Re: safety and politics
 

Well, Saddam Hussein used to be a powerful and most importantly secular leader in the gulf region. He was a friend of the US in the Iraq/Iran war and D. Rumsfeld himself was responsible for delivering WMD to Iraq in the 80s. Iraq stabilized the region until they turned against Israel (rumour has it that Iraq invaded Kuwait because the US was already building up troups there). This is why I think the US did everything to disarm the country they once supported. Now that Iraq became weak, the Iran is trying to dominate the region. So in the end, Iran eventually with help from the US won the war they fought against Iraq in the 80s. This is quite a complicated story and the roots would have to be searched decades or even centuries ago.

Re: safety and politics
 

Thoroughly debunked? I must admit, I am somewhat cofused as to what precisely you are talking about. It cannot be my entire post, because that was just created. (Unless you mean that you have just debunked it.) It cannot be my conclusion about motives, because one cannot debunk such a conclusion, only evidences and myths used to support it. So I conclude that you must be refering to some fact, or set of facts, or reasoning process in my post.
I will then request the following clarification:

1. Which of the above categories does it fall into?
2. Which fact or reasoning to you object to? (I do have references for all facts.)
3. Who has debunked it?

I am perfectly willing to discuss any errors or omissions I may have made.

However, before I continue, let me clarify my point. My point is not that we should have went into Iraq. (Sungrove makes a good argument that we shouldn't have. Kudos to him.) My point is not that, conclusively, Bush was without malice. My point is based on the saying, "never impute to malice, what can be readily explained by ignorance and/or stupidity. My point is specifically, that it is quite reasonable, that someone, with the information Bush had, would have come to the same conclusion. (Note: I did not say they most likely would; merely that it is a reasonable conclusion.)
If I didn't know you tended towards flaming a little, I would consider this a serious insult. I am NOT a neocon. Nor even a conservative. Yet I am as unwilling to impute unsubstantiated charges against Bush, as I am unprepared to believe that Obama actually supports voter fraud (as widely claimed by some folks online.)

Willful manipulation of the facts? Again, you are unclear. Manipulation of facts as presented to whom? The people? The Congress? Foreign Leaders? All of the above?

Well, lets look. Many members of congress (including some I quoted above) have security clearances, and have access to original intelligence documents. Clearly, these cannot be construed as having been manipulated. Foreign Leaders have their own intellegence sources. They also tended not to trust the US in general, or Bush in specific. So, it is nearly inconceivable that Bush could have doctored their own intelligence to the point it agreed with his agenda. Hence, you presumably did not refer to Foreign Leaders.
Then I suppose you must have meant the people. Well then, we have a word for "Willful manipulation of the facts." It is propaganda. So, does propaganda imply malice? Certainly, it is a crime nearly all politicians are guilty of. (Especially on election years...) They use it to persuade their constituents to vote for them, and support their policies. This indictment alone does not seem very malicious.

Nevertheless, I note that my post did not primarily rely on info available to the public at the time. Nor did the people I quoted. So regardless of the accuracy of your claim, my point stands. Yes, Bush may have exaggerated the evidence. Yes, even "willfully manipulated" it. However, that does not imply that he did not believe the gist of it to be true. Many people overstate their case, while believing fervently in their cause.


Interesting. I hadn't heard of this. Could you get me a reference? (Not doubting you on the fact of course; I just would like to read ti and see if it was appropriate evidence.)

I have Never seen any sort of evidence for this. Nevertheless, it seems irrelavent, when you consider what everyone he was talking to already knew. Furthermore, as stated above, manipulation of facts does not preclude belief in their conclusion. So this also is irrelavent to my post.

Beacause I haven't looked or anything, have I? No, I just invent a two page post out of thin air....

Re: safety and politics
 

"I think the war was long planned and the evidence that there were no WMD made it possible to start the war. I don't think the US would have attacked Iraq if they knew that they had WMD. Way too dangerous."

There appear to be several people in this thread who believe this kind of stuff. I consider it claptrap, whatever that is.

Among other people, the UN inspectors believed that Iraq had wmds. They apparently knew more about the situation even than the people in this thread!

