View Full Version : The Post-Millenium U.S. Civil War
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 08:52
I'm no conspiracy theorist. UFOs, Area 51, "Bush Lied", 9/11 was missles, Saquatch, the boogie man: These are all just vehicles for the extremist paranoid or those that make money off them. Despite this, I'm starting to see a really scary trend in the United States that bodes ill for all: The leftist liberal agenda to dominate the world. I know I know. Here we go again, right? But consider:
(1) The Democrats have a stated platform to consolidate power in the federal government while diminishing States' rights. This has already been executed beautifully and silently with not a whimper from the sleeping populace. By concentrating power into the hands of the few, these few are made unaccountable in a representative republic where money and connections determine the candidates. Primaries are a joke, with huge campaigns financed against those that go against the Democrat Party agenda (Lieberman).
(2) The leftist propoganda machine. The leftist liberals of this nation and many of the ignorant masses who claim centrism or moderation (buzz words for not knowing squat) are fed the tripe propagated by the hollywood populare culture machine. They listen to the leftist ramblings of John Stewart on the Daily Show and believe that to be an educated opinion, rather than the propoganda that it is. They soke up these idiot hollywood celebs on the left who suddenly have brilliant minds in public policy. The Democrats used to be very pro-Israel and the Republicans were the "evil racists", but now the leftists all rally for Hizbullah and against Israel.
(3) The errosion of individual responsibility. Our popular culture is one of instant gratification and reliance on others. Why is it suddenly the Government's job to feed, educate, and provide for the people? The people are supposed to provide for themselves and the government is supposed to ensure that opportunity. If some one spills hot coffee on themselves they want to sue because the coffee is too hot. Somebody chokes on a peanut and the restaurant is to blame.
What does this all add up to? A mass population of ignorant children who need to feed up on the government tit because they can't think beyond that. They do what they are told by hollywood and the liberal spin machine. Now we have this massive IDIOTIC contingent of Americans who think that the U.S. government blew up the pentagon with missles thanks to some fancy flash video that went around the internet a couple years back. Half of this country consists of lazy, spoiled, ignorant obese fat bastards who sit on there butt and watch TV and expect a retirement from uncle sam.
And the more this continues, the more people like me stand up and say WTF?! HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MINDS?? But we are getting drowned out by the liberal propoganda machine which tells the masses that corporations are bad, making money is bad, worshiping the Lord is bad, working is bad, etc. Lets open our damn borders and let in all the illegals because we feel so sorry for them. Now let's raise all of the taxes on the rich and give it to all of the low skilled workers, thus MAKING THEM EVEN MORE DEPENDANT ON GOVERNMENT. Let's give them health care that will suck but be paid for by middle class and rich people. And the ignorant masses will just sit back and drink it in and stop thinking.
Just like so many dman other people I see and hear everday. Half of my country has turned into popular culture robots. All they do is screw, spend, whine, and ask for more free crap.
And so I think we are going to have a civil war in this country one day. That's no conspiracy theory. It goes back to my claim that socialist will win. The socialist will win in this country because people are lazy and stupid and we have no machination for allowing natural selection to occur like it should. These people are Zombies and nothing more. And once the socialists take over and tax the crap out of everybody who makes more than $12 an hour, the rest of us who are awake are going to turn on these liberal SOBs who have destroyed these United States. Damn Straight we want a right to bear arms. The founding fathers had a mechanism for preventing a tyranny of the elite- the right to bear arms.
And perhaps after bin laden blows us up again, (which will be blamed on Republicans instead of Democrat retreats and apologists), the Democrats will rape us all of our rights and try to take away our guns. The liberal leftsist hippies will whine about the evil repressive armed republican and we who support the constituion will be villified. Then the constitution will be amended and whittled away because these democrats SOBs can interpret the constitution only with so much liberality.
Damnnit my country is going down the toilet and the retarded masses just sit back and let it happen. These leftsist liberals are the ones worried about "control": We'll lose our rights and fall under global socialism by a distant world government thanks to you. Then we'll see a new civil war. A civil war led by those seeking liberty once again. And when my constitution is trashed and raped by the brain-washed liberal elite and their zombie pop-culture army, I'll be the first to say grab your weapon, and follow me.
/rant :wall:
Hadn't posted in a while. I've been pretty pissed off at the leftist liberal movement lately. They already want to abandon our friends in Iraq and I am seeing good Republican Conservatives being turned by the sheer numbers of liberal zombies. There are two types of liberals: Those who know what's best for you, and those that listen. Master and Slave.
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 09:04
Pretty one-sided, DA. I could play devil's advocate and lay down the ills of the supposedly "right" element of the government, but instead i'll simply say that we are indeed at a crucial point in our development. Our military power, our economic power, and our national prestige are all on the line, and we are more polarized than we've been in over a hundred years. The next 10 years will be very interesting to watch.
Well no kidding its one-sided. I'm not trying to be anything but that. EDIT: Is the truth ever anything but?
But let me tell you something: At least I know the lesser of two evils: One party that makes it public policy to take away property and rights and give it to the ignorant fools that don't deserve it, a party that denies the existence of morality and thus thinks the concept of "evil v. good" irrelevant, or a party that, in its roots and as stated public policy, stands for states' rights, individual and economic freedom, and personal responsibility.
I know the Republican party has been screwing the pooch on some key issues. But this is no reason to go running into the arms of the devil.
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 09:24
And until that day, we must work within one of the two parties to have our agneda heard. Clearly that is impossible in the party of Chomsky and Sheehan.
Duke John
08-09-2006, 09:41
Ignorancy and being led by lies and popularism is not caused by your dearly loved Democrats. You are giving them too much credit. I think it is caused more by our consumer society where the "I" is more important than the "we".
And your definition of liberal is still wrong.
Major Robert Dump
08-09-2006, 10:51
You want to know something funny? Until a few weeks ago, I had heard the name "chomsky" and recognized it but didn't know really who he was. Want to know something funnier? I had no idea who George Soros was until a few weeks ago as well.
Whats my point? My point is that I don't give two sheets what either of those men have done and how they have affected the "party", nor do I give two sheets what people think of me because of the party I "belong" to. Last I checked, I didn't elect DNC officers, calls to Congresspeople do not work unless theres a PR stunt, and I have to work my ass off to play catch up all my life, so pardon me for not being more willing to engage in longterm debates over the evilness of Democrats and Liberals.
