*DAMN R6 Forum

Check this out:

"You might laugh at all of the Bush/Hitler analogies that are floating around out there but you've got to admit that for a democratically elected president of the freest society in the world, he does as much dictator type shit as he could possibly get away with and still be the president of a free society.

I doubt there is anyone still breathing that has seen an American president so brazenly abuse our civil liberties as Dubya. "

Ahh, yes. At long last, Truth.

http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/diatribes015/diatribes294-314/diatribes294.htm


And if you are unaware of the MoveOn.org Bush in 30 seconds Ads, here's a link.

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/

The two best in my opinion are CHILD'S PAY and WHAT ARE WE TEACHING OUR CHILDREN? And for us Mac users ... DESKTOP is fun.

I am absolutely not an conservative, but I feel the Bush/Hitler analogies are concocted for  mere shock value. The most obvious difference between Bush and Hitler is the fact Hitler was charismatic and well spoken thus allowing him to cease control of the masses through his fiery rhetoric, whereas Bush is just a corporate pawn born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

To jump ahead of any of the conservatives on this forum, I'll point out that both those links are clearly leftist leaning sites and its no wonder they bash Bush and compare him with perhaps the most evil man of the 20th century.

Bush has however done devious deeds. The recent immigration act, Clear Skies, Healthy Forrest are all prime examples of the Bush regimes clear corporate leaning. Not to mention the 87 billion dollar debacle called Iraq.

Bush has indeed placed this country in the shackles of corporate evil, but has he committed an act of racially motivated genocide? I think not, even though I despise him with all my heart.

One point about the upcoming democratic elections, Im calling that if Dean does indeed win the nomination, then Bush will be reelected. If Clark wins the nomination, the Bush regime will be leaving Washington.

    The thing with some of these arguments is that our justice system is deciding over them right now.  Which is exactly the point of our constitution.  So say what you will, but the President can seem as dictatorial as he wants but if the law is unconstitutional than the Supreme Court kills it and Bush can't do anything about it.  
     I'll agree that he is pretty devious and the fact that I can not completely trust my President does bother me.  But Dean is on the complete other side of the spectrum and right now he is leading the Democratic nomination.  So unless Clark can continue his climb I would much rather have Bush in office than Dean who has absolutely no experience in anything involving foreign affairs (and before you say it I know Bush had little before he was elected but he had good advisors who do have a great deal of it).  And Dean will lighten my wallet faster than this damn computer did.  
     There were some pretty bad examples of takes on Bush in those videos though.  For one the economy was begining to drop before Bush came into office.  A recession doesn't just magically appear in a couple months.  It takes time and bringing the economy back up takes time.  Bush's tax cuts have helped this economy more than anything could have and most of these Democrats will repeal it so why the hell should I vote for them?  And coporations having control of a politician is hardly a new thing.  I believe there was more pork included in this years budget than ever before.  And your beloved Democrats were responsible for that too.  
     I would have been much happier had Sen. McCain got the nomination in 2000. But unfortunately that is the past and we still basically have to vote on the lesser of two evils, pending the Democratic nomination, but there are only 2 I would ever think of voting for.
     

Just wondering, how can you blame the Dems in congress for pork in bills passed when congress is controled by Republicans? It's like blaming Bill Clinton for the recession ...

As to the recession, regardless of who we blame - and it's pretty fair to say the buck stops with sitting Presidents when things go to shit - but just to be fair, if we accept that Bush is not responsible for the recession we must still accept that he is acountable for his response to the recession. Cutting taxes in moderation is all fine and good - we all like cash back - but cutting taxes for the wealthy never stimulats the economy. Reagan tried it and fucked us up until the Clinton years. Giving large bailouts to industries that are critical, like the airlines, is one thing. But protecting corporate cronies like Enron and standing watch over a series of catestrophic corporate colapses, scandels, and abuse is entirely another. Tax cuts are Bush's sole response to our economic troubles. Do you believe that repeatedly cutting taxes can really protect our economy? Cutting taxes to solve our ecomonic woes is much like handing out welfare checks to outa work workers. But just as the only way to better the lives of those outa work workers is for them to get their jobs back, so to must the US economy get off the dole. And remeber, the vast majority of Bush's tax cuts go to the fabulously wealthy. Like liberal film producers and hollywood stars. If you can't hate tax cuts becuase they hurt the economy in th elong run, then hate them because lots of people in Hollywood get a lot of your money.

And even if reducing taxes led directly to easing the recession, they also have led directly to our deficit. It's the "$300 bucks for you on the front porch, $500 bucks out your back pocket, and $2000 bucks from your kids future" way of dealing with economic problems. I.e, he's selling our future and our kid's future in order to appear like he's solving our problems today.

When it comes to cutting taxes Republicans and Dems often sell those cuts as putting money back into your pocket. The trouble is, sure, if the Feds cut a check to you and yours you're gonna pick up some instant green-backs. But, those dollars in your pocket are dollars out of your services. A lot of people don't get that. Taxes pay for your way of life. The wealthy have a vested interest in reducing taxes because their quality of life has nothing ot do with Federal and State services - they can buy themselves a ticket. But for us, we need our services. We need social security, we need funded healthcare, we need soldiers to get combat pay and good medical treatment so they can protect us, and we need our kids to get a world class education. Bush's reduction of taxes threatens all of those critical services directly.

You know what would have helped the economy? A motivated President. Bush doesn't care what's wrong, he cares only about looking like he's doing what's right. In that way he's much like Bill Clinton. Only Bill didn't preside over the worst economic downswing since the Great Depression. He also didn't waste 87 billion bucks invading a country that could never have threatened the US. In fact, Clinton tried repeatedly to kill Osama Bin Laden - remember him? Why are we in Iraq if Korea, for example, has nukes? Or when Osama runs free, laughing, as he's world view becomes a reality? Bush consistantly forgets or ignores this country's priorities.

As for Dean, he leads the Dems cause he's passionate, out-spoken, and throws a lot of what Bush and his administration does back at them. Basicaly, he's running on holding Bush accountable. Like why do we waste blood and money invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism or the attacks on the US? He also has a disgustingly effective online organization. Clark should do more of the same.

I didn't mean to imply it was just the Democrats that put all the pork in but re-reading my statement I see that it kind of sounded that way.  I pretty much hate all politicians in general regardless of party affiliation.  

Cutting taxes brought a little more into my check and when that happens people buy more. And so companies produce more, and then they need to hire new workers, so now more people get jobs, and then they start spending and their extra tax dollars go back to the government.  So really the Democratic, and Republican economic theories just take diferent roads to the same goal.  Democrats tax you more, and Republicans tax you less hoping that the increased economic growth will increase the tax revenue.  

As for the rich getting richer well ya they did get a bigger cut.  But the dividends side increased stock market investing which is always a good thing.  I wish someone would actually just make taxes a flat rate accross the board but as it stands now the rich pay a much higher percentage than the rest of us, and while I'm far from being near that category thats not entirely fair either.

With Korea thats still a work in progress.  I saw in the news earlier this week that the North Koreans were offering some new concessions but I'm not positive on what it is.  Work's been busy and thats usually where I catch the news.  The tricky thing with Korea is that if you flat out invade than Seoul pretty much gets fucked being soo close to the border.  