You have to understand how easily crowds (such as the Bush admin) are mislead. Self-interest does play a role, but not as simple a role as is suggested. People really believe things, partly because it is in their self-interest to believe them. Others who share similar interests find facts or apparent facts or rumored facts that encourage persistence in those beliefs. The end result is groups of people living in a fantasy world, which eventually comes crashing down. The job of a cold-eyed politician is to understand these irrational forces and not act at their behest. This is where Bush jr. didn't live up to his responsibility as President, though his father did .

It was asked since when rumor justifies invasion. In several cases. If my next door neighbor is rumored to be making smallpox toxins, and there are many scary rumors that seem to support that possibility, at some point I am going to support a police invasion of the house, because that is a very scary rumor, and if it was true it could easily kill me and a lot of other people.

In the case of Iraq, I think that the invasion was not justified for reasons of prudence. There wasn't enough evidence, and with constant UN inspections, it was unlikely that Saddam could mount any kind of significant wmd effort. The US was freely bombing areas in Iraq anyway, as part of its enforcement of the no-fly zone.

Re: safety and politics
 

My opinion on Iraq is: It doesn't matter whether we should have went or not.. we're there.

We'd better leave that place in a good working freaking order or I'll be thoroughly pissed with the new government. Whether we should have went or not people can scream and debate all day.. fact is - nobody on this board (unless we have someone in the white house here) without a TS/SCI clearance has any idea what kind of information there was or wasn't.

A lot of people here seem to think the "News" in "unbiased" and entirely "100% truth". I just laugh at those that make this claim, or the claim that they have no agenda of their own. And this goes from everything from Gun control, to Iraq War, to Drunk Driving or robberies.

What is fact is .. we went. We toppled their government. And I'll be damned if we want to be the kind of country that just wants to go "Oops, sorry - we'll leave you in a completely unstable, anarchic state - fix it your damn self."

That's like my son breaking another kids toy - and I refuse to pay for it.

Re: safety and politics
 

yep, I agree with you there actually fatalsaint.

Yes, I think we do need to do the best we can to leave Iraq in the best way possible.

I think one of the reasons to be talking about this is not necessarily just to rehash old stuff, but to remember what can leed us into such a mess and also to realize that part of the problem still exists in the form of Iran.

My local conservative talk show host was implying that with Obama entering as President, we would be less safe. I do think he was saying that the consequence of leaving Iraq is that we will be less safe.

So, short of causing major calamity from a too speedy withdrawal, why does leaving Iraq make us less safe?

But ya, we do need to leave Iraq in a planned way.

But how much help DO we owe Iraq and how much are we willing to pay? At some point I think it's debatable on a deminishing returns basis although I hate to talk about people that way. Back to, 'well what about other war torn zones where many are currently being killed and displaced?'

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

Best way to leave Iraq in good shape is to leave asap.

Dithering over there just encourages further dependence and animosity. How ironic.

Re: safety and politics
 

Yes, but you gotta admit that wiping out a government and then leaving chaos is not exactly an advertisment for the US. Especially since, as I am constantly pointing out, we turned Iran into a powerhouse by eliminating the big enemy it fought its last war with.

Re: safety and politics
 

I agree with fatalsaint. It has happened, and now the situation needs to get solved. It would be best if the Iraqi people could help themselves and don't need foreign troups in their country, but this is a long process.
Building up the Iraqi police and military should be top priority. The US cannot play police there forever. They're not welcome, it's a clash of totally different cultures. Don't hunt the terrorists because you cannot win that game. Help the people to defend themselves and establish wealth and education. Wealth and education are the keys to fight terrorism.

Would the world become safer if Bin-Laden was found and executed? I don't think so. He might be dead already. Nobody knows for sure. But the world could become safer if less people turned to terrorism.
Occupation, oppression and exploitation make terrorism thrive. Not a single man called Bin-Laden.
If Obama understands this, he will certainly be a better president than the Texan cowboy there has been before.

Re: safety and politics
 

Iraq is Vietnam Redux. Anyone looking for a clean solution should avoiding holding their breath.

I will be proven correct, in distant hindsight by self-appointed experts and after much pointless malingering.

Re: safety and politics
 

Christians are not permitted to lie, or kill people. Now, there appears to be an exception: self-defense. Strangely, the Christian movement made their contribution to re-elect Bush in 2004.