Sometimes people pick a party not because they agree more with that one, but because certain aspects of the other party piss them off. Pressing issues tend to even themselves out eventually, parties vie back and forth to keep balance, bad things happen and get fixed, and blaming every liberal or democrat for something that murtha, or dean, or gore said about transfatty acid is pretty typical of both sides. Lowest common denominator. Yes, it's all my fault. All of it, even the hot coffee lawsuits
Ironside
08-09-2006, 11:13
Ignorancy and being led by lies and popularism is not caused by your dearly loved Democrats. You are giving them too much credit. I think it is caused more by our consumer society where the "I" is more important than the "we".
And your definition of liberal is still wrong.
His definition of leftist/socialist is still wrong... He still have a tendecy to define it as "anything I dislike".
But basically both parties has become populist machines, driven by huge lobbyists, interested mainly in powergrabs. Both betraying thier original ideals. You need something to revive your parties (like a third party).
The leftist liberal agenda to dominate the world
I'm impressed by your observation skills. The assumed fortress of leftist liberal agenda, Scandinavia and northern Europe haven't noticed this yet. :laugh4:
rory_20_uk
08-09-2006, 11:34
1) Bush has enjoyed consolidating power as much as anyone. The Terrorism Act, Wiretapping all show that power and surveillence is being consolidated - under the Right wing.
2) The right propaganda machine is also extremely active. America's unwavering support of Israel even when conducting an illegal war is evidence of this.
3) This is the democrats? You could equally say that it was the Big companies that back both parties. And if one thinks of Big Business bieng Right Wing, it is the Republicans that are backing this turning of the populace into a selfish bunch of mindless consumers.
Taxes are currently dropping. Them poor rich are paying too much so need to have some tax breaks.
Worship has nothing to do with right or left. Perhaps the deaths due to religion are upsetting some?
Friends in Iraq? I think that most Iraqis wouldn't view them as friends of America. things like the genocide after the Shi'ia uprising after the first Gulf War might have something to do with it.
How do guns help stop eroding of your rights? untrained civilians vs. a modern army... Wrong century - they're only good for hunting animals or other gang members. The entire armed forces didn't stop 9/11. Nor did the armed republicans. What good have the guns been?
The Left is centralising power (bad) AND giving it away to other countries! :laugh4:
Feed, educate and provide for the people... Erm I think it's because you don't want them to be ignorant people sitting around and screwing. And who set up the healthcare? A Republican wasn't it?
Your voice might be drowned out as so few others are interested in what you have to say. No conspiracy required.
Pleased you got that bile out of your system. Amusing how one can get so angry the other side are guilty for things on both ends of the spectrum.
Don Corleone
08-09-2006, 14:23
Well, I hate to come out and publicly disagree with you Eclectic, but I think you're off base. Way off base.
For starters, I no longer see two parties at work within the US. There is only one... the party of "We've been elected and we want to stay that way". There is no statesmanship, no principal, no core belief any more. You can dismiss it as 'the lesser of two evils", but frankly, I lost the ability to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans in government. Why do I say that?
Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. They are supposed to be the party of limited government. Do you see anything in Medicaid PartD that even remotely smacks of limited government or fiscal responsiblity? Does it even help the old people it claims to?? No. The Bush administration has made the Republicans into the very caricature that Republicans have been tarred with in the past... a clearing house for big business to get funding out of the government (in this case, the pharmaceutical companies). And to keep your mind off these things, they dance out non-issues like a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage. Even if they were serious about it, it is a flyspeck of importance compared to our fiscal policy woes these days. And they're not serious about it!!! They're not even trying to get the damned thing passed. They want to keep it up on Capitol Hill so they can trot it out every 6 months to a year and say "we're working hard for your interests".
Democrats are no better. I'm not advocating jumping ship and going their way, as they have betrayed all of their populist-progressive ideology as well. At the end of the day, the only difference that I see between the Democrats and the Republicans is which particular lobbies are going to get more traction. I may even quit voting, just monitoring elections to rebalance my portfolio...
Hmmm, Democrats took the House? Better up my stake in Google and Microsoft. Hmm, Republicans increased their lead in the Senate? Need more energy and pharmaceutical stocks. One thing is for sure. A winning bet is to short sell the American taxpayer, every damned time.
My God, I've been possessed by KhafirChobee.:help:
Not really sure where you are getting this from. Who has controlled Congress since 1994? Who is currently consolidating federal power? Who has the backing of Fox News [sic], the end-all-be-all of cable news networks?
Rory and Don are right, it's all about staying in office and taking money from the companies, while putting up a good front for the people at home. Hopefully the incumbents get a nice shock this November, and we get a fresh batch that don't know how to take a bribe properly, at least for a few years.
Should this have been in the Drunkard's thread? :inquisitive:
Marshal Murat
08-09-2006, 17:13
Being armed is a basic American right, which means that if worse comes to worse, then I can pull out my shotgun/rifle/automatic weapon and do something about it.
Third parties never work.
They are a balance between the two, and they have the good mix of ideals. However, those ideas are quickly picked up by the two other parties. A third party should try to become the "newer, better" party, the unmarred political record, the refusal of bribes/donations/dinner invitations.
The reason, unfortunately, that a Third Party cannot work in this country is because there is not enough money to support it. Business doesn't want change, the parties don't want change--they want money. Money equals power and power equals money. There is no way another party trying to fix our sorry government can dig up enough cash or support to make a difference. Rory and Don are very cynically correct. Neither group wants anything to change, and that is a shame. I still love the idea of America, but I find myself less and less each day loving the reality of America. :(
On that note, I unabashadly love the NFL. America should stick around solely for that league to survive.
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 18:35
Well, I hate to come out and publicly disagree with you Eclectic, but I think you're off base. Way off base.
For starters, I no longer see two parties at work within the US. There is only one... the party of "We've been elected and we want to stay that way". There is no statesmanship, no principal, no core belief any more. You can dismiss it as 'the lesser of two evils", but frankly, I lost the ability to distinguish between Democrats and Republicans in government. Why do I say that?
Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. They are supposed to be the party of limited government. Do you see anything in Medicaid PartD that even remotely smacks of limited government or fiscal responsiblity? Does it even help the old people it claims to?? No. The Bush administration has made the Republicans into the very caricature that Republicans have been tarred with in the past... a clearing house for big business to get funding out of the government (in this case, the pharmaceutical companies). And to keep your mind off these things, they dance out non-issues like a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage. Even if they were serious about it, it is a flyspeck of importance compared to our fiscal policy woes these days. And they're not serious about it!!! They're not even trying to get the damned thing passed. They want to keep it up on Capitol Hill so they can trot it out every 6 months to a year and say "we're working hard for your interests".