And finally standing up to a man with over a decade of playing games with the UN is bringing positive results.  The North Koreans are not quite as ambitious anymore, Iran and Syria are cooperating with international inspectors, and less we forget that that millions of Iraqis are actually free.  Whatever Bush's personal reason's for war, you can't say that many wars in history actually freed millions instead of enslaved them.

I wouldn't mind feeling a little more freedom myself.  

And what about mental enslavery? When your personality, tastes, thoughts, opinions are warped.  Our everyday values are coorporately branded, our education is more and more deprived, Our leaders mislead using false half statements, and misdirected rhetoric.  Everything has been twisted.  Once you open your eyes, the sense of freedom soon becomes a sense of threat... unless you're rich of course. Because this kind of system favors you lucky bunch.  

k, how about this thought?  I feel as though this Country had its arm twisted to go to war (very undemocracy-like).  A majority of Americans did not support this war before the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" theory.  Bush desperatley wanted to attack Saddam way before all this BS.  Now that it has become apparent there are no weapons, and that the adminstration lied about it, the right side minority is saying, "it's still ok, they are free now." No it's not ok.  The system is getting fucked with.  Who are the real winners here?  Oh it's cool... it's our homeboys at Haliburton.  I don't want our soldiers giving their lives because of false motives.  That stuff pisses me off.  Cronies win again.

Let's open your eyes to reality.  There are those who would like you to see and share knowledge, and then there are those who would rather you be blind and consume what they feed you.  Democrats and Republicans, for the most part, are competing to sell polished garbage for you to consume.  We are too easily swayed as a mass people, and the corporate bunch win out.  "Patriatism" twisted.  "War on Terrorism" twisted.  "Tax cuts," twisted. "Freedom" twisted.  "Democracy" twisted.

Tell it like it is right?  Good points on bringing "Rogue Nations" in check by going to war.  But was it neccesary to carry the burden on our own, and declare war right away without international support.  I do believe the world is on our side when it truly comes down to freedom and fairness.  Something else is motivating this agenda.    

I don't think our constitution stands for what is currently happening in our government.  I hope the supreme court steps in, but... they're mostly appointed by Republicans.  Our democracy has been check mated.

I like what Dean has been accomplishing, but I liken towards Clark as a leader too.  I wish the Republicans would stand behind someone like McCain.  There is something so dead on about Dean, but then again he scares me.  why? maybe he's so controversial.  But perhaps the controversy is perfect. not quite sure.

You make some good points Ssick (and not just becuase I'm in your clan).  But I have to ask just how much it was Bush deceiving us or Saddam deceiving the world about his true weapons capabilities (I posted about this is Sixhit's other column).  I know Bush is not a man to be trusted outright but I feel that Colin Powell is.  And from what I know of the man he would not just be bullied into saying something he knows for certain is untrue just because the President told him too.  

We saw a good coilition of partners involved with Kosovo which was the overthrow of a madmen that killed his own people and he was much much less of a threat to other nations than Saddam was.  So why now does Europe stand in the way instead of helping?  Is it because it is no longer in their backdoor and they actually gain more by having Saddam keep selling them the majority or Iraq's oil?  

The world seems to be coming to the point where you can not really trust anybody in power which is disconcerting.  Corporations buy everybody simply because it costs so much just too get elected.  

Dean scares the hell out of me but just for his political views on issues which in my opinion are radically wrong on those that are very important to me.  As for the man I don't know him well enough, but he is passionate which is something a lot of them lack.  Clark has that trait and we know he's a leader, so as the Democrats go he's the man I wan't to have the nomination.  It's out of our hands though so we shall just have to wait and see, and vote in November.

kids, kids, kids...

I really liked Colin Powel. The man had one, wonderful expression of policy: the Powell doctrine.

1) Is A Vital US Interest At Stake?
2) Will We Commit Sufficient Resources To Win?
3) Are Our Objectives Clearly Defined?
4) Will We Sustain the Commitment?
5) Is There A Reasonable Expectation that the Public and Congress Will Support the Operation?
6) Have we exhausted our other options?

These questions arose out of his experience in Vietnam, and I truly respect that. I also think Powell has laid out for us a great way of testing out policy when it comes to military delpoyment.

I think Powell has stretched his own policy.

(1) Are vital US interests at stake in Iraq. No. There are no weapons of mass destruction there. None. No threat. There's oil - but, of course, we didn't invade Iraq to secure it's oil reserves, did we?

(2) Score one for Bush. He fucking rocked Iraq's ass with Clinton's army.

(3) Are our objectives clearly defined? No. Can anyone here tell me what our objectives were? With ranging claims from stopping imminent WMD attacks to freeing the Iraqis to bringing down the UN to stopping a dictator to democraczing the middle east... which is it? And why can't they just tell it straight? And why do they have to lie about why we're going there? Sure, we've liberated the Iraqi's from Saddam's rule. Are they free? No. We occupy the country. Our soliders still make the law and execute policy. The cornor stone of democracy, the vote, is being denied from Irqis by Bush. A free press is being contained, while propaganda media is being set up and broadcast. All the while our control over the countryside - you know, places other than the cities - is slipping.  

(4) Will we sustain the commitment? No. We've gotten stuck in a pickle. If we leave our troops delpoyed we will loose the support of the American public, have increasingly lower and lower reenlistment rates, and get more soliders killed. But if we do pull out the country is likely to collapse into civil war or reform into some kind of islamic republic. Further, if we withdraw, the US looks impotent and the whole endeavour looks like a failed crusade. Bush has verbally stated we'll stay the course, but in an election year, and with consistant policy commitments to bring the troops home ...

(5) Score one for Bush. There is a reasonalbe expectation the public with support the war. However, lying about why we're going to war and constantly misleading and creating new reasons why we went to war is a bad way to secure the public's support.

(6) Did we exhaust all other options? No. Come on! We enforced Bush's will. We tried to have our cake and eat it, too - touting Saddam's years of non-compliance with UN resolutions as a causus beli out one side the mouth while from the other side cursing the UN and calling it irrelevent when it came to supporting aggressive war against Iraq. Talk about bullshit and misleading!! As much as I may dislike France or Germany their opinions matters - much like if I dislike Ghostsniper, his opinion matter. Guess why? Because democracy is founded on the free expression of ideas and opinion - biased, self serving, or honestly given - it doesn't matter. And if we want to set the right example - if we want to bring democracy to the middle east, for example - we need to practice it. We need to demonstrait it. And when American Democracy looks like just another from of "the strong telling the weak what to do" then why would anyone, anywhere, be inspired to attain democracy? In fact, why not try and beat down the strong so you can tell the weak what to do. A lot of people praise the succesful invasion of Iraq as the US demonstraiting commitment to a cause and the potency of our military. Great. But that was not the reason I was told we invaded. Nor is it a good reason. Nor will it succeed in cowing our opponents. All it does is undermine our own Democracy and the persistance of all other Democracys.

Our budget deficits threaten the world economy.

"WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Economists at the International Monetary Fund (news - web sites) on Wednesday expressed alarm at growing U.S. budget deficits, saying continued deficits could hurt the global economy by roiling currency markets and driving up interest rates.