Re: safety and politics
 

I wonder how many Americans, armed with guns to protect their homes, are going to lose those homes without being able to fire a shot at anyone... because the criminals who stole their homes are the rich, smiling, white-collar b@stards on Wall Street who destroyed the global economy?

Re: safety and politics
 

This is exaclty what drives people to commit things like this guy, my hero :D

Check out here http://www.metacafe.com/watch/199525/bulldozer_rampage/


Who says you can't fight city hall, just tear it down!!!!!

Re: safety and politics
 

What a sad story. He was obviously a bright guy.

Re: safety and politics
 

That guy chose his fate, and I completely understand how someone could be driven by city government to do the same.

Here is a sad story.
http://www.internettablettalk.com/fo...43&postcount=1

Chuck was my best friend and was murdered this year on my birthday. No gun law would have stopped this a55hole from killing my friend.

Banning all guns is not an answer. People will still kill people. This does not mean, that taking steps to ban some weapons and overhaualing the way guns are purchased will not help.

But the sad fact of it is, until we change our culture (in America), people will still freak out and kill people. (with guns, fists, knifes, hammers, or whatever is handy)

Re: safety and politics
 

The economy has been broken ever since.

And you might want to thank the credit card corporations in Delaware as well.

Sad story, bright guy. Hans Reiser...

Re: safety and politics
 

This is a statement I can agree with. It's just nailing down exactly what it is in our culture that breeds so many psycho's.

I think part of it boils down to separation of responsibility.. parents don't take responsibility for their kids anymore. It's TV's Fault, it's the Cereal Boxes fault, it's McDonald's fault we're all fat, It's the Guns fault, It's NRA's fault that Columbine happened, it's the Democrats fault, it's the Republicans fault, it's those darned Games' fault.... ad infinitum.

When was the last time anyone went public and actually said.. "Yeah.. ok... it was MY fault."

And then to make matters worse.. they've enacted laws that actually prevent parents from parenting. Don't spank your kids, it's child abuse.

I've actually heard of schools that have the rule that if a child gets spank, they are supposed to tell their teacher - and their teacher sends in CDS to the house.

How are we supposed to enact a change in society or the culture when we are bound, gagged, and strapped to a log by all the rules and regulations we've put in place that are merely meant to hopefully "prevent" some random atrocity that hit the news today?

Re: safety and politics
 

"But the sad fact of it is, until we change our culture (in America), people will still freak out and kill people. (with guns, fists, knifes, hammers, or whatever is handy)"

I am getting tired of this particular cliche, sorry. I can think of at least one person who might commit a gun crime who would be unlikely to use fists, knives, hammers or whatever is handy.

That would be me.

I would never want the mess of using knives, etc. I doubt if I could kill someone with my fists.

So, if I go crazy, I will find and use a gun. No substitutes. In fact, if it was too difficult to find a gun, I might give up, because I'm lazy.

Are there any other lazy Americans who wouldn't use many ways of killing, but would use a gun?

I think there are.

Re: safety and politics
 

If you're telling me you can already foresee a time that you would kill someone merely because it was convenient and simple... and not gone crazy... I think you need some help.

If you get to the point you've gone crazy enough to kill someone for something like road rage... the item you use to do it with is going to matter significantly less than the actual act itself. If you AREN'T crazy and are pre-meditating a murder - and want to use a rifle/scope so you have a chance to escape....

We've got more issues with you than Gun Control..

Re: safety and politics
 

I think it's a scientific fact that the more convenient killing is made, the more people will do it. Does anyone think that the number of murders will go up the harder murder is made?

Re: safety and politics
 

The point is to look at the statistics of countries that enacted Gun Control on a mass level.. their total "violent crime" numbers per year stayed the same, or rose.

That implies that anyone that WAS stopped by using a gun was a very negligible number... people just opted to use something else.

When you've gotten to the point that outright murder or crime is worth it to you to pay the price.. or even worse; you think you can commit a crime without paying the price... the object you use is not going to be important.

Look at me, for example. I argue for the right to defend my family and my home with a firearm. That does NOT, however, mean that if my house is attacked by, say, 3 assailants while I am downstairs eating popcorn watching a movie with the family.. and I DON'T have my gun on me.. that I'm just going to lay down and go "OK I GIVE UP!!!.. Make it quick, please?"