Democrats are no better. I'm not advocating jumping ship and going their way, as they have betrayed all of their populist-progressive ideology as well. At the end of the day, the only difference that I see between the Democrats and the Republicans is which particular lobbies are going to get more traction. I may even quit voting, just monitoring elections to rebalance my portfolio...
Hmmm, Democrats took the House? Better up my stake in Google and Microsoft. Hmm, Republicans increased their lead in the Senate? Need more energy and pharmaceutical stocks. One thing is for sure. A winning bet is to short sell the American taxpayer, every damned time.
My God, I've been possessed by KhafirChobee.:help:
You're breakin my heart Don. I don't disagree with anything you have said here. The Republicans have been screwin up and overspending with pork and massive federal programs: department of homeland security should have been a inteligence/law enforcement resource coordination cabinet not a federal employee staff increase; no child left behind is a monster intrusion of the federal government into state and local responsibility; and you are word-for-word correct about Deadicare Part D.
BUT, for all the domestic failings of the GOP, the Dems will do far more damage. There is no restraint in the Democratic party. You will see massive boosts in entitelments all across the board: minimum wage increase, government health care, and tax increases galore. This is a FACT because they advertise this fact. The Republican electorate are at least desirous of fiscal restraint.
That domestic agenda is not even what I am worried about. The Democrats are desirous of an oligarchy in the United States. They want to consolidate power into the hands of the liberal elite and then destroy the constitution through liberal interpretation. What do you think a liberal in America is anyway? It's not the idealist philosophy of personal freedom in Europe; liberalism in America is nothing more than the liberal interpretation of the law, allowing maximum flexibility to fit the whims of the elites! Without a conservative reading, there is no law. The constitution must be interpretted as nearly to literal or originalist as is concievable to preserve the integrity of the document. To do anything else renders is without absolute meaning.
Once these bastards seize control, they can make the law anything they want to: (a) through flexible meaning or where that is impossible (b) through eradication of rights via amendments. The right to bear arms will be first. Then the freedom to assemble. What next? And when terrorsists attack us again, they will blame the right wing and use that to institute further domestic control.
Why do this? LegioulpavictirxVIXXXXIIVVVIVIVWhatever (I'll never get the name right) said it in the other thread: the citizens have a duty to retain their freedoms through diligence lest those freedoms be taken away. These bastards want control just like every other group of tyrants- their own power and glorification.
Here's the worst part. The Democrats and leftist liberals in this country have villified God. They blame the worship of God on all these wars and equate Judeo-Christian beliefs to Islamic Terrorism! The Democrats are the party of atheists. Now that God is out of the equation there is no ultimate good or evil, instead good and evil is determined by man. And in a nation ruled by a godless oligarchy, conquest and slavery is not far behind. We will become everything we have fought against.
And that is why civil war will occur in America once again. Democracy vs the Oligarchy. Its a scene that has been played out in history since the Peloponnesian War.
Just because our own party is making some errors does not mean we abandon it. That means we must have the balls to fix it. To make every effort to have our voices heard. To rise up and challenge the status quo by being proactively involved. Join the campaigns of those local and state officials you agree with- they are your future national leaders. Write and call your congressmen and senators. Go to rallies, call up the RNC, take the time to fill out those stupid RNC and senate majority leader surveys. Make your voice heard.
It takes more than voting. If all we do is speak through our vote alone, then we are destined to continue the pendulum and in case you haven't noticed, this one swings further out with each stroke.
ChewieTobbacca
08-09-2006, 19:03
The viewpoint you throw out Ecletic is exactly why there might be civil war - because you've decided to stay so polarized on one issue, there will be no compromise and thus conflict will arise. Until people in America (yes, everyone) learns what's really at stake and what comrpomise means, until people stop seeing views along polarized lines, then we will have conflict.
And FWIW people once believed that a few errors made by government could be forgotten/ignored - then the government continued to do so until they took over. Yes, many dictatorships and counter-democratic actions have been done in the name of democracy. Don't forget that - one should NEVER allow a party to make an error, for if they do, indifference is all it takes for it to continue.
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 19:11
The viewpoint you throw out Ecletic is exactly why there might be civil war - because you've decided to stay so polarized on one issue, there will be no compromise and thus conflict will arise.
This is nothing more than standing up for what you believe in. Should we have sit back and let the Nazis rule the world? Or were the Allies too "polarized"? Anything can be considered polarizing when you disagree.
That domestic agenda is not even what I am worried about. The Democrats are desirous of an oligarchy in the United States. They want to consolidate power into the hands of the liberal elite and then destroy the constitution through liberal interpretation. What do you think a liberal in America is anyway? It's not the idealist philosophy of personal freedom in Europe; liberalism in America is nothing more than the liberal interpretation of the law, allowing maximum flexibility to fit the whims of the elites!
As opposed to the Republicans, who are desirous of a oligarchy in the United States. They want to consolidate power into the hands of the rich, corporate elite and then destroy the constitution through liberal interpretation....
What I want is for one party to control Congress, and for the other to control the White House, and every so often, they switch branches. The country runs better when the folks in "power" have to get along with the other side to achieve that "power". Domination by either side is a train wreck waiting to happen.
A small, non-invasive, federal government is one of the conservative creeds, and the best way to achieve that is through gridlock. Not by voting straight ticket Republican.
ChewieTobbacca
08-09-2006, 19:27
This is nothing more than standing up for what you believe in. Should we have sit back and let the Nazis rule the world? Or were the Allies too "polarized"? Anything can be considered polarizing when you disagree.
This isn't an issue of Nazi's or Allies or anything WW2. This isn't about OTHER countries. This is about OUR country.
If you believe that destroying other citizens ideas or one political side in the name of protecting this country's freedoms, then you have destroyed the very freedoms you have been fighting for.
ChewieTobbacca
08-09-2006, 19:29
Anyways, my personal believe is one of libertarian - the smaller less invasive the government is, the better we all are.
My view is that the REAL enemy isn't the other political party - its the government. Once governments take more power from the people, it will NEVER give it back. Every bit we give to them is every bit we lose. My enemies aren't the other American people - its the big government that BOTH parties have created and keeps.
Don Corleone
08-09-2006, 19:32
Aaah, Ecletic. You let them play you like a fiddle still... You really don't get it, do you?
Pick an issue, any issue. Develop what the principled course of action on this issue would be using the principle of limited government and right of self-determination. Heck, for that matter, develop what the principled course of action for the Democrats would be, under the principle of "I am my brother's keeper and responsible for his failings".
Now, sit down and peruse how 'not quite so bad' Republicans and the 'scarier than damnation itself' Democrats have actually acted on the issue. I bet, if you were only allowed to look at their voting records and what action they've actually taken on the issue, what they've done, not what they've said... you wouldn't be able to tell the Ds from the Rs without the little letters next to their names.