In a report on U.S. budget outlook, IMF researchers described the state of government finances as "perilous" in the long run and urged Congress and the White House to take steps to quickly rein in the deficits. Although federal tax cuts and spending increases since 2001 bolstered the global economy in the short run, the report said "large U.S. fiscal deficits also pose significant risks for the rest of the world.""

Bush tax cuts threaten the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=808&u=/dowjones/20040107/bs_dowjones/200401071721001228&printer=1

somebody needs some pussy and an outrageously huge blunt
badly.

I agree cutter, G.W. Bush could use some pussy and an outrageously huge blunt.

LOL ::)

I always find it amusing that Spets quotes H.L. Mencken in his signature (Henry Louis Mencken was one of the biggest conservatives of the 20th Century).

One of my favorites from Mencken is the following:

"We live in a land of abounding quackeries, and if we do not learn how to laugh we succumb to the melancholy disease which afflicts the race of viewers-with-alarm... In no other country known to me is life as safe and agreeable, taking one day with another, as it is in These States. Even in a great Depression few if any starve, and even in a great war the number who suffer by it is vastly surpassed by the number who fatten on it and enjoy it. Thus my view of my country is predominantly tolerant and amiable. I do not believe in democracy, but I am perfectly willing to admit that it provides the only really amusing form of government ever endured by mankind."

-H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

 

Keep in mind Mencken died in 1956, when the conservative and liberal ideologies were in their infancy. I highly doubt that if Mencken was alive today he would fall under the modern definitions of a conservative, I base this on his views of religion, but that's debatable. I have his biography, just haven't gotten around to reading it yet, as I have my work cut out for me in African American Lit this quarter.

Just a quick comment because it's late and this caught my eye.  

How the hell can you claim Clinton's military took Iraq?  Clinton took our military from it's mandate of winning two wars at one time to winning one and mounting a holding action on the other.  In Kosovo the military nearly ran out of cruise missles, how the fuck can that reasonably happen?

Well, the reason I say that this is Clinton's military that won the war in Iraq is that for eight years he ran the country. Bush is using the weapons, soldiers, infrastructure, and generals that Clinton fostered.

As for why we ran low on Crusie Missiles, it's because we shot so many of them. That's a sarcastic remark, but it's the truth. It's also cause we just don't need so many of them.

They're specialty weapons. Why don't we have 400 B2s or 100 Attack Subs? It's cause those sorts of weapons are the scalpes to a 2000lbs bomb's slegdehammer.

Even more interesting, the military has been trying for years to develop better, cheaper weapons - like JDAMs - which cost a few bucks (compared to cruise missiles) and turn dumb bombs into smart bombs. We have lotsa JDAMs (the development program was begun in 1995 and they were deployed in '97) so why do we need lotsa cruise missiles? Who was president in '95? Ahhhhh, yes. Clinton. This just one of the most obvious examples.

Clinton's focus in the nineties was to get the forces into shape for the threats of today while being fiscally responsable. Sure, perhaps we have a limited supply of cruise missiles, but I'd rather have all those special forces teams (what, they don't grow on trees over night?) than a few more friggin missiles. And those Clinton Spec Ops guys are doing the lions share of the work in places like Iraqi and Afganistan.

As for the two war mandate (it's actually a 2 1/2 war mandate, initiated by Kennedy - I know yer tired!): oh bullshit! We simply cannot afford the costs of maintianing - and deploying - the sorts of arms and soldiers needed. That, and the raw numbers of material and men needed to fight a two 1/2 war policy are not what they were in 1960 - we do a lot more these days with a lot less. More than that, we STILL have a vast military (dispite Clinton's reasonable and responsable cuts and spending shifts) - the more expensive military in the world. You want us to have, on paper, the ablity to fight 2 1/2 wars? It's a purposely requirement - who, dare I ask, will we be fighting those 2 1/2 wars against?

And don't spew about the dangers of the future. The dangers of the future are as Clinton and his advisors and his generals predicted: smaller ops and policing duties (sic, Occupation Iraq). And we did a pretty good job of whooping up on Iraq when we deployed Clinton's boys and girls.

Six years from now we can praise of blame Bush for the state of the military. Today, we must give the proper, if grudging, praise to Clinton.

Here are the actually deployment numbers of the Tomahawk cruise missile during the Clinton years.

"In the early 1990s there were approximately 2,500 Tomahawks in inventory. That number was reduced to about 2,000 with the use of 330 during the 4-day bombing in Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, and the use of over 160 by the Navy in Kosovo by mid-April 1999."

So after our war in Bosnia where not a single American died (go Clark!) Clinton's military retained .... just over 2100 cruise missiles. We sure did run out.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

(6) Did we exhaust all other options? No. Come on! We enforced Bush's will. We tried to have our cake and eat it, too - touting Saddam's years of non-compliance with UN resolutions as a causus beli out one side the mouth while from the other side cursing the UN and calling it irrelevent when it came to supporting aggressive war against Iraq. Talk about bullshit and misleading!! As much as I may dislike France or Germany their opinions matters - much like if I dislike Ghostsniper, his opinion matter. Guess why? Because democracy is founded on the free expression of ideas and opinion - biased, self serving, or honestly given - it doesn't matter. And if we want to set the right example - if we want to bring democracy to the middle east, for example - we need to practice it. We need to demonstrait it. And when American Democracy looks like just another from of "the strong telling the weak what to do" then why would anyone, anywhere, be inspired to attain democracy? In fact, why not try and beat down the strong so you can tell the weak what to do. A lot of people praise the succesful invasion of Iraq as the US demonstraiting commitment to a cause and the potency of our military. Great. But that was not the reason I was told we invaded. Nor is it a good reason. Nor will it succeed in cowing our opponents. All it does is undermine our own Democracy and the persistance of all other Democracys.

I really like this point.  It shows the US hypocrisy when it comes to foreign affairs.  It also reminds me of those democracies around the world that we secretly deposed in favor of dictators that better supported US interests.  This is the kind of policy the US implemented in order to stop the "Commies" throughout the Cold War.  And it's ironic that our cold war enemies are becoming allies (naturally with time), as some middle pawn countries we actively destabilized, have become our greatest sources of threat , the "rogue nations."  But nothing has changed.  We still closely support askew governments like Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia among others.  And its likely these will become hot problematic places shortly in the future.

Bravo Ssick, We live in a society goverend by the machiavellian principle of fear being stronger than love. This fear in turn alters the preception of the masses. A democracy based on fear is not a true democracy. Yet we claim to be free, when we are all slaves to inanimate objects of no true meaning. The industrial military complex is the true enemy of mankind, as it thrives off death and destruction. Perhaps, if we placed the resources given to destructive forces in education, logical thought would take the place of fear and misunderstanding.

In a perfect world that would work Spetz, but if we would have done that 70 years ago we would all be speaking German right now.

x1| Sixhits wrote...

"I really liked Colin Powel. The man had one, wonderful expression of policy: the Powell doctrine.

<doctrine points snipped>

---
The tests that you listed for the Powell Doctrine are tests of the Weinberger Doctrine, proposed by the then-Secretary of Defense in the 1984.   Weinberger wrote in the shadow of Vietnam, in the later stages of the Cold War when the world was still bi-polar.  He also writes a year after a confusing mission to Beirut ended with the death of 220 Marines, five years after the Iran hostage crisis, and in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war, all of which ended with questionable results.

