Good news...
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
stands poised to turn it into the wonderful, peaceful, non-threatening, social welfare state the rest of the world so desperately wants us to b
The only bit we give a damn about is peaceful. The US is a very war like country, and the rest of the world pays the price.
Stan Shannon wrote:
SPending money on health care for illegal aliens rather than on our military and all that.
Again, the US is a very war like nation, but, I don't think too many people think you should give your illegals health care. You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Add that to saving the entire world from economic ruin, and you have a guy who could quite concievably be acceptable to most of the decmoratic societies of the world as the first elected leader of a global government of some kind.
If you mean the UN, that's possible. Of course, unless the UN has an army, he won't be a global leader in any meaningful sense, just as no other UN leader has been.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is a very war like country, and the rest of the world pays the price.
Yep, Germany and Japan certainly paid it. Australia had to put up with all those damn yanks defending it. Poor babies.
Christian Graus wrote:
You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
No, our economy founders on the bodies of illegals who poison us by not washing their hands before coming back from the bathroom - let alone on what they cost in free health care, free schooling, etc
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
How big a military do you need and how big is too big?
I can tell you this. The most expensive army is the one that loses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Actually, it's even more sinister (or at least hypocritical) than that: Soros made his fortune of $9B as a speculator, and primarily as a short-seller. He prospers the most in a declining market, so maybe he's just trying to improve his prospects by encouraging the markets to drop.
Rob Graham wrote:
He prospers the most in a declining market,
Which means he should now have a fortune of 18B?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is a very war like country, and the rest of the world pays the price.
Yep, Germany and Japan certainly paid it. Australia had to put up with all those damn yanks defending it. Poor babies.
Christian Graus wrote:
You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
No, our economy founders on the bodies of illegals who poison us by not washing their hands before coming back from the bathroom - let alone on what they cost in free health care, free schooling, etc
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Yep, Germany and Japan certainly paid it. Australia had to put up with all those damn yanks defending it. Poor babies.
Sure - it's winning WWII that got the US all fired up into thinking it could run the world. I was thinking more of unwarranted attacks on other countries, such as Vietnam, or Iraq, that have since messed with peace in the world.
Oakman wrote:
our economy founders on the bodies of illegals who poison us by not washing their hands before coming back from the bathroom
Well, if you had some sort of civilised health care system, that might be true. :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
The US loves it's army. There is no such thing as 'too big'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The US loves it's army.
They might but from reports dating to around Oct 2006, recruitment has been falling away allegedly because of the "War on Terror" to around 90% of target. Although new incentive bonuses for recruits from $20,000 to $40,000 should rectify the target deficiency.
-
In the UK there are over one million doctors, nurses and others that form our National Health Service. That number makes the UK's NHS one of the world's largest employers. But that number is dwarfed by the numbers that makes up the armed forces of the United States. So rather than spend money on USA health etc..., you would much prefer even more money spent on your military. Tell me, is for for new equipment? is it for new soldiers/sailors/airmen? How much more money do you want spent, and where do you suppose this money is coming from given the current state of Federal finances and the National Debt which incidentally Obama has suggested will be ruthlessly cut within the next few years. How big a military do you need and how big is too big?
The US military is one of the few constitutionally sanctioned expenditures the federal government actually has. The constitution gives the US government no authority to manage any health care program. It does give it the authority to defend the country. I am for as much as it takes to ensure the nation is properly defended. Even if that means nothing goes to health care and every penny goes to the military. And, btw, thanks for validating my point. The reason you guys want so much for us to spend more on social welfare is specifically because we will have less to spend on our military. Which is odd considering that our military is the only thing protecting your own freedoms.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
stands poised to turn it into the wonderful, peaceful, non-threatening, social welfare state the rest of the world so desperately wants us to b
The only bit we give a damn about is peaceful. The US is a very war like country, and the rest of the world pays the price.
Stan Shannon wrote:
SPending money on health care for illegal aliens rather than on our military and all that.
Again, the US is a very war like nation, but, I don't think too many people think you should give your illegals health care. You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Add that to saving the entire world from economic ruin, and you have a guy who could quite concievably be acceptable to most of the decmoratic societies of the world as the first elected leader of a global government of some kind.
If you mean the UN, that's possible. Of course, unless the UN has an army, he won't be a global leader in any meaningful sense, just as no other UN leader has been.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is a very war like country,
Not war like enough, actually. If we had taken out the Soviets and the Chinese when we had the chance, the world would pretty much be ours right now.
Christian Graus wrote:
You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
... and the illegals form a future dependably leftist voting block.
