if we do not make such investments, we must continue to import skilled workers such as nurses etc, which in the long term is bad for the American identity itself (only if it goes to an extremely drastic extent of course- I'm not a nativist really, just wary of excessive immigration of skilled workers at a time when many natural born citizens aren't even being afforded sufficient opportunity to prepare themselves for skilled jobs).

So, quick summary. You say "liberal- bad bad. war- good good." I say "don't look now but you're about to get burried up to your neck in unpleasant facts."



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
.... is the reason the Korean war, for all intents ans purposes, is ongoing.... at least in a manner og speaking. Some 50+ years ago, when the U.S. went to war against N. Korea, we tried to do it the way the U.N. wanted.
What they did was, after the war started, the U.N. gave N. Korea our battle plan... that's there idea of a "fair" war. Isn't that special !!!



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
well they messed things up in kosovo and other places well:



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Well..... I can't address everything because I have to leave for work soon. However, I'll do some:

Would you believe an American report?
"The Riegle Report on Gulf War Syndrome......".
REPLY: No.... actually, I was going by a report from an independent international intelligence group who tracks WMD's from any source/country. I WILL try to track down the URL of that group, but it might be a few days. Also..... one must consider who controlled the Senate at that time.

" Where do you suggest that Saddam got his weapons otherwise"?
REPLY: As you mentioned, Russia played a large part of Saddams weapons build up, as inventories have shown.


quote: There have been many times in history where America has supported leaders from countries where it was in the best interests of both ourselves and other countries, then they turned on us.


"Hedging your bet I see. Yes, that is true, except that Saddam didn't turn on us; we turned on him. The fact of the matter is that if the initial Iraqi advance in the Iraq-Iran war had made it to Tehran as Saddam planned and an early victory had been achieved, there never would have been a gulf war. Saddam wouldn't have had to invade anybody to save face, but if he really wanted Kuwait we just might have been willing to look the other way for strong-armed "alliance" which unofficially annexed Kuwait."
REPLY: Saddam didn't invade Kuwait to "save face"... he did it for control of their oil; and, as mentioned, for the good of many countries, including America, we weren't about to let that happen.

"That being said, the United States supported and encouraged unprovoked aggression against Iran because we were cheesed off over the hostage crisis and thought we could get some payback while at the same time sticking it to Russia and making money for ourselves."
REPLY: The hostage crises, and other things, were a just cause for military action.

"This was unjust. Furthermore we violated our treaty obligations by facilitationg the violation of the Geneva Convention on Poisonous Gasses so that our proxy could accomplish or unjust goals for us without needing us to put our own men in harms way."
REPLY: That is based on the assumption we sold himm those things.

quote: We befriended Saddam in the Iran war, then he turned on just about everyone.

"Who turned on who exactly? He invaded Kuwait because Arab leaders tend to wake up dead after losing wars. He needed a victory to stave off a coup.
REPLY: See above. Also, there wasn't a large enough faction available to have success in a coup.

"Yes, Saddam was a bad guy (hey, maybe we should have taken that into account when we started doing business with an open admirer of Stalin who worked his way up through the Ba'ath Party as an interrogator, strongman, secret police leader, and finally simply arrested his president and declared that he was in charge!"
REPLY: I agree.


quote: In a way you're correct. There are very few countries in the world where their people actually have freedom and liberty. That doesn't mean America will go to war with them.


"Um... America IS one of them. Phony taxes for Social Security Benefits we'll never collect, complete lack of transparency in the electoral process, DoHS, Patriot Act, Jose Padilla vanishing to some mysterious camp in Cuba, JFK shot, RFK shot, MLK shot... ringing any bells? If you want to tell me that America is a shining city on a hill you can go sell crazy somewhere else- I'm all stocked up."
REPLY:
A) Social Security: you can thank Dem. President Johnson for that. he's the one who folded the SS funds into the "general" fund, then they spent all the money on failed Socialist/Marxist giveaway programs, mostly to buy votes.
B) Voting transparency: Best idea? Go back to all paper ballots, and no absentee ballots except for on-duty military, and those physically unable to make it to the voting places. And no "motor-voter" crap, either. Will that happen? Heck no. Most Americans don't want to be too bothered when going to vote; "it's too cold".... it's raining", while those in Afghanistan and Iraq are facing shooting and bombs to be able to vote.
C) Patriot Act: 99% of which are laws which have been on the books for decades, merely put under one controling body.
D) JFK; RFK; MLK: Much of which, we'll unfortunately never find the truth about, although MLK is pretty easy to figure out. Padilla? GOOD!

[quote\Being a "liberal", at least in America, means believing in Socialist/Marxist principles,

Being a poli sci major and being friends with several foreign students, including a Ukranian, I think it stands mentioning that the rest of the world is laughing at our partisanship because our two parties are both so similiar and comparitively moderate (compared to what constitutes a radical elsewhere), and yet they hate each other bitterly.
REPLY: Being a Poly-Sci major is part of the problem, considering when most of the professors grew up, and what their beliefs were in the 60's and 70's. I do agree, however, that the republicans have been leaning much too far to the left on most issues. Too much to list here. However, the fact that the CPUSA has voted Dem for at least 15 years should tell you something. The last "true" Dem. was Zell miller. To most, and justly, it matters not what the "rest of the world" thinks. They would be better served to help with their own problems.

quote: and other things that are against our constitution. Is that something to proud of?

"State your case. Which articles of the constitution do social programs violate? I was under the distinct impression that the federal government can do what ever is necessary and proper to regulating and promoting interstate commerce and advancing the interests of America as a whole in regards to foreign trade and relations (among other things)."
REPLY: I agree with that almost in it's entirety. However, most every "Socialist/Marxist" program (WIC; Welfare; Medicare; medicaid, and on and on)
... meaning "from each according to his needs, to each according to his needs", are most definately against everything this country was founded upon. We learned that early on, and should still be doing things that way... but we're not:
www.geoffmetcalf.com...