No.. I'm going to grab the nearest thing to me.. (in my case likely a bataan).. and STILL fight back. Albeit, probably less effectively if they have guns. Even in the case where I have NO weapon.. I'll fall back on the 8 years martial arts, and combat training in the military. I will always fight back.

I would imagine the same goes for criminals.. considering, as I've already mentioned, there are thousands of cases of criminals using nothing more than a knife to commit a crime. Everything from burglary, murder, rape, you name it - that has been committed with a gun.. has ALSO been committed with something else.. be it a bat, a nine iron, a switch blade, or a Pencil!

If you truly WANT to kill something.. they must have done something extremely horrible to you to make you feel that their death brings you something of significant value. Significant enough to risk the Death Penalty, or life imprisonment. At the moment someone does something like that to you - do you really think, in that state of mind, you're just going to go "I WOULD KILL YOU IF I HAD A GUN!!! But.. Since I don't.. Meh. I hate you." And go home?

If you answer yes to that.. the gun owners and so-called crazies like me, and probably Benson - They don't scare me. YOU scare me.

Re: safety and politics
 

Like Archie Bunker said "would it make you fell better if they were thrown out a window"

If someone is going to kill, lack of a weapon will not stop them.

Re: safety and politics
 

Ah, but there is this other saying: "Opportunity makes the thief"

Maybe we should all have our private nuke in the garden... ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

Hmm.. isn't the second thing you said there because of the first? Parents aren't taking very good responsibility, I should say some parents, so the child needs to tell another adult about what's going on there. Like sometimes, as the saying goes " it takes a village to raise a child." And In this country , part of the village is Mc Donalds which is a place for lazy, uneducated parents to send their kids to get terrible nutrition.

Well, isn't enacting laws to make people conform what the right does here? The right doesn't want me to be able to smoke dope, or have sex with a prostitute or marry another of the same sex? Or what about teen pregnancy and the fact that the right wants to advocate that we insist on abstenance when we know that's not realistic. So we refuse to educate children about sex and then disallow condoms. Or what about the right's unwillingness to allow stem cell research? Isn't that a law set that could save many lives? But we disallow it because, why, because some think it's unethical or un-Christian or whatever.

I don't really think change is something that "gets enacted" . Change, in my opinion, is something that happens when people are willing to open up their minds and hearts to the possibilities. Throughout history, if people feel forced to make changes or think thoughts they don't want to think, it almost always is rejected. The people that end up being considered great tend to be those that never picked up a gun and showed their courage through non -violent means such as Gandi or Martin Luther King. Their acts opened up hearts and minds. And in turn, that's what I see as the problem we have in Iraq, our acts were violent. Some will say 'don't forget about the good deeds we did over there as well" But I can come raging into your house, guns held high, and then promise to fix your plumbing. How are you going to react?

And when it comes to the idea of taking responsibility, why is it that the more powerful one is, the less reponsibility one is asked to take? When was the last time we heard the CEO of a company say, "yep, I did a terrible job of running the company, so that's why the bank is bankrupt or the auto company is bankrupt. Therefore I'm going to give up the multimillion dollar pay I was going to receive because I don't deserve it" Or when was the last time you heard a corrupt politician admit that he or she did it? And when folks like that do get convicted for crimes, they get way less time than criminals that had way less actual effect on society. The above wouldn't be because those are the same people that wrote the laws and are involved in setting the punishment, would it?

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

Most of what you said is accurate.. and it goes to how the Nolan Graph that I've mentioned is constructed. The right likes the tighter controls on things that are "outside" their norm.. which unfortunately tends to be very religious... as you said - the education of children, abstinence, science, abortion, etc. Limiting "Personal Freedoms". But the right also believes in the working american that starts their business, works hard at getting their foot up, and being able to keep the money they make.

While the left would allow freedom in the more personal choices listed.. but they want the .gov to micromanage our finances, our businesses, our economies. A man/woman works for years to start a company, feeding their spouse and kids on barely enough to survive.. until such time that he/she starts making enough he hires an employee to help - and then has to send the bulk of his earnings BACK into his business to upgrade equipment/get larger.. still feeding his/her family off of scraps. Then, after several years, they MIGHT get lucky enough to have their business become well-oiled enough that they can take a break and get some things for themselves or their family... but the left comes in and strips all their new money away to help feed those more "needy".