I'm serious on this... take ANY issue. Abortion: Did Democrats make it any more affordable for poor women when they were in power? Did they take steps to see it become unnecessary, as opposed to illegal, as they once promised? No, the numbers have increased many times from the original numbers. There's been no decrease. Women are now having 4, even 5 in a lifetime. Have Republicans been successful at preventing even the most heinous of procedures that our 'Liberal' European friends forbid, extraction and dilation in the 3rd trimester? No. They haven't. Why? Because for both sides, this issue is a gold mine. The Left terrorizes their base with the fear that the Right wants to outlaw it. And the Right whips their base into a frenzy with moral outrage and indignation. They fight for the whole enchilada, and refuse to back down one inch... It must be illegal, even if it's to save the woman's life, or no deal. And in the end... status quo. Nothing changes, except for money from the people to their respective lobbies: NARAL and National Right to Life.
Go ahead, you choose the next issue. I tell you all the piss and vinegar from each side, and then show you how on that issue, after all the rhetoric, there's scant difference between the positions taken by both/the one party(s).
How can you have a civil war when in reality, there's only one side?
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 20:19
A fiddle? You go too far.
Again, I do not disagree with your perspective in principle. But you are not wholly correct. Taking your abortion issue, just to cite one. The vast and overwhelming majority of Republicans, even those "controlling christians", have an understanding when it comes to the life of the mother. The vast reasoned so-called middle of America support, at the very least, saving the life of the mother. As for the ethics of "convience" abortion: Must we go deeper? I'll not do it here. The more polarized group on this is the Democrats with the all-or-nothing approach. Here is polling data galore: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
While looking at the stats keep in mind that the U.S. is pretty much 50-50 Gop-Dem and that puts the general Republican impression of abortion into perspective.
Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00003:@@@D&summ2=m&
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.
Defines a "partial-birth abortion" as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother's body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.
Here is how the vote went down:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051
Vote Counts:
YEAs 64
NAYs 33
Not Voting 3
The Nays (2 Republicans voted nay):
NAYs ---33
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
So here is an issue where the a human child is killed as it is born and there is no danger to the mother. The Republicans want to ban JUST THAT, and what do the majority of Dems think? *Ahem* *Cough cough*
Don't tell me the Republicans are polarized issue by issue. If anyone is being claimed by the fiddle, is is our prestigious Godfather. This liberal media machine is wrappings its dirty little claws around good conservatives and it makes me sick.
You make me smile, Eclectic.
In a sad way.
Don Corleone
08-09-2006, 20:33
A fiddle? You go too far.
Again, I do not disagree with your perspective in principle. But you are not wholly correct. Taking your abortion issue, just to cite one. The vast and overwhelming majority of Republicans, even those "controlling christians", have an understanding when it comes to the life of the mother. The vast reasoned so-called middle of America support, at the very least, saving the life of the mother. As for the ethics of "convience" abortion: Must we go deeper? I'll not do it here. The more polarized group on this is the Democrats with the all-or-nothing approach. Here is polling data galore: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
While looking at the stats keep in mind that the U.S. is pretty much 50-50 Gop-Dem and that puts the general Republican impression of abortion into perspective.
Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00003:@@@D&summ2=m&
Here is how the vote went down:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00051
The Nays (2 Republicans voted nay):
So here is an issue where the a human child is killed as it is born and there is no danger to the mother. The Republicans want to ban JUST THAT, and what do the majority of Dems think? *Ahem* *Cough cough*
Don't tell me the Republicans are polarized issue by issue. If anyone is being claimed by the fiddle, is is our prestigious Godfather. This liberal media machine is wrappings its dirty little claws around good conservatives and it makes me sick.
Oh, Ecletic, relax. I'm as libertarian now as I ever was. I just go through these phases where I wake up and realize how icky the whole process is. I mean, at the end of the day, voting Republican or voting Democrat is choosing the leper with the most body parts left, no?
Here's my point. Republicans knew going into the 3rd trimester abortion ban they needed to get a large chunk of Democrats to side with them. Why? Because they knew (or should have known) that there was a very good chance a federal appeals court would strike it down. This means constitutional action. This means 2/3 majority. This means Democrats on your team.
How do you get a Democrat, who's already being told he's too far to the right for his leadership's liking to actually sign on and put a 75% tally on the vote (implying to the appeals court that the constitutional work isn't far behind and thus, reducing the likelihood that it would be struck down?) You have to have a compromise. You have to give him the ability to defend himself on the issue (it's JUST 3rd trimester abortions... no sneaky language about morning-after pills) AND you have to give him something he wants to make it worth his while, that he can hold up to his constituency as what he got out of it... maybe increased funding for inner city clinics. Maybe a codified 'mininum service' requirement signed into law for nursing homes. Maybe even an agreement to send a couple of Republicans across the aisle and approve the morning.
The point is, you're doing what it takes to see the job through to completion.
You could argue, and I am, that conservative Republican senators never wanted the 3rd trimester abortion ban to be put into place. They knew going into it what it would take. Even an amateur like me can see it. But did they do any of these things? No. They screamed, and yelled, and thundered "NO COMPROMISE. NO WAY". Result? The vote you posted and an immediate stay from a federal appeals court.
Progress? :oops:
And I'm not even warming up. I've become cynical enough that I've come to see how failed votes work... look at the Democrats who voted for your bill. All are in conservative areas. The Democratic leadership, once they made their own internal tally and saw to it that the Republicans wouldn't get the ammendment-making plurality, okayed these Democrats to vote in favor of it, knowing full well it would never stand. And that's not a Democrat only trick. Look at how Republicans vote on spending bills they know are going to fail in an election year.... "Gee people, I tried to get more pork for us, but the bill failed. Them's the breaks". I don't know what the official term for it is, voting a position you don't hold because you know it won't be enacted anyway, but I call it a CYA vote, and both sides do them.
As for me dancing to the tune of the pied piper in the 'put your mind to sleep' Mainstream media, you do know that I'm reduced to the WSJ, the Washington Post, a few internet sites and the McNeil Lehrer Newshour for my info these days, right? I haven't watched any network news, including CNN & Foxnews, in over 4 years now.
What do you want? The current American system is just not working, almost to the point that it is idiot. I mean a two party system in wich you can win without having the most votes, in wich if you win you've got almost all power? There should be a mot more partys wich would need to form groups to gain a more then 50% of the votes. Then have to divide power and make an issue agreement in wich they declare what they want to reaslize in the next 4 (?) years,...