"Educational infrastructure such as federal grants clearly have a constitutional purpose in that light. So do many other social programs. I'm very much against entitlement programs, but I'm very much in favor of government spending in areas where an investment is necessary to advancing the future interests of the United States, which can include a great many types of investments in the lives of citizens. Afterall, if we do not make such investments, we must continue to import skilled workers such as nurses etc, which in the long term is bad for the American identity itself (only if it goes to an extremely drastic extent of course- I'm not a nativist really, just wary of excessive immigration of skilled workers at a time when many natural born citizens aren't even being afforded sufficient opportunity to prepare themselves for skilled jobs)."

REPLY: Again, most of that is true, but it used to be that people would WORK... do whatever it took, to better themselves, such as an education. Education is a privelege, not a right. The need to import skilled workers is the direct result of the failed education system, as is the outsourcing of some jobs. Three decades of failed educational policy have played the biggest role, and our economy.... and three decades of children, will pay the price, even more-so down the road. I have a copy of an 8th grade test, from Kansas, that most of todays college professors would fail.

Gotta go......

signature
No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. -John Stuart Mill
REPLY" I like some of Mr. Mill; however, in this case, I think that "...as a thinker it is his first duty to follow the facts to whatever conclusions... " would be better all the way around.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Also..... one must consider who controlled the Senate at that time.


I'm pretty sure it was Americans... oh you mean Democrats. Now, even though we all know that nothing a Democrat says is ever true because they are all the spawn of Satan himself, I do think that just for scholarship's sake you should probably offer something more concrete.

Afterall, the Senate didn't just pull this report out of their nethers. They went to the companies which provided the weapons and got the documentation of all exports that were made after 1985.


REPLY: As you mentioned, Russia played a large part of Saddams weapons build up, as inventories have shown.


Bit of a jam that puts you in though, because Russia was arming Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. Granted we did the Iran-Contra thing for a little cash, but there's a big difference between a few anti-aircraft missiles and chemical weapons. Why would Russia seek to tip the balance of the war against Iran, whom they had supported and armed so heavily?

Before we get too far ahead of ourselves on that point though, you really should give some kind of reliable documentation to the effect that the highly plausible US Senate Report, wherein the guilty parties (the government and the companies) have essentially confessed, is for some reason invalid.


REPLY: Saddam didn't invade Kuwait to "save face"... he did it for control of their oil; and, as mentioned, for the good of many countries, including America, we weren't about to let that happen.


Iraq has claimed Kuwait now and then ever since Kuwait Independence in 1961 (infact Prime Minister as-Said tried to talk Kuwait into joining the Hashemite union between Iraq and Jordan even in '58 before Kuwait Independence), and Kuwait had almost as much oil as Iraq, not to mention controlling most of Iraq's access to the sea, however the timing of the invasion of Kuwait was a little too convenient to be overlooked. In the big picture, Saddam clearly had little choice.

Saddam was no stranger to revolutions. Saddam participated in, and was wounded during, the 1958 attempt on General Qassim's life. His old boss, al-Bakr, took power by coup when Arif became unpopular after backing Nasser's failed plans in the Six Day War. In 1979, Saddam had Bakr placed under house-arrest and assumed power to prevent the formation of a union between Iraq and Syria, which would have given Hafez Assad the job Saddam wanted.

Saddam knew full well that being so badly strapped for cash, having to humiliate himself by looking high and low for credit all over the region, having to fight with OPEC to get production cut, etc etc, all on top of having started a war he couldn't win which caused all of that trouble in the beginning, that he had to win a war, he had to do it quickly, and he had to make it profitable, or else he was going to be the victim of a coup.

As I have said, America could have helped him out, but we chose to set him up instead. Perhaps we wanted to get back all of that money we'd dumped into the bad-bet on the Iraq-Iran war, or maybe we just wanted to be able to stop giving him money to keep him out of Russia's corner. Whatever the case, George Bush and James Baker told him that the US wasn't going to take sides. They lied. The rest is history- Iraq was crippled and just 12 years later we walked right over the crumbling remains of what was once one of the worlds largest tank armies to complete the conquest.

There's no putting a positive face on what America did. America is no better or worse than most Western governments. Yeah, the UN is pretty screwed up, but let's be fair about this. All of this black and white nonsense about the US being the good-guy and everyone else being the bad-guy? Please. It's like my original post in this thread said- The UN is no different from every other government- corrupt and of highly questionable moral authority.


The hostage crises, and other things, were a just cause for military action.

66 hostages, every one of whom came home alive eventually, were worth 8 years of fighting with chemical weapons, and over 1.7 million casaulties. Not only that, but all of this had to be done through a proxy- America didn't have the sand to put its own sons on the front line for this "just cause". I've got a pretty skewed since of morality- some call it Machiavellian, but I can't even stomach your idea of justice.



REPLY: That is based on the assumption we sold himm those things.

Two US Senate Reports citing documentation from the companies that produced the weapons is an ASSUMPTION??? Let's see evidence to the contrary.


REPLY: See above. Also, there wasn't a large enough faction available to have success in a coup.


That assertion can not possibly be confirmed or debunked. All we can possibly hope to go on, unless of course there was a poll taken of every soldier in Iraq, where they all told the truth, is probability, historical trends, etc. There was ample precedent for Saddam to be concerned, but we could have kept him from having to invade Kuwait if we'd been upright with the people of Iraq. To hell with Saddam even, let's think about the people of Iraq. We sent them into a proxy war for us that ruined their promising future, then instead of helping them back up we cannibalized them because they'd been wounded while fighting our war for us.