This is why I don't like getting in the middle of political left/right debates. I think they both suck. Both sides are hypocritical in their alignments somewhere. Anarchy, or Totalitarianism are the only two that ever made any sense to me. You either want to the .gov to control your life.. or you don't.

And you wouldn't consider Abraham Lincoln great? He brought war here on our home-front.. american's killed american's.. but without which MLK would have been hung for ever daring to think he had a right to "Dream".

The worlds 100 greatest people:
http://www.sybervision.com/People/

Lets look at the "Political Leaders" category, since both your arguments fit into there:
Constantine - 2 civil wars
Charlemagne - Numerous wars
Queen Elizabeth I - She was considered great for non-combat related things.
Oliver Cromwell - Military commander, numerous conflicts.
Benjamin Franklin - American Revolution, assisted with Declaration of Independence.
Catherine the Great - Also, numerous foreign campaigns and wars.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln - need no introductions.
Susan B. Anthony - Like MLK worked mostly through civil disobedience.. although, interestingly, when she voted (illegaly) - She voted straight Republican :).
Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt - Also need no mention
Then of Course, Martin Luther King and Ghandi.

I find your claim that mostly people who avoid violence are the ones considered "great"... at best you've got what, 1/3rd?

Sometimes violence is necessary. Sometimes peace is necessary. To completely avoid one in hopes to procure the other is to fail at both. MLK was a great man, I don't disagree.. but I've said before - If it wasn't for the constant crimes, the attacks, and all the other more violent things going on around that time.. I highly doubt his movement would have been as effective as it was. So a bunch of people sat down in front of a store in protest.. so what? That does about as much good as the protesters screaming at the LDS temple's over the proposition against gay marriages is doing. But a bunch of people throwing explosive bottles of alcohol and shooting each other in the streets... obviously that demands attention. And that woke the world up to the fact that "Ok.. something has got to change here." At least, IMHO.

Re: safety and politics
 

I don't see either of those popular sentiments as true.

Yes, they are the positions one side claims to be or accuses the other of taking, but I look beyond the wild inflammatory rhetoric and at the actual voting records, judgments, and related actions by so-called representatives.

That analysis shows that what the right really favors is wealth concentration in the upper few percent. The alleged suport of small business is a Big Lie-- the right actually supports the Walmartification of America at the expense of small business. Just look at the actions of the FCC and FTC under Bush.

And while the left certainly has faults of its own (speaking collectively), historically small business owners have fared much better in leftward sociopolitical environments than the converse. How ironic. The alleged micromanagement is a myth perpetuated by the strident Limbaughs and Coulters of the world. Around 25% of voters typically buy into that Big Lie, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Just goes to show how willing we are to be misled, marginalized, codified, segregated, categorized and labeled. Ironically, I had to resort to the latter to make the point. That shows how inescapable this is, and how successful this insidious campaign by the 2 major parties has been. Both have utilized sneaky evils like political "correctness" to control debate and discussion... and the populace smiles and nods through it all like cattle in a slaughter pen.

Either extreme brings evil. There is little rationality in fringes. But polarity appeals to Americans, who like to sum up political leanings into neat but flawed encapsulated packages like "pro abortion" and "anti freedom". Even my wife voted based on singular issues this year, and I thought she knew better...

Re: safety and politics
 

I could probably get on board with most of that Tex.

Although, voting history or not - I've seen both sides confirm that the way the other sides presents them as being the way they "intend" to go. The right "intends" to support small business, while the left "intends" to distribute wealth.

I was very surprised the Bush administration signed off on the completely ridiculous "Bailout"... which just goes to show that either Bush and his Administration isn't as "right" as we all thought they were...

Or the "Right" isn't the "Right" we thought IT was..

Re: safety and politics
 

Thanks for the posts fatalsaint and texrat. I liked texrat's response about the business issues. I can elaborate latter given time.

Yes, we consider Abraham Lincoln geat, don't we. I would just say about that that the South still appears to resent what happened there. It appears many there have been wanting to reinstall that Confederate flag. And it took a Herculian effort by Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Bill. And the South to this day tends to be a very conservative area. So, I'm not sure the civil war really changed a lot of hearts and minds there. I think maybe they mostly learned to live with it.