Christian Graus wrote:
If you mean the UN, that's possible. Of course, unless the UN has an army, he won't be a global leader in any meaningful sense, just as no other UN leader has been.
That could all change very quickly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What I approve of is maximizing the opportunity for those things that can function outside the direct control of government, democratic or otherwise, to do so.
What a wuss. Commit to something, Stan. You want lezzie faire or you don't. None of this "maximising the opportunity." You sound like Barney Frank, for pete's sake.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
You want lezzie faire or you don't.
No, I don't.
Oakman wrote:
None of this "maximising the opportunity."
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people. Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion. Obviously the governmetn must maintain some degree of control of the legal system which binds us all. So there can be no absolute dividing line. We need the state to maintain a system of common laws, and national defense, but for much of anything else. Somehow I don't think Barney would agree with any of that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Let the experiment run its course unrestricted. In my Jeffersonian society, we would simply outlaw socialism of any flavor.
Yep. Can't have any free market when it comes to ideas! That would be bad.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Can't have any free market when it comes to ideas! That would be bad.
Fine, you can have all the Nazi's, communists, theocrats that you like on your side. Any valid interpretation of the US constitution would clearly make any form of socialism unconstitutional. Thats what we should respect.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You want lezzie faire or you don't.
No, I don't.
Oakman wrote:
None of this "maximising the opportunity."
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people. Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion. Obviously the governmetn must maintain some degree of control of the legal system which binds us all. So there can be no absolute dividing line. We need the state to maintain a system of common laws, and national defense, but for much of anything else. Somehow I don't think Barney would agree with any of that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obviously the governmetn must maintain some degree of control of the legal system which binds us all.
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have any problems with the government enforcing laws, it simply rejects any form of regulation. As long as as a transaction takes place by mutual consent (some modernists want to make that consenting adults, but that's probably the first step on the slippery slope to socialism) the government has no interest in it other than to ensure that it was not forced.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We need the state to maintain a system of common laws, and national defense, but for much of anything else
Careful, you're starting to talk like a libertarian.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
Can't have any free market when it comes to ideas! That would be bad.
Fine, you can have all the Nazi's, communists, theocrats that you like on your side. Any valid interpretation of the US constitution would clearly make any form of socialism unconstitutional. Thats what we should respect.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Any valid interpretation of the US constitution would clearly make any form of socialism unconstitutional. Thats what we should respect.
I guess I missed that in my readings of the Constitution. Would you care to enlighten me as to which article says there can be no socialism?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
He prospers the most in a declining market,
Which means he should now have a fortune of 18B?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
If not now, at least soon. No telling how much he's made shorting this market, or how much he will yet make.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The US loves it's army.
They might but from reports dating to around Oct 2006, recruitment has been falling away allegedly because of the "War on Terror" to around 90% of target. Although new incentive bonuses for recruits from $20,000 to $40,000 should rectify the target deficiency.
Old news. Recruitment is at new highs with the economic collapse. The Army isn't even advertising or offering incentives very heavily because of the sudden and unexpected upsurge in recruits looking for a bit of security in a suddenly very dicey economy.
-
The US military is one of the few constitutionally sanctioned expenditures the federal government actually has. The constitution gives the US government no authority to manage any health care program. It does give it the authority to defend the country. I am for as much as it takes to ensure the nation is properly defended. Even if that means nothing goes to health care and every penny goes to the military. And, btw, thanks for validating my point. The reason you guys want so much for us to spend more on social welfare is specifically because we will have less to spend on our military. Which is odd considering that our military is the only thing protecting your own freedoms.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The constitution gives the US government no authority to manage any health care program.
It's my opinion that "promote the general Welfare" pretty much provides carte blanche. Knowing how you like to quote the Preamble I'm surprised you missed this.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The US is a very war like country,
Not war like enough, actually. If we had taken out the Soviets and the Chinese when we had the chance, the world would pretty much be ours right now.
Christian Graus wrote:
You just do that because your economy runs on the bodies of illegal workers who will accept jobs that pay below the poverty line.
... and the illegals form a future dependably leftist voting block.
Christian Graus wrote:
If you mean the UN, that's possible. Of course, unless the UN has an army, he won't be a global leader in any meaningful sense, just as no other UN leader has been.
That could all change very quickly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If we had taken out the Soviets and the Chinese when we had the chance, the world would pretty much be ours right now.
Which is obviously the goal, right ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
... and the illegals form a future dependably leftist voting block.
So, the right did nothing to get rid of them because they will vote for the left ? How does that work ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
That could all change very quickly.