That system wouldn't be perfect either but at least better. Ofcourse it is almost impossible to change the system now. But that doesn't make it less silly.
And Eclectic, you're kidding right? I won't say that the democrats or republicans have done only bad things. (tough probably more then good things). But both are about the same when it comes to that. Both are polarized,... They are politicians for gods sake! What did you expect?
And yes probably there are good people out there who want to make a change but 99% of the time they don't get there or they get crooked themselves.
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 20:40
Progress? :oops:
Absolutely. So long as the Republicans take the white house again. Why? Because when old Stevens croaks or quits, that appeals court won't make a damn bit of difference. Right up the chain. And then murdering human beings at birth will be outlawed.
This also shows the absolute insanity of the Democrats. What would be a compromise to you on this issue Don? There is none. They already compromised by doing the right thing by considering the life of the mother as first. There is no other compromise on this one specific issue. Tell it to me. I want to know.
edit:
As for me dancing to the tune of the pied piper in the 'put your mind to sleep' Mainstream media, you do know that I'm reduced to the WSJ, the Washington Post, a few internet sites and the McNeil Lehrer Newshour for my info these days, right? I haven't watched any network news, including CNN & Foxnews, in over 4 years now.
Would you like a chocolate? I have chocolates. ~D
In all seriousness, it isn't just TV. It's the talk around the town. It's the conversation people have with family, friends, and a result of what is in the national consciousness. The liberal media machine infects popular culture and spreads like a virus through the zombies. Look out Don. You may have been bitten by the spin zombie and never even realized it. And for the record, I take it all in, be it Al Jazeera, CNN, the New York Times, or Fox. Right, left, martian- I get my info from every side so I can be aware of the information filter itself in every case. Each side has its spin. But the Dems own more, have greater resources, and thus have a larger louder more acceptable voice.
Using the partial-abortion case, the all-or-nothing scenario still applies from a political aspect. Many of those that voted Nay on PA did so not because they think it is right, but because the need to satisfy the lobbies that track such votes and throw their support behind pro-choice candidates. A Yea vote would cost them, even if it is the right thing to do. The Pro-Choice movement firmly believes that any legislation restricting abortion will eventually lead to a ban (give an inch, they take your body).
The same can be said for the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies. They do not want any more laws restricting ownership, even the ones that might make sense (give an inch, they take your guns). The NRA will try to kill the political career of anyone that votes for a gun restriction or ban. This is no different, just from the other side of the aisle.
On a side note, another example of Don's poisoned lawmaking would be the minimum wage hike that just got killed. Now the Reps can say, "hey we tried to help the little guy, but the Dems wouldn't go along", while failing to mention the estate tax cut hidden inside the bill...
Don Corleone
08-09-2006, 20:50
You may hold that making an exception for the life of the mother is a compromise. I might. Others may. It might even be a majority (but I don't think it is). But, at the end of the day, the congressman from whom you are soliciting a vote doesn't care what the rest of America thinks. He has to care what his particular voters think.
What would be a compromise on the partial birth abortion ban? Hmmm, how about federally funded inner city clinics? What about providing free contraception at hospitals? Take steps to reduce the demand for abortion?
Or, why limit it to just this issue. Maybe said Democrat is willing to trade for a relaxation in terms on an upcoming labor bill, one that will require fully funded pensions to provide documentation to prove they are fully funded. Hey, you yourself might even support something like that.
My point is, politics is all horsetrading. You can't sit there and say "I've got 54 senators and I've got 225 reps, so you have to do whatever i say". It doesn't work that way. Our laws are setup explicitly to prevent that sort of thing from happening. So, even when you have the majority, you still have to work with the other side. Refusing to is as bad as never working towards your agenda in the first place, because in the end, the result is the same.
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 21:09
You may hold that making an exception for the life of the mother is a compromise. I might. Others may. It might even be a majority (but I don't think it is). But, at the end of the day, the congressman from whom you are soliciting a vote doesn't care what the rest of America thinks. He has to care what his particular voters think.
What would be a compromise on the partial birth abortion ban? Hmmm, how about federally funded inner city clinics? What about providing free contraception at hospitals? Take steps to reduce the demand for abortion?
Or, why limit it to just this issue. Maybe said Democrat is willing to trade for a relaxation in terms on an upcoming labor bill, one that will require fully funded pensions to provide documentation to prove they are fully funded. Hey, you yourself might even support something like that.
My point is, politics is all horsetrading. You can't sit there and say "I've got 54 senators and I've got 225 reps, so you have to do whatever i say". It doesn't work that way. Our laws are setup explicitly to prevent that sort of thing from happening. So, even when you have the majority, you still have to work with the other side. Refusing to is as bad as never working towards your agenda in the first place, because in the end, the result is the same.
This ain't no closing argument Don. I'm responding to this:
Now, sit down and peruse how 'not quite so bad' Republicans and the 'scarier than damnation itself' Democrats have actually acted on the issue. I bet, if you were only allowed to look at their voting records and what action they've actually taken on the issue, what they've done, not what they've said... you wouldn't be able to tell the Ds from the Rs without the little letters next to their names.
I have just shown you solid evidence of stance on an issue- a clearcut issue that you picked- where the Ds and Rs do matter.
How can you possibly argue polarization and similarity in the same thread? You say they are identical but that they are too polarized and must work together. My only point is that running away from the party is exactly what the leftist media wants. The going is tough. So lets support our stake on the issues and fight within the party. You're a libertarian, so act like one and stay within the liberty caucus (http://www.rlc.org/?p=FAQ#4884). Don't go running into the arms of the leftists who seek to destroy the power of the individual.
Kanamori
08-09-2006, 21:10
It's funny how such a leftistist-liberal culture and nation have elected such a conservative majority... Am I missing something? Maybe the reason you and Dave see such bleak-'liberal' futures is becasue you spend your time feeding your strange obsessions w/ disgusting yourselves by looking for the most outlandish 'liberal' talk that you can find on the internet.
Don Corleone
08-09-2006, 21:15
My position is simple. I am not willing to evaluate politicians on what they say. I only evaluate them on what they do. Republicans said that they would find a way to end 3rd trimester abortions. Well, 12 years of both houses and 6 years of the White House to boot, they're no closer to the goal, more are performed today than in 1993. So, in reality, they haven't done anything. You say but, they voted. I say, yes, but they knew going into it that a vote, by itself, wouldn't be enough. They didn't do what was required to accomplish their stated goal (one I happened to agree with).
Put another way, if I put the mute button on my TV, what exactly have the Republicans accomplished in terms of actually reducing the number of 3rd trimester abortions performed each year?