As far as the left right thing, I get that. There are some principles such as parts of fiscal conservatism that I agree with from the right. In a big way, I wish that that faction of the right had been in control in the last eight years. But I tend to think of things in lefty / righty terms because that's what prevails now. Yep, it would be better to get beyond that I think.

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

I wish the two extremes would stick to their declared principles. It would make things so much clearer to the American voter. But they don't want that, do they? Better to muddle things up, keep us off balance and at each others' throats...

Re: safety and politics
 

Ah, here is a day to talk about the "needy"
Thanksgiving day. Happy Thanksgiving!

I think there are so many ways to go about talking about what Fatalsaint said here. I think he has outlined the way the 'right' or Republicans like to think about money. I can't help but wonder why spending huge amounts of cash on creating a safe place to do business, such as having a military, is not a form of 'distributing money'? We also have a dayly distribution of wealth in the form of human energy and time. Mostly that wealth flows in an upward direction doesn't it?

And why do we seemingly want to villify the needy? Perhaps because we are not wanting to offer help? I just think this kind of thinking is a way to insulate oneself from the pain. But that's just my humble opinion.

Yep, ultimately I think both sides like to 'distribute' money. I just am tired of some suggesting that the 'needy' are a waste and coorporations and huge military expenditures are OK. I would suggest that rather than say we shouldn't help the needy, we should be asking how we can more effectively help them. In some parts of the world for example, the idea of microloans is being used. A small loan is made to someone wanting to set up a small enterprise. In this country, I think that sort of support is hard to come by on a small basis.

I understand there is a difference between a hand up and a hand out. But I also think we do better to realize that some really do need a hand up and that we are all better off if those folks are given such. I've been there and it did help.



Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

The point is it should be my choice to do so. You want to offer tax cuts, breaks, or other benefits to "donating" to charity or giving money that's one thing...

when you want to force me to give money to people I don't know, without my consent, and without my input - there's a problem there. I have no problems giving people a "hand up".. but that should be my choice.

I do have a problem with people making a complete living off of welfare. I myself have used WIC (women, infant, children) when I started out, married at 17. I was on it for a little less than 6 months - joined the military to care for my family (plus to serve my country)... I used it as it was intended. To give me a start.

To many use it for free food and board.. and have no intentions of ever paying it back.

If I so choose to save the homeless... I'll go pick some up; get him/her a hotel room to take a bath.. and drive them to job interviews till they land one. Too many times I've handed money to people only to see them leave the gas station 5 minutes later with beer and cigarettes. I'm sorry, those are not necessities. Therefore.. I would prefer to choose when, where and to whom, I give my hard earned money.

It would be great if everyone that needed a hand, used that hand to get ahead instead of abused that hand and took advantage of it to be lazy at every chance they get.

But.. it's no matter. The great Pres-elect Obama is going to save us all and deliver us from the evil within our hearts.. making the world a perfect place.

I guess that's why I'm not religious..... I've never bought into fairy tales of happily ever afters. I don't trust that my government actually cares for me, not under any wing, and I certainly wouldn't trust anyone asking me to give up my ability to defend myself - or that wants to take away my money for the "greater good". Double-plus-ungood.

ETA: And Happy Thanksgiving to you as well :)

Re: safety and politics
 

Absolutely! So nice to see someone recognize that.

Which is why this left-vs-right debate is just so much bs. Both believe in redistribution of wealth, just using different modes and to different recipients. Your example of the military is dead on. That's one distribution mode of the right. The left prefers public works (which are desperately needed now). Each side lambasts the other over their preferred modes, but in the end, the result is the same: the hapless taxpayer forks over his hard-earned money and then has little realistic say over where it goes and how it's used.

It's a rant for another day, but I believe income tax is the most anticapitalist thing our government can force on us. It introduces a disincentive to make higher wages-- which is why Congress has to constantly tinker with it (read: corrupt). I believe the only fair tax system is one based on pay-as-you go (with obvious exceptions for necessities) which works very well for us in Texas, but there's too much power and influence tied up in our present national system for it to change.

But on that subject: history shows that the right preaches lower taxes but votes for higher ones. Yet they have successfully deluded citizens into buying the rhetoric over the reality. A skill I don't admire.