REPLY:
A) Social Security: you can thank Dem. President Johnson for that. he's the one who folded the SS funds into the "general" fund, then they spent all the money on failed Socialist/Marxist giveaway programs, mostly to buy votes.

Republicans have controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for years now and they haven't done anything to help. The parties love to blame one another, but they rarely ever undo one another's wrongs. We have only one party in this country, it just operates in two halves, and sometimes experiences minor internal disputes, not over our liberty- they agree that the citizens deserve no liberty, they just sometimes argue over how best to rob us of it.



B) Voting transparency: Best idea? Go back to all paper ballots, and no absentee ballots except for on-duty military, and those physically unable to make it to the voting places. And no "motor-voter" crap, either. Will that happen? Heck no.

Good luck blaming that one on the democrats. You do realize that we'd be well on our way to rounding out 16 consecutive years of Democrat rule right now if your idea was embraced, don't you? I consider that a crying shame, because my leanings are conservative (in a mild and sensible sort of way) but I can accept the fact that I am in the minority; that's the curse of intellect.



C) Patriot Act: 99% of which are laws which have been on the books for decades, merely put under one controling body.



Padilla? GOOD!


Do you even see the contradiction here??? What ever happened to due process?


D) JFK; RFK; MLK: Much of which, we'll unfortunately never find the truth about, although MLK is pretty easy to figure out.


What's not to know? Arlen Specter came up with the Magic Bullet Theory and the Republicans are now obligated to him for that reason to put up with him no matter how much he ticks them off. The military-industrial complex (aka the army, intelligence community, and defense contractors), which has always been conservative leaning, was the beneficiary. The resultant Vietnam War effectively ended an age of Democratic dominance, ushering in a primarily Republican age- realize that there have only been 2 democrats elected since Johnson. So gee, I wonder who had the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry out such a massive operation using federal, state, and local government assets? If I didn't know better i'd say that JFK was killed by a conspiracy of influential conservatives. It's not as if there isn't a precendent for such things. Congress concluded way back when that Smedley Butler's testimony about the Business Plot was probably true, and that was more than an assassination- that was a planned coup!


REPLY: Being a Poly-Sci major is part of the problem, considering when most of the professors grew up, and what their beliefs were in the 60's and 70's.


Why in the world is it that the overwhelming rejection of far-right ideology by the academic community is considered and indictment of the academic community, rather than of far-right ideology?
You are essentially telling me that my problem is that I'm educated. How in the world could exposure to facts and the application of critical-thinking to that information possibly result in ignorance?


I do agree, however, that the republicans have been leaning much too far to the left on most issues.

Woah, woah, woah, if you believe that then you don't agree with me. Most conservatives don't know what the hell they're talking about. Ditto for most Liberals. I consider myself a liberal by conservative means. I think that liberals have their hearts in the right place by their heads in the wrong orifice, and I think that the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reily Conservatives have the same problem, except for the part about their heart being in the right place.


REPLY: I agree with that almost in it's entirety. However, most every "Socialist/Marxist" program (WIC; Welfare; Medicare; medicaid, and on and on)
... meaning "from each according to his needs, to each according to his needs", are most definately against everything this country was founded upon.


These program hardly take "from each according to his needs". It is still perfectly possible to survive and thrive in America by the sweat of your own brow. These programs are badly managed and badly targeted, but they have a valid constitutional purpose as a matter of infrastructure. Medical care is an infrastructure item every bit as much as highways, infact more so. This nation cannot do business, cannot defend itself, cannot live, enjoy liberty, or pursue happiness, if everyone is dead or dying from disease. We need a working social medical program. We don't have one because we're being too liberal ideologically but too conservative fiscally. By that I mean that we can't afford to insure both our nation and Mexico, among other things, but we can afford to insure Americans if we will stop being so tight and pay the price of infrastructure.

Tell me, do you think that the department of transportation is a good thing? On the one hand, they keep us from getting raped on the price of transported goods and personal travel, and ensure our freedom of movement. On the other hand, you've got this big, slow bureaucracy managing our roads and if you're a Limbaugh conservative as you seem to be you really would have to agree that private toll-roads are the only way to go for a top-notch road system- the people who can't afford it will have to just stay at home all the time and not go anywhere- they could walk, but only until the privatized side-walk system takes effect next year.

Obviously socialized road construction is necessary. How can you agree with subsidizing a sunday drive but not a life-saving surgery?


REPLY: Again, most of that is true, but it used to be that people would WORK... do whatever it took, to better themselves, such as an education. Education is a privelege, not a right.


Education is neither of those things primarily. First and foremost it is a tool. It is a necessary tool. It is a public good. You claim that people used to do whatever it took to get an education, but this is simply not true. Education has traditionally been the good fortune of a wealthy few who did nothing to earn it other than being born into the right family, but as the sciences have become increasingly important to our daily life and our economy education has undeniably become a public good without which a first world nation cannot function. Intelligent workers are a commodity which every company must acquire. Only a joint effort by the American people can produce this commodity in sufficient quantity, and there is no unfairness in sharing this cost because every person who participates in our economy benefits from the expenditure.


The need to import skilled workers is the direct result of the failed education system, as is the outsourcing of some jobs.


Which aspect of the education system has failed though? Can you seriously suggest that the Philippines can do a better job of educating nurses than America? Or is the real problem that the cost of living in America is higher and therefore without aid many people would would become nurses cannot get the education, and that's not even to mention the insufficient facilities. My school has an outstanding nursing program- the waiting list is backed up for over a years worth. I know people who've spent over a year trying to get into the nursing program already. I can't help wondering if we'd be hiring foreign nurses if the government would fund an expansion of programs like that at my school.