Call it the engineer in me, but I'm all about results oriented evaluation. I haven't seen any out of the Republicans.
Strike For The South
08-09-2006, 21:16
The problem is not the American people its the morons we elect. Only nut jobs come out for congress and senate races. The key is trying to get normal people to vote. Not to mention people get all outta whack when there guy goes across party lines Liberman is a great example of this. He votes dem 90% of the time and he is villanized as a republican lover. People get to cuaght in the party and not the issue.
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 21:22
My position is simple. I am not willing to evaluate politicians on what they say. I only evaluate them on what they do. Republicans said that they would find a way to end 3rd trimester abortions. Well, 12 years of both houses and 6 years of the White House to boot, they're no closer to the goal, more are performed today than in 1993. So, in reality, they haven't done anything. You say but, they voted. I say, yes, but they knew going into it that a vote, by itself, wouldn't be enough. They didn't do what was required to accomplish their stated goal (one I happened to agree with).
Put another way, if I put the mute button on my TV, what exactly have the Republicans accomplished in terms of actually reducing the number of 3rd trimester abortions performed each year?
Call it the engineer in me, but I'm all about results oriented evaluation. I haven't seen any out of the Republicans.
So that is an excuse to flee? Do you think that the Democrats will provide better when they blatantly advertise that they will muck everything up with a socialist anti-defense agenda?
Don Corleone
08-09-2006, 21:27
I distinctly remember saying, several times, in the Backroom over the past week that I would consider voting Democrat, if only I could find one even remotely palatable. Translation: Not voting Democrat either.
I'm voting Libertarian. It's not throwing my vote away. I used to think that, but you know, if everyone buys that party line, then we're just as guilty of the status quo as the clowns in Washington. It's time for a change. Hell, I'd even vote for Nader at this point, not because I agree with him on a single issue, but at least I can believe that HE believes in it...
Divinus Arma
08-09-2006, 21:29
I distinctly remember saying, several times, in the Backroom over the past week that I would consider voting Democrat, if only I could find one even remotely palatable. Translation: Not voting Democrat either.
I'm voting Libertarian. It's not throwing my vote away. I used to think that, but you know, if everyone buys that party line, then we're just as guilty of the status quo as the clowns in Washington. It's time for a change. Hell, I'd even vote for Nader at this point, not because I agree with him on a single issue, but at least I can believe that HE believes in it...
So vote for candidates that are supported by the Republican Liberty Caucas. These are libertarians who actually try to get things done by working within the system to get their candidates elected.
Duke John
08-10-2006, 08:00
How can you possibly argue polarization and similarity in the same thread?
I think what Don tried to say is that both parties do the same dirty tricks and in the end care more for their own power than for their average voter. In that sense they are similar. On the other hand there is polarization as the Democrats portray the Rupiblicans as "evil" and vice versa. It's up to the voter to see through the polarization.
Divinus Arma
08-10-2006, 08:32
I think what Don tried to say is that both parties do the same dirty tricks and in the end care more for their own power than for their average voter. In that sense they are similar. On the other hand there is polarization as the Democrats portray the Rupiblicans as "evil" and vice versa. It's up to the voter to see through the polarization.
Well I can't argue with that. You are 100% correct.
There is only one real distinguishing difference: The Democrat Party Platform is to consolidate power and expand government. The Republican Party does not have that platform, and while they may have made some decisions contrary to their own party platform, it has only made them weaker. Thus I choose the party that screwed up and made mistakes over the party that will intentionally choose to make mistakes.
ChewieTobbacca
08-10-2006, 10:18
Well I can't argue with that. You are 100% correct.
There is only one real distinguishing difference: The Democrat Party Platform is to consolidate power and expand government. The Republican Party does not have that platform, and while they may have made some decisions contrary to their own party platform, it has only made them weaker. Thus I choose the party that screwed up and made mistakes over the party that will intentionally choose to make mistakes.
Ah you see this is where I would differ - i would vote for neither party and vote for a platform that fits me better - for instance, the libertarian platform. Unfortunately, there is an idea in this country that not voting is better than voting for the third-party since "they'll never win anyways."
Yeah, and the Republican party was once essentially a third-party that eventually garnered support and power.
What's actually really ironic is that once, a long time ago, the Republican party was the big party on federal government and federal power while the Democrats were the grass-roots states-right party. Now, they're just parties to get re-elected for these professional politicians.
AntiochusIII
08-10-2006, 12:23
See, Eclectic, your viewpoint is tiring because you absolutely view "the other side" as a terrible monster hell-bent on destroying the world the moment it is crowned on the throne, and "your side" as something of an angel-gone-wrong or a lost child that ought to be brought back to its original position, or something...
That is exactly the problem with America today.
Look, Democrats and Republicans are terrible terms to describe a political position, so why not just throw these damn names out of the window and look at the person for once? Who cares if you -- by God's evil grace -- have to vote a DONKEY!!! instead of a freakin' ELEPHANT!!! if the individual whom you're voting for supports the political position of yours?
What the United States require is a breakdown of the ancien regime and the rise of a more fragmented one; but, then again, what's a liberal's voice worth?
I want to hear more about this civil war. When is it going to start? Do I have enough canned goods and shotgun ammunition? Will it be more of a classic civil war, or will it quickly turn into a battle between villagers and the Lord Humongous and his leathermen?
Details, I want details.
I'm impressed by your observation skills. The assumed fortress of leftist liberal agenda, Scandinavia and northern Europe haven't noticed this yet. :laugh4:
Speak for yourselfe. I think Swedish media is left-vinged.
A large majority of journalists are lefties too...
Ironside
08-10-2006, 18:11
Speak for yourselfe. I think Swedish media is left-vinged.
A large majority of journalists are lefties too...
And that indicates that they're a coherent and vital part of a bigger plan to get the NWO to unite the world under the banner of Socialism (non-democratic version) how?
As for media bias, always ask yourself what truly unbiased news would look like, compare it how it's reported and compare it to how you would have it reported.
I want to hear more about this civil war. When is it going to start? Do I have enough canned goods and shotgun ammunition? Will it be more of a classic civil war, or will it quickly turn into a battle between villagers and the Lord Humongous and his leathermen?
Details, I want details.
If your wife makes me brownie's with lots of nuts and chocolate. I promise that my hordes of gimp suited leathermen will save your current state of residence for last when we begin our conquest of the former United States of America when the civil war does erupt.