The Powell doctrine, written after the 1991 Gulf War, covers some of the same ground but changes a few key points.  From an essay by Mr. Powell in Foreign Affairs (Winter 92-93):

"When a 'fire' starts that might require committing armed forces, we need to reevaluate the circumstances. Relevant questions include: Is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined and understood? Have all other non-violent policy means failed? Will military force achieve the objective? At what cost?? Have the gains and risks been analyzed? How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences?"

Note the change from "vital interests" to "important objectives".  Powell also added the idea that, once these tests had been met, we would use "decisive" force to gain a rapid victory.

The Powell doctrine, to some degree, was superceded by the doctrines of Anthony Lake (Clinton's first NS Advisor) and William Perry (Clinton's 2nd SecDef).  These doctrines broadened the reach of the military for vital interest and humanitarian operations, to places where "important but not vital interests are threatened" (Perry); and to counter aggression, defend key economic interests, preserve/promote/defend democracy, prevent WMD proliferation, terrorism, and drug trafficking; and maintain partnerships (Lake).

While the Powell/Weinberger Doctrines were good outlines, I tend to think they were more appropriate to the bipolarity of the US/Soviet conflict and not as adaptable to the more fluid (and dangerous) world of the post-Soviet era.  To a large degree, the Lake Doctrine has been the defining doctrine of the past decade, including the later Clinton presidency and the current Bush presidency.  This doctrine covers both the Kosovo operations (gross abuse of human rights), the Afghan operation (terrorism, human rights, countering aggression, international crime), and the Iraq war (again, human rights, economic interest, arguably WMD, terrorism, and so forth.)

Sorry to go on for so long, gang, I'm an historian by trade.  More or less, anyway.

Figures, http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html

Never believe anything from anyone who has a reason to make the person he is talking about look bad.  Kinda like automatically believing the trash that one candidate throws at another candidate during an election.....half of the crap is make-believe and the other half is twisted into something totally different than the truth.

To drop a question in your midst:

Many people make direct and indirect references to a so-called "Military-Industrial complex," with the suggestion that it is a negative bordering on the evil or sinister.

Excluding the original Eisenhower reference, would someone take a few moments to explain what exactly it is and why people believe it to be as bad as they do?

Thanks.

The military-industrial complex is generally defined as a "coalition consisting of the military and industrialists who profit by manufacturing arms and selling them to the government."

Each major element of the Bush regime's national security strategy from the doctrines of preemptive strikes and "regime change" in Iraq, to its aggressive nuclear posture and commitment to deploying a Star Wars-style missile defense system was developed and refined before the Bush regime took office, at corporate-backed conservative think tanks like the Center for Security Policy, the National Institute for Public Policy and the Project for a New American Century.

Unilateralist ideologues formerly affiliated with these think tanks, along with the 32 major administration appointees who are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of top Defense contractors, are driving U.S. foreign and military policy.

The arms lobby is exerting more influence over policymaking than at any time since President Dwight D. Eisenhower first warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex over 40 years ago.

It is not just industry-backed think tanks that have infiltrated the administration. Former executives, consultants or shareholders of top U.S. defense companies pervade the Bush national security team.

Exploiting the fears following 9/11, and impervious to budgetary constraints imposed on virtually every other form of federal spending, the ideologue-industry nexus is driving the United States to war in Iraq and a permanently aggressive war-fighting posture that will simultaneously starve other government programs and make the world a much more dangerous place.

The overarching concern of the ideologues and the arms industry is to increase military spending. On this score, they have been tremendously successful. In its two years in office, the Bush regime has sought more than $150 billion in new military spending, the vast majority of which has been approved by Congress with few questions asked. Spending on national defense is nearing $400 billion for fiscal year 2003, up from $329 billion when Bush took office.

Gordon R. England, former president of Lockheed Martin and former Secretary of the Navy, is now Deputy Director of Homeland Security.

Dosn't this all come down to one simple thing? : that george bush and his adminastraton are about as bent as as slalom course.

I must say i was stunned to hear that Bush's new tatic for trying to keep americans from looking at the state of the enomony etc is to spend billians and billions (which would be much better spent on narrowing the ever growing poverty gap etc) on stupid missions to build a pointless base on the moon to burn money and see if he can help fuck up and pollute another Planet.

Think of the more usefull things that this money could be spent on - not to mention the debt that the US is in... Bush simply sucks ass. Why why why put a retarded ape as your president?

Gordon R England is still the Secretary of the Navy.  He was only in the Department of Homeland Security for a short time and then returned as the SecNav after his replacement died.

As for defense spending.  Something had to be done after Clinton slashed it.  There is a mandatory raise of .5% over the civilian average so that the servicemen that risk their lives at work can earn some decent money.  And our defense spending is actually a fewer percentage of our total budget than it was 20 years ago.  

Would it have been better to do nothing after 3,000 people were murdered?  I guess we should have just let it go to "save a little money"

And I think most American's know the state of the economy.  It is improving and thats probably why Bush will get re-elected.  The Democrats lost their biggest argument unless something drastic changes.  

Well that makes me feel better, that the former president of the largest weapons contractor in the world was restored to his position as Secretary of the Navy, im sure he was in no position to abuse his powers for personal gain (sarcasm).

As for Clinton slashing defense spending, that is simply inaccurate. A result of a rash of military-industry mergers encouraged and subsidized by the Clinton administration, created, the Big Three weapons makers Lockheed Martin Corporation, Boeing Corporation, and Raytheon Corporation which now receive among themselves over $30 billion per year in Pentagon contracts. This represents more than one out of every four dollars that the Defense Department doles out for everything from rifles to rockets.

 In 1999, the Clinton Administration five-year budget plan for the Pentagon called for a 50% increase in weapons procurement, which would be an increase from $44 billion per year to over $63 billion per year by 2003. Additionally, the arms industry launched "a concerted lobbying campaign aimed at increasing military spending and arms exports. These initiatives are driven by profit and pork barrel politics, not by an objective assessment of how best to defend the United States in the post-cold war period.

No one likes to see 3,000 people murdered, agreed, and we justly went in to Afghanistan to search out the Tailbane, in the process the U.S. my great country murdered more than all those that died in 9/11. This does not even take in to account the war in Iraq which has had a massive humanitarian cost.

There is no link between Iraq and 9/11. We were lied to by our president.

Mind you Bush did not win the popular vote in the previous election, and if the Dems select a candidate with balls (Gen. Clark) Bush will be packing his bags back to Texas, where he belongs.

i seriously doubt a general that was forced into early retirement by the clinton regime will be elected president over bush. sorry.

I think Clark is just about the only Democrat that has a chance against Bush.  The people in this country need a true leader very badly.  We have not had one in a very long time.  Hopefully he is not quite as much of a politician as everybody else.

Why exactly did Clinton release a 5 year weapons plan when he only had 2 years left in office?  He must know that basically everything changes with a new President, unless he figured Gore would get elected.