REPLY" I like some of Mr. Mill; however, in this case, I think that "...as a thinker it is his first duty to follow the facts to whatever conclusions... " would be better all the way around.


I submit that the intellect acts upon facts to yield a conclusion. A fact not touched by an intellect is but a page in the Guiness Book of World Records.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Also..... one must consider who controlled the Senate at that time.


I'm pretty sure it was Americans... oh you mean Democrats. Now, even though we all know that nothing a Democrat says is ever true because they are all the spawn of Satan himself, I do think that just for scholarship's sake you should probably offer something more concrete.

Afterall, the Senate didn't just pull this report out of their nethers. They went to the companies which provided the weapons and got the documentation of all exports that were made after 1985.


REPLY: As you mentioned, Russia played a large part of Saddams weapons build up, as inventories have shown.


Bit of a jam that puts you in though, because Russia was arming Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. Granted we did the Iran-Contra thing for a little cash, but there's a big difference between a few anti-aircraft missiles and chemical weapons. Why would Russia seek to tip the balance of the war against Iran, whom they had supported and armed so heavily?

Before we get too far ahead of ourselves on that point though, you really should give some kind of reliable documentation to the effect that the highly plausible US Senate Report, wherein the guilty parties (the government and the companies) have essentially confessed, is for some reason invalid.


REPLY: Saddam didn't invade Kuwait to "save face"... he did it for control of their oil; and, as mentioned, for the good of many countries, including America, we weren't about to let that happen.


Iraq has claimed Kuwait now and then ever since Kuwait Independence in 1961 (infact Prime Minister as-Said tried to talk Kuwait into joining the Hashemite union between Iraq and Jordan even in '58 before Kuwait Independence), and Kuwait had almost as much oil as Iraq, not to mention controlling most of Iraq's access to the sea, however the timing of the invasion of Kuwait was a little too convenient to be overlooked. In the big picture, Saddam clearly had little choice.

Saddam was no stranger to revolutions. Saddam participated in, and was wounded during, the 1958 attempt on General Qassim's life. His old boss, al-Bakr, took power by coup when Arif became unpopular after backing Nasser's failed plans in the Six Day War. In 1979, Saddam had Bakr placed under house-arrest and assumed power to prevent the formation of a union between Iraq and Syria, which would have given Hafez Assad the job Saddam wanted.

Saddam knew full well that being so badly strapped for cash, having to humiliate himself by looking high and low for credit all over the region, having to fight with OPEC to get production cut, etc etc, all on top of having started a war he couldn't win which caused all of that trouble in the beginning, that he had to win a war, he had to do it quickly, and he had to make it profitable, or else he was going to be the victim of a coup.

As I have said, America could have helped him out, but we chose to set him up instead. Perhaps we wanted to get back all of that money we'd dumped into the bad-bet on the Iraq-Iran war, or maybe we just wanted to be able to stop giving him money to keep him out of Russia's corner. Whatever the case, George Bush and James Baker told him that the US wasn't going to take sides. They lied. The rest is history- Iraq was crippled and just 12 years later we walked right over the crumbling remains of what was once one of the worlds largest tank armies to complete the conquest.

There's no putting a positive face on what America did. America is no better or worse than most Western governments. Yeah, the UN is pretty screwed up, but let's be fair about this. All of this black and white nonsense about the US being the good-guy and everyone else being the bad-guy? Please. It's like my original post in this thread said- The UN is no different from every other government- corrupt and of highly questionable moral authority.


The hostage crises, and other things, were a just cause for military action.

66 hostages, every one of whom came home alive eventually, were worth 8 years of fighting with chemical weapons, and over 1.7 million casaulties. Not only that, but all of this had to be done through a proxy- America didn't have the sand to put its own sons on the front line for this "just cause". I've got a pretty skewed since of morality- some call it Machiavellian, but I can't even stomach your idea of justice.



REPLY: That is based on the assumption we sold himm those things.

Two US Senate Reports citing documentation from the companies that produced the weapons is an ASSUMPTION??? Let's see evidence to the contrary.


REPLY: See above. Also, there wasn't a large enough faction available to have success in a coup.


That assertion can not possibly be confirmed or debunked. All we can possibly hope to go on, unless of course there was a poll taken of every soldier in Iraq, where they all told the truth, is probability, historical trends, etc. There was ample precedent for Saddam to be concerned, but we could have kept him from having to invade Kuwait if we'd been upright with the people of Iraq. To hell with Saddam even, let's think about the people of Iraq. We sent them into a proxy war for us that ruined their promising future, then instead of helping them back up we cannibalized them because they'd been wounded while fighting our war for us.


REPLY:
A) Social Security: you can thank Dem. President Johnson for that. he's the one who folded the SS funds into the "general" fund, then they spent all the money on failed Socialist/Marxist giveaway programs, mostly to buy votes.

Republicans have controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for years now and they haven't done anything to help. The parties love to blame one another, but they rarely ever undo one another's wrongs. We have only one party in this country, it just operates in two halves, and sometimes experiences minor internal disputes, not over our liberty- they agree that the citizens deserve no liberty, they just sometimes argue over how best to rob us of it.



B) Voting transparency: Best idea? Go back to all paper ballots, and no absentee ballots except for on-duty military, and those physically unable to make it to the voting places. And no "motor-voter" crap, either. Will that happen? Heck no.

Good luck blaming that one on the democrats. You do realize that we'd be well on our way to rounding out 16 consecutive years of Democrat rule right now if your idea was embraced, don't you? I consider that a crying shame, because my leanings are conservative (in a mild and sensible sort of way) but I can accept the fact that I am in the minority; that's the curse of intellect.