Assuming enough big countries get behind the UN to give up their sovereignty and instead fight for the power that wants to control them. Sure.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The constitution gives the US government no authority to manage any health care program.
It's my opinion that "promote the general Welfare" pretty much provides carte blanche. Knowing how you like to quote the Preamble I'm surprised you missed this.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
No, the term 'general welfare' was intended specifically to deny carte blanche. I'm surprised you miss that. No, actually, I'm not.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Yep, Germany and Japan certainly paid it. Australia had to put up with all those damn yanks defending it. Poor babies.
Sure - it's winning WWII that got the US all fired up into thinking it could run the world. I was thinking more of unwarranted attacks on other countries, such as Vietnam, or Iraq, that have since messed with peace in the world.
Oakman wrote:
our economy founders on the bodies of illegals who poison us by not washing their hands before coming back from the bathroom
Well, if you had some sort of civilised health care system, that might be true. :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure - it's winning WWII that got the US all fired up into thinking it could run the world.
I pretty much agree. Indeed, except for the bracing effect of the war on our economy, I haven't the slightest idea why we wasted our blood and money bailing the rest of the world out. I'm sure Germany and Japan would have done a marvelous job of insuring "peace in the world."
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, if you had some sort of civilised health care system, that might be true.
What apparently you don't understand is that those illegals get free access to the entire healthcare system of the United States. By law, every hospital in the country must treat them without demanding payment, regardless of their problem. I am, truly, sorry that you had a bad experience when you staggered into a unknown doctor's office here in the U.S. but you certainly have read testimonials from a number of us saying that we are quite happy with our treatment, pay very little for it, and have sufficient interaction with our medical people to feel they deal with us as human being. You might ask yourself whether I, as a non-taxpayer, would be guaranteed to have fared better in Australia than you did here. Although you might have trouble taking the blinders off.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If we had taken out the Soviets and the Chinese when we had the chance, the world would pretty much be ours right now.
Which is obviously the goal, right ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
... and the illegals form a future dependably leftist voting block.
So, the right did nothing to get rid of them because they will vote for the left ? How does that work ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
That could all change very quickly.
Assuming enough big countries get behind the UN to give up their sovereignty and instead fight for the power that wants to control them. Sure.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Which is obviously the goal, right ?
It sure as hell would have been mine. The primary reason the world is in the state that it is in is specifically because the ancient mantle of empire passed to the US and we refused to wear it.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, the right did nothing to get rid of them because they will vote for the left ? How does that work ?
It means that there is no political motivation at all to limit illegal migration. The economic aspect of it could be easily controlled if, in fact, there was not such a hugh political advantage for the democrat party to do nothing at all about it. It is one issue that conservatives feel very frustrated over. We have no political representation at all on the issue.
Christian Graus wrote:
Assuming enough big countries get behind the UN to give up their sovereignty and instead fight for the power that wants to control them. Sure.
It all depends on how things play out. If all the big countries are sufficiently humbled by economic chaos, the entire political infrastructure could be very vulnerable to revolutionary change.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Any valid interpretation of the US constitution would clearly make any form of socialism unconstitutional. Thats what we should respect.
I guess I missed that in my readings of the Constitution. Would you care to enlighten me as to which article says there can be no socialism?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Would you care to enlighten me as to which article says there can be no socialism?
The entire damned thing, and similarly the declaration of independence. The founders certainly thought they had created a government that disallowed any possibility of what would later become known as collectivism. "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Madison. And Franklin Pierce best articulated subsequent generations' understanding of the document... "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." -- James Madison "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition." -- Thomas Jefferson They created a government with intentionally limited authority.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Obviously the governmetn must maintain some degree of control of the legal system which binds us all.
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have any problems with the government enforcing laws, it simply rejects any form of regulation. As long as as a transaction takes place by mutual consent (some modernists want to make that consenting adults, but that's probably the first step on the slippery slope to socialism) the government has no interest in it other than to ensure that it was not forced.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We need the state to maintain a system of common laws, and national defense, but for much of anything else
Careful, you're starting to talk like a libertarian.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have any problems with the government enforcing laws, it simply rejects any form of regulation. As long as as a transaction takes place by mutual consent (some modernists want to make that consenting adults, but that's probably the first step on the slippery slope to socialism) the government has no interest in it other than to ensure that it was not forced.
And I have no problem with regulations - as long as their purpose is to promote the general welfare (protection of the environment, for example), and not to redistribute wealth.
Oakman wrote:
Careful, you're starting to talk like a libertarian.
I am as much a fiscal libertarian as you are, I'm simply not a social libertarian.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.