Re: safety and politics
 

I really think in part they have succeeded in deluding the public by simply increasing the national debt instead of raising taxes and/or cutting expenses. If we, for example had started raising taxes when we realized we were going to be incurring these huge debts in Iraq or while bailing out corporations lately, how long do you think taxpayers would stay deluded?

And fatalsaint, I really need to look up the numbers, but I just feel things like paying to help the homeless just has to be way less than the several trillion we are currently spending on the military and bailing out corporations. But I guess if we let the banks go under we'll then just have former CEOs on the corner asking for change? :p But I get how you feel.

I don't want any sympathy here, really, it was a good experience in a lot of ways, but I was homeless a long time ago. I did pull myself up mostly. But it was also very helpful at a few key points to have a little bit of help. I only received $75 in food stamps , but that was enough. And I was able to start the small business I have now from the streets.

On the other hand, I have tried to directly help a few homeless guys or suggest how they can help themselves out. True, it seems like they don't want to change. But who knows where they are at. Maybe they are just in it for a quick beer or maybe they do need a hand up.

I would suggest it can be OK for the government to be doing some of that because that is one of the resources the homeless or others in need know how to locate pretty easily. It was a hassle, but I was able to find the government office that had food stamps back then. And given a hand up like that, then there's one less homeless guy on the corner to make us feel bad, right?:) Or that other guy that got in that desperate situation and decided to take whatever he wanted by force. Instead, he was helped out and he became a positive force.

As far as being forced to pay for such things, in principle I understand that. But maybe think of it this way, maybe, God forbid, it will be you or someone you know in that kind of need. And there will be that safety net there for you as well. Isn't that worth paying for? Just another kind of insurance.

But isn't it more than a safety net we need? Don't we just need to start supporting a lot of things more to support the general social fabric of our country? I kind of think that's part of Obama's appeal and hopefully he will end up as a great President, indeed.

Re: safety and politics
 

The IRS was started to pay for war expenses. Follow the money in Iraq and you see the bigger picture of the cash flow. Besides, their Code is so complex even people who work at the IRS don't understand it...

OTOH, the sales tax is lower in the USA than in EU.

Re: safety and politics
 

Well to address the first points.. I am a supporter of the Military primarily because it benefits every person within our borders. Not just a handful. Having an established military to protect our lands from invasion and force and direct influence from the outside keeps all of us with the freedoms we excercise on a daily basis.

Now, Whether the government USES that military in purposes that it SHOULD be used.. that's a different story. And we could argue that all day. But I support the formation and operation of a military in general because it benefits everybody (in the US).

OTOH - I complete abhor the bailout to companies and corporations. The government needs to back off and let us succeed or fail on our own.. that bailout was a joke and is causing nothing but more problems. Hell, I heard even the CEO's of the car companies are threatening bankruptcy if they don't get a piece of the government cheese now. What a mess.

And that's a prime example of what happens when people get something for nothing... they just want more. Give a mouse a cookie and all that. I mean heck.. since the government is just going to throw money at us to keep us from failing or going homeless - Why should any of us work?? There's no point.. the government won't let me starve to death.. it'll cut me a monthly subsidiary check .. I can stay at home and play World of Warcraft all day and teach my youngen's school is unnecessary because they'll never need a job.

As to the last point.. I hate the idea of forced insurance as well. I don't think it should be illegal or a requirement to have medical insurance OR car insurance. If I so choose to drive on the road without insurance and demolish your car... you have the right to come after me for payment. If I can't pay.. you sue me for everything I have, and everything I make for the next 5 years. So since I already despise the CURRENT system (both in taxes, like Texrat, and the insurance requirements, etc.) Just saying it's just "Another" tax, or "another" insurance, or that the "right" does it too..

Well.. that doesn't help with me ;)

Re: safety and politics
 

My disillusion with the military, for example, was specific to using it as a big "jobs program".

And so we're clear on perspective, I benefitted directly from the military-industrial complex for 7 years while working on very advanced avionics programs. But while I did appreciate having the job, I was simultaneously disgusted by the easy and accepted culture of fraud in the industry. And it's only gotten worse. We're now willing to buy into massive no-bid nation-building contracts rather than hold our leaders accountable for allowing such lunacy to start and persist in the first place.

The citizenry did not listen to Eisenhower, and our descendants will pay for that social deafness.