I do agree with your views of pork barreled politics and who gets cash though.  The Air Force is getting it's F-22 which as of the last report I saw is overweight, underperforming, and overbudget.  Yet the Marine Corps is still using CH-46 Sea Knights  from Vietnam until we can get the Osprey into service which now is testing beautifully after it's early problems.  It might go into service in a couple of years if people don't keep trying to kill it.

Spetsnaz wrote...

"Mind you Bush did not win the popular vote in the previous election,...:
---
Ah, that old chestnut.

For the record, President Bush is the fourth president to be elected without winning the popular vote.  (For those of you keeping score, that's 9.3%, 4 of 43.)

John Quincy Adams lost both the popular AND electoral vote but his principle opponent did not gain a majority.  He won elected by vote of Congress as outlined in the Constitution.

Rutherford Hayes lost the popular vote by a quarter-million (0.65% of a total population of 38 million) to Samuel Tilden but won the electoral vote by one over the required majority.

Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by 90,000 but received only 40% of the electoral votes (he ran the following term and won).

President Bush also won the electoral votes by 1 over the required 270, but lost the popular vote by roughly 540,000 votes, or about 0.178% of a population of 280 million.

People keep bringing up the "He lost the popular vote!" argument as if it were a novelty and something shockingly disasterous.  Get over it; it's nothing new.  President Bush and Mr. Gore are in good company - they were not the first, and almost as certainly will not be the last to have a split vote election barring major constitutional change.

Hathcock -

I think the reason Clinton submitted a five-year budget proposal for Defense is because everybody does - the defense department goes to congress to set (and reset) budgets for the next five fiscal years.

With respect to major systems acquisitions - it's not always pork (although that frequently happens) - many decisions are political or economic realities.  An F/A-22 built in Seattle, Forth Worth, and a dozen other places is better for the economy in jobs and distributed labor than one company manufacturing assault boots in Kansas City.  F-22s are also high-visibility projects that have a high price tag - a V-22 (which God knows is necessary; a Phrog's older than I am by a lot) just isn't going to approach the $100 million price tag but the purchase order is roughly the same in number.  Beyond just the price tag, you want to keep skilled laborers and manufacturing processes from going idle - it's bad for your workforce.

The current and previous administrations have done some work to address this problem - shifting to smaller, less complex systems - in part realizing that the world is not likely to have a Fulda Gap style battle very often.

I have to disagree with your other point - I don't think Clark would do very well against Bush - he's on very shaky ground right now.

Thank you for the history lesson, but that miniscule fact I reiterated had little bearing on my over all point. I am a firm believer in the simplistic democratic principle of majority rule.

We'll see this October.

Ys but Spetz, that means you are going to have to change the very constitution of the United States.  You're going to have to lobby a lot higher than this forum, but good luck to you.

Laugh.

I am, for good or for ill, not a believer in majority rule, and would probably be best described as unrepentantly republican.

     This line of argument brings to mind a pair of quotes from Heinlein. "Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something." "Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"

If we are not willing to alter documents to keep up with the times of current, we may as well replace the Constitution with the Bible. The architects of the Constitution foresaw this dilemma and took the necessary measures to ensure its fluidity. I would hardly call posting on this forum lobbying, more or less it's the most simplistic way to practice freedom of speech within the microcosm of this community.



"If you will it, it is no dream." -Theodore Herzl

Spetsnaz wrote:
"If we are not willing to alter documents to keep up with the times of current, we may as well replace the Constitution with the Bible. The architects of the Constitution foresaw this dilemma and took the necessary measures to ensure its fluidity."

---

While the authors of the Constitution included measures for changing it, they also created a framework that was deliberately not a democracy due to their concerns over what has been referred to as the "tyranny of the majority."  (See Federalist Papers #10 and #51 if you're really bored).  There is a critical difference between making amendments to the Constitution and replacing one of the foundations of the American system of government.

Federalist No. 10 authored by James Madison on November 23, 1787, and Federalist No. 50 authored by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison on February 5, 1788 are well suited to suffice for the given time period. How well they are suited to fit the year 2004 is beyond my realm of knowledge, but I suspect it would have been impossible for them to take in account such vast and sophisticated human achievement. A "tyranny of the majority" in my humble opinion is more democratic than a "tyranny of the few and privileged".

Actually, we did do that 70 years ago.

The military industrial complex - the concept and the reality - were created by the end of WWII, not before. I presume you ment that if we hadn't let individuals and corps forge the "military industrial complex" during WWII we'd be speaking German.

I disagree with your presumption that Spetz is touting Isolationism. He's simply saying that there are organizations and individuals within our own country that have a vested interest in causing or creating war. Not only that, but those same orgs and indis as very powerful domestically, do to vast wealthy and political access. Indeed, the military industrial complex is important to the well being the US, but it's only important in the way that a diseased yet important organ is. I'd be better for our well being if we could get rid of them, but if we get rid of them them our economy would likely suffer and our ablity to build vast amounts of arms would be diminished.

But really, in the long run it much go, or we'll continue to be at the whim of a few mighty Beasts. Our Freedom, Liberty, Justice - they have no meaning when our Democracy is false.

Ah yes, the wonderful Bush recovery.

I guess recovery only counts when our largest companies earn a few million more bucks. The fact that, for example, during the month of December 2003 we only net gained 1000 new jobs... Well, lets forget about that. Jobs don't have anything to do with economic recovery. And jobs definantly have nothing to do with elections.

Recovery is both a matter of mind and fact. The regime in power has worked hard at making it seem like we're in a recovery. They've worked hard at making it look like they they're acting boldly to attack the recession. They've also worked hard at making it seem like it wasn't they're fault and that they're bold action wasn't a disaster.

But the facts remain and they make those appearances transparent.

Hell Six I've made quite a lot of money in the last year, which is somewhat how I view the economy.  The last report I saw showed unemployment at 5.7% which was only a couple of days ago.  You'll have to educate me on how bad that really is.

Got a little quote for Gallagher the comic if any of you remember him.

"1 in 4 Armercans is critically stupid.  So why are we complaining about a 5% unemployment?  I'm complaining about the 20% of stupid people that have jobs."

I, too, have made more money per year since September 11, 2001, than I ever did before.  And I didn't start my current job until September 27, 2001.  So, at least for me, that blows two myths right there....(1). That nobody could find a job after Sept 11, and (2).  That nobody could make money in retail sales because the economy is so bad.

the travel and hospitality industries were greatly affected by sept 11th. mb more than any other industries. i work in a hotel on south beach and i can show you the numbers if you'd like six. within one month we and all the hotels and restaraunts in miami were back to regular occupancy. in the last year alone a new ritz hotel has gone up, a mandorin oriental, the palms, a hilton, a huge trump building, and about 20 new high end restaraunts including an emril's, nobu, and a new wolfgang puck place. last year i bought a house, this year a new car for my wife, and i too am making more money than ever before.
 
so yes six things suck everywhere, the country is goin to shit, and bush should be lynched. LOL.

The problem isn't that no one can find a job after 9/11. I found a job after 9/11. And it's not that some people are making more than they have ever before.

(As for retail sales I don't know enough about retail to make any points back.)

The issue at hand is that in the past few years we've lost more jobs than we've gotten back. So you and me finding work and making a good living is overshadowed by the gaggles of others who've lost a job and can't find work.