C) Patriot Act: 99% of which are laws which have been on the books for decades, merely put under one controling body.



Padilla? GOOD!


Do you even see the contradiction here??? What ever happened to due process?


D) JFK; RFK; MLK: Much of which, we'll unfortunately never find the truth about, although MLK is pretty easy to figure out.


What's not to know? Arlen Specter came up with the Magic Bullet Theory and the Republicans are now obligated to him for that reason to put up with him no matter how much he ticks them off. The military-industrial complex (aka the army, intelligence community, and defense contractors), which has always been conservative leaning, was the beneficiary. The resultant Vietnam War effectively ended an age of Democratic dominance, ushering in a primarily Republican age- realize that there have only been 2 democrats elected since Johnson. So gee, I wonder who had the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry out such a massive operation using federal, state, and local government assets? If I didn't know better i'd say that JFK was killed by a conspiracy of influential conservatives. It's not as if there isn't a precendent for such things. Congress concluded way back when that Smedley Butler's testimony about the Business Plot was probably true, and that was more than an assassination- that was a planned coup!


REPLY: Being a Poly-Sci major is part of the problem, considering when most of the professors grew up, and what their beliefs were in the 60's and 70's.


Why in the world is it that the overwhelming rejection of far-right ideology by the academic community is considered and indictment of the academic community, rather than of far-right ideology?
You are essentially telling me that my problem is that I'm educated. How in the world could exposure to facts and the application of critical-thinking to that information possibly result in ignorance?


I do agree, however, that the republicans have been leaning much too far to the left on most issues.

Woah, woah, woah, if you believe that then you don't agree with me. Most conservatives don't know what the hell they're talking about. Ditto for most Liberals. I consider myself a liberal by conservative means. I think that liberals have their hearts in the right place by their heads in the wrong orifice, and I think that the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reily Conservatives have the same problem, except for the part about their heart being in the right place.


REPLY: I agree with that almost in it's entirety. However, most every "Socialist/Marxist" program (WIC; Welfare; Medicare; medicaid, and on and on)
... meaning "from each according to his needs, to each according to his needs", are most definately against everything this country was founded upon.


These program hardly take "from each according to his needs". It is still perfectly possible to survive and thrive in America by the sweat of your own brow. These programs are badly managed and badly targeted, but they have a valid constitutional purpose as a matter of infrastructure. Medical care is an infrastructure item every bit as much as highways, infact more so. This nation cannot do business, cannot defend itself, cannot live, enjoy liberty, or pursue happiness, if everyone is dead or dying from disease. We need a working social medical program. We don't have one because we're being too liberal ideologically but too conservative fiscally. By that I mean that we can't afford to insure both our nation and Mexico, among other things, but we can afford to insure Americans if we will stop being so tight and pay the price of infrastructure.

Tell me, do you think that the department of transportation is a good thing? On the one hand, they keep us from getting raped on the price of transported goods and personal travel, and ensure our freedom of movement. On the other hand, you've got this big, slow bureaucracy managing our roads and if you're a Limbaugh conservative as you seem to be you really would have to agree that private toll-roads are the only way to go for a top-notch road system- the people who can't afford it will have to just stay at home all the time and not go anywhere- they could walk, but only until the privatized side-walk system takes effect next year.

Obviously socialized road construction is necessary. How can you agree with subsidizing a sunday drive but not a life-saving surgery?


REPLY: Again, most of that is true, but it used to be that people would WORK... do whatever it took, to better themselves, such as an education. Education is a privelege, not a right.


Education is neither of those things primarily. First and foremost it is a tool. It is a necessary tool. It is a public good. You claim that people used to do whatever it took to get an education, but this is simply not true. Education has traditionally been the good fortune of a wealthy few who did nothing to earn it other than being born into the right family, but as the sciences have become increasingly important to our daily life and our economy education has undeniably become a public good without which a first world nation cannot function. Intelligent workers are a commodity which every company must acquire. Only a joint effort by the American people can produce this commodity in sufficient quantity, and there is no unfairness in sharing this cost because every person who participates in our economy benefits from the expenditure.


The need to import skilled workers is the direct result of the failed education system, as is the outsourcing of some jobs.


Which aspect of the education system has failed though? Can you seriously suggest that the Philippines can do a better job of educating nurses than America? Or is the real problem that the cost of living in America is higher and therefore without aid many people would would become nurses cannot get the education, and that's not even to mention the insufficient facilities. My school has an outstanding nursing program- the waiting list is backed up for over a years worth. I know people who've spent over a year trying to get into the nursing program already. I can't help wondering if we'd be hiring foreign nurses if the government would fund an expansion of programs like that at my school.



REPLY" I like some of Mr. Mill; however, in this case, I think that "...as a thinker it is his first duty to follow the facts to whatever conclusions... " would be better all the way around.


I submit that the intellect acts upon facts to yield a conclusion. A fact not touched by an intellect is but a page in the Guiness Book of World Records.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Ahhhh.... a double-post; I've done that myself on occasion 8^)
Well.... how to reply. It appears we've gotten quite a bit off-topic here (and it also appears that no-one has caught us yet, hehe 8^) I do agree with some, if not much, of what you have said. First, let me put my views/position into context. I would consider myself a Constitutional, Libertarian Conservative. I don't believe that one can be a "moderate" or "liberal" Conservative; you are or you aren't... McCain and Sphincter come to mind.
To me, The Constitution and Bill of Rights are first and formost.. as they were written, not as they have been construed by past and present Supreme Court decisions. That court has abbrogated powers from the state (since the mid-1800's), and they are NOT the end-all be-all when it comes to laws; that remains with the states.