Re: safety and politics
 

A couple points, A wealthy fellow has got to love the military a whole lot more than a poor fellow since invasion from the outside will change his life so much more than the equivalent event effects a poor shlub living in a getto. The poor man sees and hears battle dayly. The wealthy man doesn't. Looked at another way, take a rich man and put him in the jungle. What good is his cash? He's as vulnerable as the guy living in the shack nearby. There are no services for him to buy and no security. If he intends to stay, my guess is that one of his first moves would be to go hire a few thugs to protect him. The poorer fellow doesn't have that kind of cash, so he has to make less expensive alliances. Ya, we all benefit from this military, but like many things going on here, it's more a matter of cost-benefit analysis, isn't it? I know, this is a bit absurd, but what would the cost be of just defending ourselves from Canada and Mexico? Why is the military spread out throughout the world? Isn't it because we are paying to support the Coorporate interests? Aren't we putting that in front of paying for security in our own neighborhoods?




I've heard it would be better for all involved if they would just use the bankruptsy process. Protect themselves while they reorganize.

Well, doesn't this assume that all you get out of working is money? Many people who are the true fortunate ones in my opinion, get much more that is intangible out of their work. They are doing what they love to do. Remember the hype was that in the industial dream the machines would give us free time and resources so that we could be free to do more of what we wish and less work. It seems America bought into that dream and then forgot it. Ya, I do think money is addictive. People die in Iraq for it, store clerks at Walmart get trampled to death for the sake of a bargain, the list goes on and on. Such a bad trip. Follow your bliss instead. It's doable.



Ok, I'll sue you. Are you going to have the half mil or more to put my life back together after you Tbone my car and injure me and my wife? I don't like being forced to do things either. Unfortunately I don't see too many of us paying taxes if it was voluntary and many would skip paying for insurance if it wasn't manditory. I don't care if you incure losses. I do care if you cause me harm and then can not afford to pay for my losses.

And ya Texrat, it seems we hear all about how the poor are abusing the system and not enough about the Kellogg Brown and Roots of the world.

Neil

Re: safety and politics
 

I think you will find the vast MAJORITY of this country work because they have to. Not because they want to. I am a great techie/geek dude.. and I am in a techie/geek job. But I don't enjoy going every day to fixing some OTHER dude's idea of a network.. or enforcing some OTHER dude's idea of security. I have my own network and security at home that I would be tinkering and toying with all day if I had all the money in the world.

OR.. I really would like to be a police officer. Make it to either Detective or SWAT... or maybe go FBI Field Agent, US Marshall, etc.. I think we all know I like guns by now.. and I do enjoy saving people... Unfortunately... if I quit my current job, paid the $2k it takes to go through Police Academy, and then joined a police force near my home.. This number is not an exaggeration - I would take a 2/3rds pay CUT. My family can't live on that - we've gotten ourselves adjusted to my current wages. So yes.. I work for money. But come next year I won't have to worry about it... I'll just quit, file bankruptcy.. and petition Obama to save me.


If I don't have the money.. you literally take everything I own.. my House, my car (whats left of it), anything with my name on it.. throw my family out on the street .. anything I make for the next 10 years becomes immediately yours.. Why? It was my decision to drive without protection.. I put you in the hospital.. I am responsible.

I should be held accountable. Insurance is just a way to avoid accountability.. the insurance company pays it and my monthly premium just goes up.. woopidy doo. You're stuck paralyzed in a gurney.. I pay an extra $15 a month. Yeah for equality!!! er.. wait...

Re: safety and politics
 

I don't know about that fatal... but I guess it depends on how you define "work". If you mean in the corporate rat maze, I agree... but if you just mean labor of any sort then I don't. When people cease being productive in some fashion, they become depressed.

Re: safety and politics
 

I don't classify "work" as anything labor intensive. Building my own shed, for my own yard, for example. I'd consider that fun.

Building a computer network in my basement. Also fun.

Building YOUR computer network for YOUR basement. Work. :D

I agree that there are some people that actually *enjoy* their jobs, and are happy to wake up at 0 dark thirty every morning and trot off to make some other dude millions of dollars every day doing the same routine over and over again. And that's fine.

I don't know any.

Re: safety and politics
 

I think we're disconnecting again...