Text of Dick Cheney's National Security Speech at AEI
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Except the cat is out of the bag as far as the political influence wielded by the lobbyist. We need to erect strict barriers as well as get away from our absurd campaign financing practices. That means strict regulation at least at the interface between politicians and the business sector. Perhaps we can require that all meetings are done live on cspan and have completely publicly funded elections where it's not a case of who has more millionaires paying for tv ads.
As long as corporations are forced to pay taxes, they should be allowed access to the political system. If you want private wealth to stop influencing public offices, than you also need to take away the power of public offices to influence private wealth. Its a two way street. The more power government has the more need there is to try to influence it with money. The more power you give it to regulate the more money will go to trying to influence the regulations. Its a vicious circle that simply cannot be undone by any other means than unwinding it all back to the beginning.
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:
As long as corporations are forced to pay taxes, they should be allowed access to the political system.
Whether they are American corporations or not? Next thing you know, you'll be saying that Mexicans with a phoney social security card, since they pay taxes, should be allowed to vote. Or are you only on the side of corporate socialism?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Chris Austin wrote:
Except the cat is out of the bag as far as the political influence wielded by the lobbyist. We need to erect strict barriers as well as get away from our absurd campaign financing practices. That means strict regulation at least at the interface between politicians and the business sector. Perhaps we can require that all meetings are done live on cspan and have completely publicly funded elections where it's not a case of who has more millionaires paying for tv ads.
As long as corporations are forced to pay taxes, they should be allowed access to the political system. If you want private wealth to stop influencing public offices, than you also need to take away the power of public offices to influence private wealth. Its a two way street. The more power government has the more need there is to try to influence it with money. The more power you give it to regulate the more money will go to trying to influence the regulations. Its a vicious circle that simply cannot be undone by any other means than unwinding it all back to the beginning.
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:
Its a two way street.
I don't disagree.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its a vicious circle that simply cannot be undone by any other means than unwinding it all back to the beginning.
Now that I would like to see. I believe our system is a near failure at this point. I love the federalist ideals of our country's origins but we are far from them now and short of rebooting the system I don't see a way back.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
You and the younger idiot are only a couple of hours apart. Why don't you get together for some serious butt fucking and see if you can draw Stan over?
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Chris Austin wrote:
Whatever Stan, you know as well as I do that they were a one trick pony and that repetition is such an obvious tool in persuasive speech making. This stuff is purely political and referencing something as somber as 9/11 for political reasons is less than respectable.
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue. It is what the national debate is, and should be, all about. Do we want leadership that goes out and grovels on the world stage begging for forgiveness from the oppressed peoples of the world, or do we we want leadership that fights back unaplogetically and as viciouasly as those who fight against us. Cheney is entirely correct to throw it down like a gauntlet and Obama should be forced to pick it up.
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:
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue.
I thought your whole issue was setting up the great christian theocracy in the US?
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
You and the younger idiot are only a couple of hours apart. Why don't you get together for some serious butt fucking and see if you can draw Stan over?
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
And I think that 9/11 is the entire issue.
I thought your whole issue was setting up the great christian theocracy in the US?
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
I thought your whole issue was setting up the great christian theocracy in the US?
No, its actually avoiding a secular theocracy.
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.
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
obsessive compulsive schizoid personality disorder
:confused:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its a two way street.
I don't disagree.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its a vicious circle that simply cannot be undone by any other means than unwinding it all back to the beginning.
Now that I would like to see. I believe our system is a near failure at this point. I love the federalist ideals of our country's origins but we are far from them now and short of rebooting the system I don't see a way back.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
Now that I would like to see. I believe our system is a near failure at this point. I love the federalist ideals of our country's origins but we are far from them now and short of rebooting the system I don't see a way back.
I actually do not accept that. I think American federalism is the elephant in the room that everyone is doing their best to ignore. It has never actually gone any where. We've painted it, wall papered it, covered in with cute little frilly doilys, but the concept itself was so well crafted originally that there is simply no way to remove it without bringing the entire house down.
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.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I thought your whole issue was setting up the great christian theocracy in the US?
No, its actually avoiding a secular theocracy.
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:
No, its actually avoiding a secular theocracy.
Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan - it doesn't matter, just so long as people are forced to pray loudly, eh?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, its actually avoiding a secular theocracy.
Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan - it doesn't matter, just so long as people are forced to pray loudly, eh?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan - it doesn't matter, just so long as people are forced to pray loudly, eh?
No, just as long as those who do pray are not declared radical extremists not allowed to participate.
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:
Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan - it doesn't matter, just so long as people are forced to pray loudly, eh?
No, just as long as those who do pray are not declared radical extremists not allowed to participate.
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:
No, just as long as those who do pray are not declared radical extremists not allowed to participate.
Although that sentence is gramatically confusing (I'm assuming a missing "and" following "extremists"), you seem to be expressing a very libertarian concept. By the way, is there a move afoot to deny the vote to those who attend religious services? I must have missed it. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I thought your whole issue was setting up the great christian theocracy in the US?
No, its actually avoiding a secular theocracy.
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.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
By setting up a christian theocracy.
No more so than we were ever a christian theocracy. Of the two moral principles, christianity has a much better record of respecting the restraints of the constitution than does that of the secular humanists.
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.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
By setting up a christian theocracy.
No more so than we were ever a christian theocracy. Of the two moral principles, christianity has a much better record of respecting the restraints of the constitution than does that of the secular humanists.
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:
Of the two moral principles, christianity has a much better record of respecting the restraints of the constitution than does that of the secular humanists.
Tell that to the christian fundies who will be running things. They'll check your past and you'll be in the gulag, too.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of the two moral principles, christianity has a much better record of respecting the restraints of the constitution than does that of the secular humanists.
Tell that to the christian fundies who will be running things. They'll check your past and you'll be in the gulag, too.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
Tell that to the christian fundies who will be running things.
Who, for example? And where would they be running things from? If we returned the authority to define social norms back to local government where they once were, there would be no center of power for anyone to be running anything from aside form mostly defending the borders and delivering mail. That is precisely why our system of government was originally designed the way it was.
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.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Tell that to the christian fundies who will be running things.
Who, for example? And where would they be running things from? If we returned the authority to define social norms back to local government where they once were, there would be no center of power for anyone to be running anything from aside form mostly defending the borders and delivering mail. That is precisely why our system of government was originally designed the way it was.
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 returned the authority to define social norms back to local government where they once were
Social norms. :laugh: And if I wear the wrong color shirt, I get sent to Stan's reeducation camp?
Stan Shannon wrote:
there would be no center of power
No, just people like you running around peeking in bedroom windows and persecuting anyone who was thought to have a sense of humor or be enjoying themselves.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!