Please note that, for the sake of space (if not convenience), I'll reply to as much as possible before I get off to work, and I might remove things not related to what I respond to, or am able to at this time.

Oh.... as to the report you mentioned, I did find the name of that investigative body I mentioned (pertaining to what we did and did not provide Saddam); it's the Stockholm International Peace Institute.
".... The SIPRI Arms Transfers Project maintains an extensive computerized database on arms transfers to help identify trends in global weapon flows. The database contains information on bilateral transfers of major conventional, and biological weapons since 1950."
---------------------------------------------------------
Also..... one must consider who controlled the Senate at that time.

"... I'm pretty sure it was Americans... oh you mean Democrats. Now, even though we all know that nothing a Democrat says is ever true because they are all the spawn of Satan himself."

REPLY: No, I didn't implicate that. You forget that the Dems were in charge for much of the past 45+ years, their (failed) programs have done much to divide America, and has quite literally destroyed the inner-cities. Look at Americas poorest cities, and the history of same (IE: New Oleans; Cleveland, Ohio; New Jersey), and you will find that they have been run or controlled by Democrats for decades.
My main concern is the fact that so many people don't realise that the Dem. Party is not the same as it was in the 30's, 40's or 50's. They indeed have changed from an "American" party to one with Socialist/Marxist views.
There's no denying the fact that the Communist prty of America has voted Dem. for many, many years. Also the fact that there currently is over 150 members of the "Progressive Caucus" in the government. Much of what they believe is directly contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and because of their beliefs, it is a blatant lie when they take the Oath of Office. There are some on the left I not call American.
There's a quote I've yet to have anyone disprove: "The positive economic activity in any given area is inversely proportional to the number of Democrats in charge."
------------------------

"... Before we get too far ahead of ourselves on that point though, you really should give some kind of reliable documentation to the effect that the highly plausible US Senate Report, wherein the guilty parties (the government and the companies) have essentially confessed, is for some reason invalid."

REPLY: I can only mention that much of the chemical weapons Saddam had were chemically different than what companies here produce. I cannot provide the link to that info, and much of what is available from the org. I previously mentioned must be purchased.
---------------------

"... There's no putting a positive face on what America did. America is no better or worse than most Western governments. Yeah, the UN is pretty screwed up, but let's be fair about this. All of this black and white nonsense about the US being the good-guy and everyone else being the bad-guy? Please. It's like my original post in this thread said- The UN is no different from every other government- corrupt and of highly questionable moral authority."

REPLY: You know as well as I that the "war for oil" thing is crap, as I believe we both know how oil is bought and sold in the world market. Is America perfect.... no. But we HAVE done more throughout our history than anyone to save or promote some form of liberty and freedom to many countries. Was all of it ethical? .... by whose standards? Those are things that we all could debate/discuss for decades.
The U.N. is not a government. Thankfully, any treaty we have with them is not enforceable, as our laws only allow treaties with "countries".. NOT organizations.... that would like having a treaty with the Elks Club.
------------------

quote: REPLY: See above. Also, there wasn't a large enough faction available to have success in a coup.

"... That assertion can not possibly be confirmed or debunked. All we can possibly hope to go on, unless of course there was a poll taken of every soldier in Iraq, where they all told the truth, is probability, historical trends, etc. There was ample precedent for Saddam to be concerned, but we could have kept him from having to invade Kuwait if we'd been upright with the people of Iraq. To hell with Saddam even, let's think about the people of Iraq. We sent them into a proxy war for us that ruined their promising future, then instead of helping them back up we cannibalized them because they'd been wounded while fighting our war for us."

REPLY: It would have been much better if Bush 1 would have ignored the cease-fire the UN talked us into, and we wouldn't be there now... for the most part.
---------------------

A) Social Security: you can thank Dem. President Johnson for that. He's the one who folded the SS funds into the "general" fund, then they (Dems) spent all the money on failed Socialist/Marxist giveaway programs, mostly to buy votes.

"... Republicans have controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for years now and they haven't done anything to help."

REPLY: The reduction of the tax rates (not "tax cuts") is working quite well, which it has done every single time it's been tried; when Queen Elizibeth did it, ditto John Kennedy; Reagan and now Bush 2. That is something I've studied for 40 years. Since 9-11, an average of 75,000 new jobs per month; the stock market is booming since the bubble burst..... reductions in the tax rates helped a great deal there.
----------------------

"... The parties love to blame one another, but they rarely ever undo one another's wrongs."

REPLY: I agree with that, although I'd have to say that many of the "wrongs"... at least how they conflict with the Constitution, come from the left.
------------------------

"... We have only one party in this country, it just operates in two halves, and sometimes experiences minor internal disputes,

REPLY: I might have agreed with that 50 years ago.
----------------------------

"... B) Voting transparency: Best idea? Go back to all paper ballots, and no absentee ballots except for on-duty military, and those physically unable to make it to the voting places. And no "motor-voter" crap, either. Will that happen? Heck no."

"... Good luck blaming that one on the democrats. You do realize that we'd be well on our way to rounding out 16 consecutive years of Democrat rule right now if your idea was embraced, don't you? I consider that a crying shame, because my leanings are conservative (in a mild and sensible sort of way) but I can accept the fact that I am in the minority; that's the curse of intellect."

REPLY: Actually, more like 50 years. Voter fraud began with the Dems, many, many years ago, and continues to this day. "Daly" or "Chicago"- style voting comes to mind IE: vote early and vote often. Even if the Republicans wanted to, it would take many years to reach the level of the machine the Dems have.
A minority? I don't think so. I think that much of the increase in Republican voter turnout has more to do with more people paying attention to what the Dems. want to do.... what they have to say... and more and more people don't like it. Of course the Dems. consistantly whine that they "haven't gotten the message out", but they have... and the people don't like it.
-------------------------

"... C) Patriot Act: 99% of which are laws which have been on the books for decades, merely put under one controling body. Padilla? GOOD!