Point of Fact: Bush will be the first president since the Depression to preside over a net job lose. As an example, last month economists we're hoping for a net job gain of 150,000 jobs. The net job gain was 1,000.

Look at those numbers again. It's a catestropic difference.

Here are some numbers on the economy under Clinton, the report therein issues July '99. Take note of the unemployment rate in '99.
 4.3 % -- the lowest level in 29 years. Bush's masterful 5.7% pales in comparison.

http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/New_Markets/economic.html

So yah Ghost, sure, some people are doing well. But more people are doing worse.

If you are better off under Bush then vote for him. It's appropriate to vote your own interests. But if the only question we ask each voter is, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" then Bush is in trouble.

Well, all I can say is that me, my family, and just about everybody I know is better off now than they were 4 years ago.

I'm glad you're better off.

But what concerns me isn't just your well being or just my well being or the new Hotels and High End resturants going up in South Beach (am I mistaken or is South Beach a rather wealthy area? sort of a Bev Hills of Florida?)

What concerns me is the overall state of the economy. A very clear indicator of our economic well being is job growth. Essentially, job growth is stagnet right now.

As for Hotels and expensive resturants in Florida: That's good too. But it's good for Who? and it's good for them How?

They're high end. So they cost a lot to use. So someone like Bush can afford them, as can wealthy vacationers. Tourism is an important industry, so that'll be helpful.

But what is the quality of the increase of revenue? Where does that expanded income go? As I mentioned earlier, I believe, corporate profits are rising. Great news. Now, they need to spend that extra money to higher back all the people they let go over the last few years. If they don't, or if they higher back fewer people than they fired (which is what they are currently doing) then what we have, remains, a net lose for America. Perhaps it is a net gain for Florida, or perhaps just your small part of it. But for the country it's a drop of water in a very large bucket .

More to the point, jobs that once included pensions, such as manufacturing jobs, have gone away. What has replaced them are service oriented jobs, like the one Cutter holds. Service oriented jobs are not as high paying or as stable as "skilled" labor jobs. Any immigrant off the boat who speaks English can serve a table answer phones or mix drinks. They will tend to be willing to take lower wages than local workers who once held higher skilled jobs. Even more interesting, as far as recent news goes, is the illegal immigrant-worker proposal Bush has touted.

Think like this: all those jobs created in South Beach. All those business owners have positions to fill. Bush opens the gates to unskilled labors to work in the US. They'll be willing to take VERY low wages and will work VERY hard for them (because they figure they'll be nationalized after a few years). Note how corporations are cheering Bush's proposal while Labor is booing it. Even groups that would like to see a laxing of the immigration laws are upset - cause immigrats go for lower level jobs and undercut the overall price of service. So those new jobs created in South Beach, if Bush has his way, will very soon have their wages depressed and will likely be consumed by unskilled workers here on work visas.

Yay!

yes you are mistaken six, very mistaken.
hotels DO pay pensions, health, and vacation pay. south beach is NOT the beverly hills of florida and "service industry" jobs DO pay well, better than "skilled labor". see when you think hotels you think dishwashers and housekeeping, i think managers, chefs, accountants.
the tourism industry is one of the nations largest industries and is a very good way to gauge how the economy is going. when there's no money and everything is so horrible as you seem to think it is, people simply do not take vacations. everytime a hotel opens up it employs anywhere from 50 to 4000 people. that means jobs and money for all. for the employees, the companies that supply the hotels, the city, the taxi drivers, the airlines. it's all connected six. when a new place opens (especially the big expensive ones) it's a sign that people still have money to blow and that alot more people are going to get jobs. hotels reqiure legitimate documents for employment and most require drug testing. small restaraunts are more lax and do hire illegal immigrants (not just in miami). but hey would you wash dishes or clean peoples toilets? no and either would i. this is just one city six, but it's a good example of what happens everyday all over america. if dean were to actually be elected (and it's looking worse everyday for him) both me and you will have to pay around $1700 more in taxes. that certainly won't help me out in any way, how bout you.

By the way, unemployment is a lagging indicator of an economy on the rebound, as it is the last thing to get put right after an economic downturn.  So just because the unemployment numbers don't look that good right now, don't worry.....they will improve significantly very soon.

-GhostSniper the Financial Wizard Out.

You're absolutely right when you say it's all connected. That's why I'm right when I say the economy is stagnent.

Net new jobs = 1000 = not in recovery.

New jobs in South Beach = many new jobs, but < sum of national job loss.

Good for the Beach. But not an example of what happens all over America.

Remember, that for the NATION we saw a net of 1000 jobs. That's piddlely. That's thousands of jobs lost and a thousand more new jobs gained than lost.

The point I'm making isn't that we're in a tail spin and we're all doomed. What I'm stating is that any notion of recovery has to include overt job growth - national job growth. So I'm not mistaken when I say we're not in a recovery.

As for hotel's paying pensions, health, and vactation. Good. I'm glad to hear that and somewhat surprised. But, out of 4000 jobs per grand hotel, how many of those jobs are managerial, chefs, accountants, etc? I'd expect a minority. Most, I expect, are blue collar, perhaps outsourced to a third party so that they can bring in ppl who get paid very, very little. There's nothing necessarily wrong with any of this. Further, the new proposal on work visas is designed to target just such jobs. Few illegals move to the US and pick up managerial jobs. But many move and take the lower end service jobs. I don't want to clean toilets, but that's not the point. The point is that most new jobs created are created at the lower levels of job quality. Worse, under new proposals from Bush, there will be higher competition for those lower level jobs. If those jobs do go to Americans they're still low paiding, unskilled, non-advancing, poorly social serviced jobs. And I am convinced that each new hotel spawns FAR more dishwashers and maids than it does Accountants and Managers.

Further, as you pointed out, service sector jobs are HIGHLY vulnerable to economic instablity. A worker working for a hotel is more likely to feel the squeeze or get fired when times are tough. So, yah, seeing service sector jobs return is a sign that service sector providers expect them to be working. That's good. But if things don't pick up, or they stumble, they're first to loose jobs. And that's not good for the economy since, as we noted before, jobs are important to the economy.

Stable jobs, like managers and accountant, are better, cause their skilled jobs. Companies often have a tough time firing managers cause they are hard to replace. We want more jobs like accountants and managers but we're making more jobs like dishwashers and maids.

Part of the reason our economy was so fragile in the late 90's was because it had so many service sector jobs. Those jobs go fast. The worse part of the recession was that we lost hundreds of thousands of what were once thought to be stable jobs - jobs in manufacturing, and like with Enron, white collar jobs like mangers and accountants. That's why I'll stand on my point that we're not in a recovery. Recovery means getting back to where you were. We are not. Bush's "recovery" is dogding the issues of quanity AND quality.

Just an additional question. What proportion of tourism in South Beach is international in origin?

By the way, the area I live in (the Gulf Coast of Mississippi) is much the same as that part of Florida.....a huge part of our economy is from Tourism as well.  Ours is mainly tourists from within the U.S.  We have not seen any problem with the economy since Bush became President.  No job lay-offs and probably some of the biggest growth that this area has ever seen has happened in the last 3 years.  Doesn't hurt that we have 3 military bases on the coast (2 Navy and 1 Air Force), and we have the casino industry here.  But the casinos, and the beaches, bring in the tourists, and that just hasn't dropped off.  If the rest of the country is as bad off as everyone makes it out to be, this is where they need to move to, cause we are doing just fine.

so 250 animators have just lost their jobs (to computers) at disney in orlando. bush's fault six?