Kralizec
08-10-2006, 19:49
So here is an issue where the a human child is killed as it is born and there is no danger to the mother. The Republicans want to ban JUST THAT, and what do the majority of Dems think? *Ahem* *Cough cough*
Don't tell me the Republicans are polarized issue by issue. If anyone is being claimed by the fiddle, is is our prestigious Godfather. This liberal media machine is wrappings its dirty little claws around good conservatives and it makes me sick.
"partial birth abortion" is a populist misnomer that pro-life politicians have created for specific mid or late abortions. This alone was probably a reason for many democrats to vote against it.
Some interesting information for both sides: clickey (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm) (warning: contains descriptions that might unsettle you)
Personally I'm against abortion after 2 months of pregnancy. I'm therefore against the method, as it's not used before the second trimester.
Broadly speaking, Democrats and Republicans differ more in their empty rethoric then in their actions.
Louis VI the Fat
08-10-2006, 20:12
I'm no conspiracy theorist. UFOs, Area 51, "Bush Lied", 9/11 was missles, Saquatch, the boogie man: These are all just vehicles for the extremist paranoid or those that make money off them. Despite this, I'm starting to see a really scary trend in the United States that bodes ill for all: The leftist liberal agenda to dominate the world. I know I know. My, feeling a bit paranoid today, Eclectic?
Reid my lips: there is no leftist liberal conspiracy in the US.
Kanamori
08-10-2006, 21:50
Does it seem a bit perverse to anyone else to name your lips after Harry Reid?
Viva la Revolution I always say.
Louis VI the Fat
08-10-2006, 23:45
Yo, Eclectic:
:wink3:
https://img79.imageshack.us/img79/4248/vacaani3ws4.gif
Louis VI the Fat
08-10-2006, 23:46
Does it seem a bit perverse to anyone else to name your lips after Harry Reid?I couldn't nail the Sheehanigan or Obama Bin Laden puns I had in mind at first. :balloon2:
It's funny how such a leftistist-liberal culture and nation have elected such a conservative majority... Am I missing something? Maybe the reason you and Dave see such bleak-'liberal' futures is becasue you spend your time feeding your strange obsessions w/ disgusting yourselves by looking for the most outlandish 'liberal' talk that you can find on the internet.
Aye. We came so close though in 2004. In reality Gore lost the popluar vote by about 1.5 million. Still, made it all the way to the Leftist Supreme Court which had been eroding the laws for so long.
Don Corleone
08-11-2006, 03:32
"partial birth abortion" is a populist misnomer that pro-life politicians have created for specific mid or late abortions. This alone was probably a reason for many democrats to vote against it.
Some interesting information for both sides: clickey (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm) (warning: contains descriptions that might unsettle you)
Personally I'm against abortion after 2 months of pregnancy. I'm therefore against the method, as it's not used before the second trimester.
Broadly speaking, Democrats and Republicans differ more in their empty rethoric then in their actions.
Very, very interesting website, Kralizec. I would say I found it enlightening, except, in the "Why are they performed section", there are absolutely no references, no statistics to prove that it's always in the case of: life of mother; long term health of mother; fetus already dead or will die.
It's been a little while, but when this issue came up last year, I found a statistic on the Planned Parenthood webpage that estimated 3100 D&E's are performed a year and approximately 60% of those were elective.
But it's gonna take me a while to find that link again, so if you want to call BullShhhhht, I can't back it up right now. I just know it's a lot more elective than you or that website think (and I'm pro-choice in the first trimester).
Don Corleone
08-11-2006, 03:35
Back on topic... I don't know, laugh all you want. Eclectic's not the only guy on the right to echo these sentiments (though I wish he'd set them aside). Likewise, there's plenty on the far left Daily Kos crowd that are equally ready to start shooting up malls in red states...
People... at the end of the day... we're on the same side.
Crazed Rabbit
08-11-2006, 06:10
Bah! When the revolution comes I'm seizing control of my corner of the state. Then I'll control a majority of the US's raspberry production! (I think) (not to mention a lot of oil production).
Seriously, I get angry whenever I see people self righteously arguing for estate taxes (they're fair, they help the next generation...wtf? How, by taking their parents money and destroying inter-generational businesses?) or partial birth abortion. It's not so much that they're for it, its the arrogant sense of superiourity, the "its for the good of the people" line. I'm sick of the socialists and wish we could ship them all out to china or cuba.
Of course, the drunken sailor GOP is not much better.
But still, we've had congress and the presidency for what, six years? And basically nothing done. No stupid gun laws repealed, no large regulations done away with, nothing.
I think, if it came to civil war, it'd be armed & angry conservatives on one side and the lefties in power with their ATF and other assorted thugs. Most of them fear guns, after all.
Crazed Rabbit
But still, we've had congress and the presidency for what, six years? And basically nothing done. No stupid gun laws repealed, no large regulations done away with, nothing.Well, at least we got a tax cut.... and um.... the AWB sunset? Hmm, nope, not alot for 6 years. :no:
I think the biggest achievement has been the SCOTUS appointments- but we still need at least one more of them. That'd be great, but still not a very impressive resume.
Don Corleone
08-11-2006, 14:08
I don't agree with estate taxes. Let me state that first and foremost. But by the same token, I understand and can respectfully disagree with them.
The idea behind estate taxes is that the USA is supposed to be a meritocracy, not a hereditary oligarchy. We all talk about 'the level playing field'. How level is it if Carlton No-brain IV gets $15 million and a seat on Mobil-Exxon's board at age 21?
The problem that I have with the argument, which has its merits, is that there is a presumption that the wealth held by an individual in reality belongs to the government and is only on loan to said individual for the duration of their corporeal life. Any argument that relies on the assumption that government creates wealth (it doesn't) or generates productivity (it cannot) is inherently flawed. All a government can do is redistribute.
At the end of the day, the argument for estate taxes is the same argument for any sort of collectivization (which most people see as wrong). The only difference is, the victim of the collectivization in this case cannot plead their case.
. Any argument that relies on the assumption that government creates wealth (it doesn't) or generates productivity (it cannot) is inherently flawed. All a government can do is redistribute.
If the government cannot create wealth nor generate productivity, what is the best that we can say for it when it comes to those two topics. How can they effect wealth and productivity ? Only in a negative manner ? Can they spur, if not wealth, productivity ?
As to redistribution, isn't that focusing on the action and not the result ? Does Peyton Manning produce touchdowns or does he merely throw passes ?
Likewise, there's plenty on the far left Daily Kos crowd that are equally ready to start shooting up malls in red states...
I kinda doubt it. The left in this country, from what I've seen, is more apathetic than anything else. If you want fire, thunder and threat of secession, you really have to go to the far right. It goes without saying that religious extremists can provide all of the end-of-world scenarios you could ever want.