"... Do you even see the contradiction here??? What ever happened to due process?"

REPLY: ..... does not apply to what might be loosely termed enemy combatants. Just as the Geneva Convention does not apply to soldiers who do not wear a uniform from an acknowledged country, or who don't openly carry their weapons, etc.
------------------------

"... D) JFK; RFK; MLK: Much of which, we'll unfortunately never find the truth about, although MLK is pretty easy to figure out.

"... What's not to know? Arlen Specter came up with the Magic Bullet Theory and the Republicans are now obligated to him for that reason to put up with him no matter how much he ticks them off. The military-industrial complex (aka the army, intelligence community, and defense contractors), which has always been conservative leaning, was the beneficiary."

REPLY: Good 'ol Arlen Sphincter... another RINO. Yeah.... that theory is crap, and only the politicians in power at that time could pass it as truth ... for whatever reason they chose to. There WAS a shooter on the 'ol grassy knoll, but evidence of that is long gone. Just like when Clinton said, many times: ".... there's not a shred of evidence I ...." SHRED being the operative word.
-------------------------------

"... The resultant Vietnam War effectively ended an age of Democratic dominance, ushering in a primarily Republican age- realize that there have only been 2 democrats elected since Johnson."

REPLY: And crap they were; one, Jimmy Carter, who gave us the "Agreed Framework"... which, of course, gave the world a nuclear N. Korea.... then won a Nobel for it. Well, a Democrat started the vietnam war, a Democrat escalated it, and a Republican ended it. A war which we won by the way.... at least on the ground over there. That war was lost gecause academia, politics, media and law lost it for us over here, and which they're trying to do again in this one. They somehow convinced an ignorant public that it was a "civil" war (NOT) instead of what it was... a war against a Communist expansionist buildup in South Vietnam. "They" wanted us to lose that war because the idea of Communism/Marxism/Socialism is a good thing to them. "They" don't care if we lose or surrender in Iraq, and in fact would like it..... as long as they get their power back.
------------------------

"... REPLY: Being a Poly-Sci major is part of the problem, considering when most of the (current) professors grew up, and what their beliefs were in the 60's and 70's.

"... Why in the world is it that the overwhelming rejection of far-right ideology by the academic community is considered and indictment of the academic community, rather than of far-right ideology?"

REPLY: Somewhat of an apology here. Whoa... I'd never call you ignorant, and I didn't. What you might consider is that there wasn't a "right" until there was a "left." Most all of those who are called "right" are actually right smack dab in the middle.
I made that comment because of a poll and study concerning 20 major colleges, which discovered that (on average) 80% of professors are far left, which would provide a basis for that indictment.
If college is supposed to be an arena of education, and an open expression of ideas, then an outright "rejection" of Conservative ideas/ideals shouldn't exist. Educators.... especially ones who accept public money, should be teaching using facts, not what their views, or ideas of how the world and/or America should be.
Just as in the 60's and 70's, campus protests erupted over "free speech", when it wasn't about free speech at all... it was about THEIR speech, not yours, and it continues, even more so, to this day.
Yes, I DO have a problem when they sit, ensconced in their ivory towers, and write books spouting THEIR ideals, then those same books are used to teach throughout the lower levels of education.... books that have been found to contain so many errors and re-writing of history.
Isn't it odd that there are only 4 or 5 colleges that require a major in American history... and three of those are military. Very sad.
A knowledge of American history would do one a better service that "civics" or "liberal arts."
---------------------

"... Most conservatives don't know what the hell they're talking about."

REPLY: I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I think it could refer to many things. I'd like to hear a few, though.

"Ditto for most Liberals. I consider myself a liberal by conservative means. I think that liberals have their hearts in the right place by their heads in the wrong orifice, and I think that the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reily Conservatives have the same problem, except for the part about their heart being in the right place.

REPLY: Politics is politics, the law is the law, and the constitution/Bill of Rights are what they are; The heart should have nothing to do with it. By todays definition of what "liberal" means, you can't have conservative values, especially when it concerns the economy. Sorry... I don't buy it.

Do I agree with everything that Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reily et-al say? No. But in some ways they are better than many professers, if only because they admit when they're wrong, and they slam the "center/right" too, if they disagree on things said or done. One should not shoot the messenger because of the message. If one cares about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and American ideals, then one cannot have ones heart in the wrong place.
After 40 years of left/liberal teaching in colleges, the first generation of "Limbaugh" kids are just starting to enter college... and the left doesn't like it one bit.... even if only because they (professors) will be challenged in their views.
---------------------

"... I agree with that almost in it's entirety. However, most every "Socialist/Marxist" program (WIC; Welfare; Medicare; medicaid, and on and on)
... meaning "from each according to his needs, to each according to his needs", are most definately against everything this country was founded upon.

"... These programs hardly take "from each according to his means."

REPLY: Yes, they do. If money is taken out of my pocket every week, through threat of government force, and given to someone who did nothing for it, that is exactly what it is.
---------------------------

"... It is still perfectly possible to survive and thrive in America by the sweat of your own brow. These programs are badly managed and badly targeted, but they have a valid constitutional purpose as a matter of infrastructure."

REPLY: Badly managed and badly targeted, for sure. But if executed (sorry Tookie 8^) by Marxist principles, it's still Marxist/Socialist.