Here's a great economic article that speaks of both the potential for recovery and the stumbling spots up ahead. Some key gaffs are:

"But those deficits on the US budget and in its trading with the rest of the world may loom even larger as the year progresses. US companies may have slashed back on debt after the dotcom bubble burst, but households have continued to accumulate, leaving private sector debt at 1.3 per cent of GDP in the second quarter of 2003, 'nowhere near as healthy as in the first year of virtually all other post-war recoveries', says Lehman. Add in a government deficit of 3.7 per cent, which - following military spending and tax cuts - is higher than in seven of the eight previous recessions, and the current account deficit tops a whopping 5 per cent. By comparison, the US was running a 1 per cent surplus just after the 1991 recession."

and

"Wall Street's veteran bear, Stephen Roach, puts it even more starkly. 'The national saving rate, current account, federal budget deficit and private sector debt ratios are all at historical extremes in the US. The result is a unique confluence of tensions that have left the global economy in a state of heightened instability. The venting of those tensions could well be the main event in world financial markets in 2004,' he says."

and

"An unruly unwinding of these huge imbalances hangs over the upcoming year. So what would it take for a soft landing? 'US consumers would have to start saving more or the US government reverse its tax cut programme,' says Llewellyn."

and, to finish

"By the end of 2004, the US economy's rampant surge will have slowed to a mild version of stagflation - 2 per cent growth and 4 per cent inflation, he says.

Roach does not disappoint the Cassandras. 'My deepest fear is that the longer the venting of these tensions is deferred, the larger the ultimate adjustments and the greater the chances of a hard landing,' he says. And even Lehman Brothers, not normally considered pessimists, end their 2004 outlook on this note: 'This year may prove to be one of the more difficult in post-war history - starting well, but with both economic and geopolitical risks building as the year unfolds,' writes Llewellyn.

So don't expect a return to the boom years just yet."

of course, these are the points I think make my argument. :-)

You could also cite this:

"After three years of hibernation the economic optimists are breaking cover this year. Bullishness has become a respectable pursuit. US growth is exceeding 8 per cent. Stock markets are perky. Saddam Hussein has been locked up. Roll on the boom, just in time for the US presidential elections in the autumn."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1115469,00.html

No. ;-)

He can't fuck everything up.

As a college student, I'm much worse off. One of the biggest cuts Bush has made was to the federal Pell program, which means that although my federal loans are at 2.75% this year, they are expected to skyrocket to over 8% beacuse of the cuts Bush has made. Many other students will go father in debt as well. Although I go to a private school, my friends at public school have dealt with consecutive 15% increases in tuition because of the state budget shortfalls that directly stem from a lack of federal money. I was also planning on doing Americorps/Teach for America after college, but Bush cut 50% from that program too, so I guess I'll just go directly to law school instead. Because of Bush's policies, my debt after college will be thousands more. And don't even mention the humongous deficits he has left  the federal government with in the past two years. And the disastrous new Medicaid plan. My generation is going to be left with a financial disaster. If you are young, Bush is awful from an economic standpoint.

Catch a clue Tasty.....NOBODY PAYS BACK STUDENT LOANS!

I have over $20,000 in student loans (that was the part of my college that the military did NOT pay for), and I havn't even begun to pay them back in any real significance yet.  Also, most of the people I know and went to college with have left their student loans in deferment for years.

Also, I am sick and tired of everybody thinking this should be some kind of Socialist Society where the government pays for everything!!!  Why don't you go get a fucking job and pay for college yourself!  Or do what I did and join the military and let them pay for most of it.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

I like to look at education as a national security issue.

If we don't educate - and, yes, pay for the education of others - then the US can't compete. That means fewer smart soldiers, officers, and policy makers. That means our economy stumbles. That means other countries can take us on better, in all things, both economic, social, and military. Education money is one of the smartest way for the Feds to spend tax revenue.

(man, I am a post whore today)

heh student loans have been outta hand since...well forever. ask anybody thats graduated in the last 25 years, either they're still paying the loans off or it they have a foot wide smile cause they finally got them paid off. i worked a full time job through school to pay for it and it sucked ass. my work hurt my studies and my studies hurt my work. and i never any extra money. but i didn't wanna get stuck with a debt that i knew i'd never pay. again, not bush's fault.

     Hell I thought most of my High School time was pointless.  Probably why I did not go to college.  Besides History, and Economy, and in some ways woodshop, I thought High School was a tremendous waste of time.  I just can't justify 12 years of my own language and 11 years of math when the only math I consistently use was learned in the third grade.  

     And it's pretty much a requirement to have your High School diploma before entering the military but having it doesn't mean you'll be a good soldier.  Wisdom (street smarts) is much more important than knowing the square root of 129 or knowing the diference between a noun and a verb.  Kind of funny how I would be required to go to 4 years of college for a job that I learned in 6 months in the military.

Perhaps you should catch a clue before you talk you fucking dipshit. I don't know how old you are, you have to begin paying off federal college loans (Staffords, to be exact) after seven years (whether you continue your education or not).

The fact that you haven't started to pay them back doesn't change the fact that YOU STILL OWE THEM. The government isn't going to let you defer them until you die! You will have to pay them back, and so will your college compatriots.

Can you read? They're LOANS. Not gifts. I am obligated to pay the government back--the government isn't paying for a damn thing. It isn't "socialism". The question here is about the interest rates on those loans. Also, how the fuck am I supposed to pay for college with a job? A part time job? I don't know any part time jobs that pay 32,000 a year. If I were to earn the money that college costs before starting college, I would be in my late twenties by the time I started as an undergraduate. Not a feasible plan.

How are the loan rates on federal loans not Bush's fault? He directly supervises the program, and he is responsible for cutting the funding.

The reason I posted about this is because people were saying that Bush's administration has positively affected their financial outlook. I wanted to illustrate that Bush's administration has not been positive for everyone--his policies have had a significant negative effect on my financial future. I'm glad we still have these programs that allow people like myself to receive a quality college education despite the fact that I cannot fully afford it. If conservatives had been in charge all along, the program probably wouldn't even exist.

I hear ya tasty.

$46,000 in loans due and rising. +$1,800 a year in interest.  Hopefully, they don't ever take away the student interest tax write-off.  (fingers tightly crossed)  

A.  My Stafford Loans are still deferred (Got my first one in 1993, so that's 11 years and counting).  And I'm 30, since you are too lazy to go look at my profile.

B.  Yes, I do still owe them, and I don't have a problem with that.  And yes, the government seems to be quite content on letting me defer them as long as I want.  Although I have started paying some of them back, as I said before, some of them are also still being deferred 11 years later.

C.  And I wasn't talking about the LOANS, you, how did you say it, "fucking dipshit", I was talking about the Pell Grants and other money that you don't have to pay back that you were complaining about earlier.  You are not obligated to pay that money back, and children like you seem to think that the government owes you that.....I disagree.