If you have any examples of violent, revolutionary rhetoric from the left, I'd love to see it. I don't read Kos, so it's very possible I'm missing out on the fun ...
Kanamori
08-11-2006, 18:00
Killing over petty issues of politics, how pathetic.
I kinda doubt it. The left in this country, from what I've seen, is more apathetic than anything else. If you want fire, thunder and threat of secession, you really have to go to the far right. It goes without saying that religious extremists can provide all of the end-of-world scenarios you could ever want.
If you have any examples of violent, revolutionary rhetoric from the left, I'd love to see it. I don't read Kos, so it's very possible I'm missing out on the fun ...
There's kooks on both sides to be sure. -A quick example would be Al Franken physically beating down a heckler at a Howard Dead rally...:dizzy2: And you must not remember all the sucession talk (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041109-122753-5113r.htm) going around in liberal circles post election. Google for "liberal secession" if you want to hear from the kook left blogosphere on the matter. Then there were the people who applied to emigrate to Canada... or went to Japan.
Don Corleone
08-11-2006, 21:36
If the government cannot create wealth nor generate productivity, what is the best that we can say for it when it comes to those two topics. How can they effect wealth and productivity ? Only in a negative manner ? Can they spur, if not wealth, productivity ?
As to redistribution, isn't that focusing on the action and not the result ? Does Peyton Manning produce touchdowns or does he merely throw passes ?
Show me how the government creates wealth or produces anything. They don't. They simply transfer funds from one party to another: taking by taxing and giving by appropriation.
The US government didn't pay to build the Seawolf, you and I did. They didn't build it, General Dynamics did. All they did was take money from one party and give it to another.
The government can incentivize. Through their tax policies, they can encourage certain behaviors and inhibit others. Example: the government wants you to own a house, as countless reams of data show that when you own a house, you're a more compliant, obediant citizen. So, they allow you to deduct your mortgage interest on your taxes, encouraging you to purchase a house (as there is no deduction for rent paid). But they didn't build the house. They didn't buy it and they didn't sell it.
Now, there is another whole school of thought which I believe Idaho believes in. (If I'm wrong, I hope he'll politely correct me, as it's an honest mistake). It's one of those fundamental principle type of arguments... do you believe a drawing is a white page with black lines or a black page with white shapes?
You can't argue conclusively that all wealth is private enterprise or collective enterprise. You can only as a society agree that it's one or it's the other. If society agrees to structure itself that way, Idaho's argument that 100% of your salary belongs to the government and you're allowed to keep some as a tax exemption is in fact perfectly valid, within that framework. Fortunately, we in the USA don't operate in that framework. We have collectively agreed upon private enterprise.
Lemur,
Remind me to show you some of the websites from right after the November elections. I was actually pretty shocked and surprised to see the vitriol and the demand from the far Left that we separate into two countries, red and blue.
Show me how the government creates wealth or produces anything. They don't. They simply transfer funds from one party to another: taking by taxing and giving by appropriation.
The US government didn't pay to build the Seawolf, you and I did. They didn't build it, General Dynamics did. All they did was take money from one party and give it to another.
The government can incentivize. Through their tax policies, they can encourage certain behaviors and inhibit others. Example: the government wants you to own a house, as countless reams of data show that when you own a house, you're a more compliant, obediant citizen. So, they allow you to deduct your mortgage interest on your taxes, encouraging you to purchase a house (as there is no deduction for rent paid). But they didn't build the house. They didn't buy it and they didn't sell it.
So Peyton Manning does not score touchdowns, he merely distributes the ball and incents good behaviour with his wide receivers and running backs ? What a worthless sack.
Actually, to use your Seawolf analogy, Payton didn't score touchdowns, but neither did Marvin Harrison. You and I did! Because its our entertainment money at work.
Remind me to show you some of the websites from right after the November elections. I was actually pretty shocked and surprised to see the vitriol and the demand from the far Left that we separate into two countries, red and blue.
Are you talking about that hilarious map that was being sent around? I thought that was all in good fun:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/jesusland-1.jpg
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-11-2006, 23:32
Do you realize that that map is almost exactly the old Imperial British territory?
Its like this in Europe either, no one cares, no one votes and no politician beleives in anything. Maybe you'll have a Civil War but you'll have to fight Islam, China and Europe first.
The next twenty years are going to read like Tom Clancy.
AntiochusIII
08-11-2006, 23:53
Do you realize that that map is almost exactly the old Imperial British territory?No it's not. California is a pretty big discrepancy to dispute that relatively flexible statement. Viva la Calexico!
Its like this in Europe either, no one cares, no one votes and no politician beleives in anything. Maybe you'll have a Civil War but you'll have to fight Islam, China and Europe first.Apparently a lot of people actually care: when you consider people in *ahem* this thread, whining, complaining, discussing, and generally interacting in a cynical manner always, one would get an impression of extreme apathy.
If one reads behind the lines, however, it could be concluded that many will still vote, many will still think Abortion is God the Graceful's worst nemesis, or God's Given Glorious Right (depends), and vote politically for that essentially social issue; many will still think along partisan lines, even when they complain about "their" party; many will still echo the universal statement of "politicians sucks, sucks, and, dammit, man, SUCKS!", and yet they will still vote for someone, and often not holding their breath at it either. It's almost pathetic how major political factions with more-or-less like opinions could be formed in such a complex world. Israel? Only a small difference could be seen between Israel-supporters and general "Rightists," or Israel-detractors and the general "Leftists." Abortion? There it is. Even self-proclaimed libertarians gulp back their identities to support their position, etc.
Politics isn't dying, ideologues are still as alive as they ever were and far more than they should ever be.
The next twenty years are going to read like Tom Clancy.That sucks, then. I'd rather have a Harry Potter new world, with Hogwarts, trolls, and the like.
Crazed Rabbit
08-12-2006, 00:05
.... and um.... the AWB sunset?
A bunch of blind, dumb, deaf, not to mention dead and inanimate monkeys could have accomplished that. The GOP has fritted away power and political capital and played sissy ball.
Speaking of mad dems, after the 2004 election, a girl in my high school looked at the paper and said 'Bush got elected because of all the hicks.'
Crazed Rabbit
Claudius the God
08-20-2006, 09:46
IMO, the next U.S. Civil War will probably be the liberals against those who are turning the U.S.A. into a police state... or worse...
Though won't be upon us for a while.
Seriously now, what's with all of this loose talk about revoution and secession? Does anybody really think something like that's going to happen within our lifetimes, or is this just a bit of steam being blown off?
Personally, I think the United States will split asunder when pigs fly, hell freezes over and a Republican president restrains spending.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.