Since Roosevelt (and Johnson made it worse by far), We've had too many people who somehow think (no... they don't think.... they "feel") they have the right to all sorts of things, the largest of which is free money. We don't have the "right" to an education, health care, free drugs or a job or a car or a house.
---------------------

"... Medical care is an infrastructure item every bit as much as highways, infact more so. This nation cannot do business, cannot defend itself, cannot live, enjoy liberty, or pursue happiness, if everyone is dead or dying from disease. We need a working social medical program. We don't have one because we're being too liberal ideologically but too conservative fiscally. By that I mean that we can't afford to insure both our nation and Mexico, among other things, but we can afford to insure Americans if we will stop being so tight and pay the price of infrastructure."

REPLY: It's not governments job to provide most of those things, and trying to do so will bankrupt this country. Already, Medicare and Medicaid comprises 48% of our GDP. Socialised medicine works nowhere on the planet. More Canadians (and those from other countries) come here for treatment because of the wait for basic services. Six months for an MRI? Please. Recently the High court of Canada repealed the law which forced people to go to government medical facilities and doctors. Why? Because too many people were dying waiting for healthcare.
The third-party payer system escalates the cost of all medical services because those people dont care how much a service costs, because they don't have to pay it, which takes market forces out of the equasion, hence higher prices. Every single time the government gets involved with any economic activity it creates another bureaucracy, and the money goes mostly to keep that bureaucracy operational.
Another good example is when Devil-woman (Hillary) did. So.... the government passed a law whereby they would buy the vaccines (sp?) produced by American companies, but they would only pay so much. Before the law, there were 23 companies that made vaccines.... now there's one. Why? Not enough profit to stay operational, and put enough money away for possible/probable litigation.
One may be able to control the price of something (as in Canada) but one CANNOT control the cost. So, as many Canadians and Americans are getting cheaper drugs from Canada, who makes up for the lost profit? Americans buying drugs here in America.
-----------------------

"... Tell me, do you think that the department of transportation is a good thing? On the one hand, they keep us from getting raped on the price of transported goods and personal travel, and ensure our freedom of movement.
On the one hand, they keep us from getting raped on the price of transported goods and personal travel, and ensure our freedom of movement."

REPLY: They don't control supply and demand, 'nor the cost of privately owned transport companies, or fuel, or profits made by those companies... except raising the cost to us through taxes.
-------------------------

"... On the other hand, you've got this big, slow bureaucracy managing our roads and..... you really would have to agree that private toll-roads are the only way to go for a top-notch road system."

REPLY: Highway systems are more controlled by each state through taxes, and I have no problem with that whatsoever. Our road system here in Wisconsin is well known for being so good; better than most toll roads, in fact.
--------------------------

"... Obviously socialized road construction is necessary. How can you agree with subsidizing a sunday drive but not a life-saving surgery?"

REPLY: Roads are a true infrastructure, they "work" for the "right" to be repaired. Roads have no capability to amass/save profit from that "work" and so repairs must be paid by others. Profits are made by many by using the roads, and the roads sometimes fail (need repairs) one way or another. Taxes from those profits from the many pay for the repairs.
99% of Americans, on the other hand, can choose to work and save profits from that work, to pay for their own "repairs." I should not have my profits taken from my pocket (thus reducing what I could save for my own repairs) and given to support some bureaucracy, to reward the failures (not working/saving) of others. Life-saving surgery? Sure! ... if it's mine and I pay for it.
Am I hypocrite? ...... no. I have no outstanding health care or insurance. Other than what I've managed to save, if something catastrophic happens to me, and the money runs out, I already have it in writing that I refuse help from the state-run "Badger-care", Medicare, Medicaid, et-al. But every week money is taken from me, through threat of force, to give to strangers; money that I can't use .... money that I could be putting into my own savings for my own health care, and most of which goes to pay some government wonk and THEIR health care. Sorry.... that's not American. I'm not one of those who does not insist on living longer than God or Nature intends, and being a burden on my fellow man. THATS American.
-------------------------

Again, most of that is true, but it used to be that people would WORK... do whatever it took, to better themselves, such as an education. Education is a privelege, not a right.

"... Education has traditionally been the good fortune of a wealthy few who did nothing to earn it other than being born into the right family.

REPLY: That hasn't been true for the past 40 years. I just looked..... nope.... no "right to an education" in the Bill of Rights; 'nor medical care for that matter.
--------------------

The need to import skilled workers is the direct result of the failed education system, as is the outsourcing of some jobs.

"... Which aspect of the education system has failed though?

REPLY: Well.... from pre-school right on up through 12th grade, for starters, thanks to the federal Dept. of Education (which hasn't educated a single child), and the teachers unions. Public schools have become an industry.... and union work, rather than concentrating on the education of our children. It used to be you had to learn how to read in the 1st grade, or you didn't go on to 2nd. Now it's a 12 year course and, if you can't read by then.... oh well, off you go.
America used to be firsts in education on every level. Now, in science and math for example, out of the top 28 industrialized nations we rank 6th. Two years ago a test was given to random high-school teachers across America; only 30-some% passed. The same things that were being taught to the children. How sad, and outrageous.

I have a copy of an 1886 8th grade final exam, from Kansas. I doubt many of the nations professors and teachers would pass it.
--------------------

REPLY: I like some of Mr. Mill; however, in this case, I think that "...as a thinker it is his first duty to follow the facts to whatever conclusions... " would be better all the way around.


I submit that the intellect acts upon facts to yield a conclusion. A fact not touched by an intellect is but a page in the Guiness Book of World Records.

How true... how true. But "centrist" facts, nor viewpoints or ramblings.
It'll be good hearing from you again, and your replies. Of course, with this belonging in another thread, we might get our pee pee's smacked if we continue. 8^)


[edit on 16-12-2005 by zappafan1]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join