Okay, the last one was for Cutter, so I'll let him respond to that part.

Peace.

-GhostSniper [the Socialist Liberal Democrat's Worst Nightmare] Out.

Maybe TRY to go a bit back on-topic?


Well thats nice, but thank whatever god you believe in that the USA is NOT a democracy. The founders built a system based on rule of law, private property, and individual rights. Several quotes:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." - Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the University of Edinburgh
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

Then, a bit off topic, but important to the revelant discussion at hand - if the majority is always right, and no rule of law exists, then any behavior considered by the majority to be wrong could be made illegal. I am of the differing opinion, and one of the greatest (IMHO) political philosophers is as well:

"It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person."
- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850


I await the flames. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/ukliam2.gif)

I would mostly agree with you.

Democracy has always been an ideal to strive for rather than something practiced in it's purest form. Same goes for Communism, and, indeed, I expect most forms of government.

Good polical systems try and blend the best bits from all the base ideals. The US has pretty effective political system.

However, I'd disagree that the primary founding of the US was based ON law, private property, and individual rights. I believe it was founder on the desire for a balanced government, one that government for the people and by the people. Our present day notions of who "the people" are have changed since the founding.

The critical aspect of the founding, one which I think IS American Democracy, is the effective series of checks and balances. For me, Democracy isn't so much that my vote gets counted but HOW my voted is factored into the accounting. As much as I disagree with the prosess by which Bush became president, the fact that in the end he took the electoral college and not the public vote is just the breaks.

I think that Spets is not making himself clear enough when he says he believes in majority rule. Should five peopl be able to tell four people exactly what to do? No. Should five people be able to influence policy more than four people? Yes. To extent that notion to the national level then, is what he means. So when liberals and other criticize, for example, Bush's election (aside form irregularities in HOW he was elected) we're criticizing the extent to which his policy practices differ from the majority of America.

The concept of voter mandate plays into this. Sure, you might get into office with out a majority but if you run that office as if you had the majority you are being dishonest to the will of the people. Bush has perfected the practice of being dishonest to the will of the people whilest attempted to co-opt that will though a series of lies and manipulations. All of which every president before him has tried to do on one level or another. The distinction is that on every level since his election he's acted as if his will was the will of every American. He's never had that right - he's there to serve and he's only played one side. That's part of what raises the hatred he's earned. He ran as a uniter and practices as a divider. And he tries very hard to undercut the checks and balances built into the system. Even so, the system has done an amazing job of maintaining some semblance of those checks and balances...

West, no reason to flame, you have your opinion, I have mine.

Ill make my self crystal clear. The Commander and Chief should be elected by the popular vote, and not the supreme court or the electoral college. Pretty simple. Of course this would only work if the now horribly flawed system of voting is drastically altered.

Geeze, step away for a day and there's two pages of posts on which to catch up...

I cannot agree with the notion of electing a president by popular vote, and thankfully, the Founding Fathers did as well - as a result of this they also gave us a bicameral legislature.

If you require only a simple majority of electing the chief executive, the states with the most people become far more important, and candidates can effectively go to only a handful - the ten most populous states have 50% of the US population, so places like the Dakotas, Vermont, Alaska, and Wyoming would get left out in the cold.

The electoral college helps to balance the population discrepancy; a simple majority system reinforces it.

The Founding Fathers also agreed with slavery.

He layth on the Smack Down! ;)

Many were also Agnostic. Many were adulterous. I think it's elements that these that make the Founders so .... so quaint.

Well, if you really want to go down this road...

Many of the founding fathers were slaveowners during a time when slavery was a generally accepted practice.  We understand that this is unacceptable now, but their adherence to the practice does not necessarily negate their other arguments.  The advantage held by larger states in 1790 only white male landowners were given voting rights is still an advantage today if now that whites, blacks, men, women, landowners, whatever, are all able to vote.

I agree, it does not negate their other accomplishments. It simply brings into perspective how different our political culture has become.

A serious problem with majority voting schemes is they frequently fail to produce majority winners.  Mr Gore and Mr Bush each received 48%, Mr Clinton 43% (1992), all of them well under the 50% + 1 needed to win.  The largest majority in recent years was Reagan in 1980, (55%) and 1984 (59%).  Two successful presidents barely won at their popular votes - Mr Truman and Mr. Kennedy were both within a margin of error around 50%, with Kennedy winning by about 100,000 votes, and papers calling the election for Dewey over Truman before the official tallies were released.  

Spetsnaz also wrote:
"I agree, it does not negate their other accomplishments. It simply brings into perspective how different our political culture has become. "

Socially and technologically, the early 21st century is very different from the late 18th - but politically?  Is it so hard to imagine that a majority of the people, whipped into a frenzy by some cause perceived to be for the good of all, could trample on the rights of the few?  

The megalith of corporate influence on politics and the media is a concept which did not exist in the 18th century. The influence it has on politics today is debatable, but in my opinion it is greater than we will ever come to fathom. It is not at all hard to image such a scenario as you have pointed out, but democracy is a double edged sword. Better to trample the rights of a few, than for the few to trample the rights of the majority.

Heck, the debate between mojority rule and minority rights is a pickle indeed. Minorities have rights too, but where do you draw the line stating, "yer done?" (I mean numberical majorities/minorities).

As my gift to this thread for the day, pleas take a look at this:

"(CBS)?Precautions in the name of air security are about to taken to a level unimaginable in the United States only a few years ago.

The Washington Post reports the Bush administration is expected to order as soon as next month the first step in setting up databases on all air passengers, to be used to color-code each air traveler according to his or her potential threat level.

Passengers coded red would be stopped from boarding; yellow would mean additional screening at security checkpoints; and green would mean an only standard level of scrutiny.

Airlines and airline reservation companies would reportedly be forced to turn over all passenger records to U.S. government officials, who struck out in a trial program was based on voluntary surrender of airline industry data. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/12/terror/main592564.shtml

Here's on of my favorite bits:

"The Post says the TSA plans to introduce this year a program for frequent fliers who could get through check-in lines at the airport faster - if they agree to give the government access to some of their personal inform"

I see. Mr. Passenger, would you like the carrot or the stick?

Weren't we taking about finger printing foreigners and filing away their personal information when they enter the country? I think I was saying it wouldn't be long before that was being done to average Americans.

Oh:

"There will reportedly be some overlap between CAPPS II and the recently implemented U.S. VISIT program for fingerprinting and photographing foreigners, as both systems use the same terrorist and criminal watch lists.

In an interview with the Post, the department of Homeland Security's chief privacy officer, Nuala O'Connor Kelly, says that if the databases are merged, there would be strict rules about which agencies could use the information and how it could be used. "

... Riiiiight.

Well, it's being done. The government is now giving each traveler a security rating. I'm made so cofident by their promises of privacy, non-commercial use of their databases, and that info like bank accounts, credit ratings, and medical history will be left out. Not like Bush and his good ole boys don't lie or nothing.

Is it 1984 yet?

Relax a bit.  Thats why the Supreme Court exists.  If they find it infringes on any of the constitution it will not last for long.  I know some people really freak out about anything reagrding their personal privacy but I know I'll just feel that much better about air travel.  Anyone here gonna be a Red light?