Nah, except for colleges, political correctness is pretty much extinct. It's not likely to kill anything, except maybe a sense of humor.

Speaking of subduing freedoms, though, I have this pdf titled something like "Patriot Act 2." I think what drives people to want to control other people is having power, regardless of position on the political spectrum. (I think that was your point, though).

~SDC~

Aadik Shekar:

No, denying that society helped support you in achieving the sucesses you have achieved is flouting the concept of personal responsiblity.

I wouldn't be making the money i do as a computer programmer if not for public schools, i might not have cared as much about doing well in school if i'd lived in a crappy neighborhood and had uneducated parents. Some people manage to dig their way out of backgrounds like that, but by far most of the rich and upper-middle class conservatives who "made it for themselves" came from privlidged backgrounds and wouldn't have done anywhere nearly as well without the support of the society they disdain.

And furthermore things like the Great Depression show how dependent "those who made it for themselves" really are on those who haven't been quite as successfull. Society is a pyramid, if the bottom falls apart, the top goes with them.

Real socialism isn't about letting people sit around on the couch and do nothing, it's about helping people to help society.

I am a network admin and my company is under a denial of service attack atn this time. I am sure it is a *liberal* who is doing it!

Phae,

They all are concerned only with part power (Demos and Repubs) and very few actually with the nation. That is a large part of the problem. The Patriot Act is trash, BTW, and I very much am against it.

Travis, that's the point I was aiming for.

And, yeah, the whole Patriot Act and Sequel thing is just vile.

~SDC~

You all are an interesting lot to talk to. You are not going to convert me, but I appreciate the alternate views and do take certain items into consideration. I never subscribe to a single philosophy, but rather create my own by getting ideas from all venues.

Peace, brothers.

{Takes off gloves and wades into the fray, foolishly or otherwise}

I cannot believe what I have seen on this thread in the last 24 hours... but I've seen it and can no longer fail to respond. (Like vernmeister, I've failed my saving throw, apparently.)

Bear with me - those who agree with my points of view will enjoy the long read... those who don't, well - like I said, bear with me.

Verenti, if you don't mind, I'm going to take some of your points one at a time:

"Right winged politics only serve to perpetuate the gap between the haves and the have nots."

Despite your over-generalized use of the phrase "right-wing", I would presume that you mean the typical US-Republican policy of lower income taxes and controlled social spending. If this is the case, let me assure you that you conclusion is 100% incorrect. The gap between the rich & poor in this nation has many various causes, and lowering taxes is *not* among them. Substance abuse, ethnic & cultural pressures that tell many urban kids *not* to get educated, a sense of entitlement that leads to an unwillingness to work towards financial goals - THESE are things to point towards... THESE separate the "Have because I've earned it" and the "Have-nots because I should be handed it."

"I'm satisfied as a middle class citizen, and I invite all the poor and the rich to join me."

Tragic, truly tragic. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saddened by your being satisfied as a middle-class citizen... instead, it's the insidious "invitation" that I find so tremendously disturbing. In a socialist (or similarly-operated, but different-titled) form of government, that "invitation" is a REQUIREMENT. Sure, the poor would love to become middle-class - especially if they don't have to earn it - but why would the rich wish to join you? What immoral act is there in the mere possession of wealth? Admittedly, wealth enables the immoral to act with impunity (unacceptable), but wealth itself is not an evil. "Invite", huh? Well, I for one would refuse that invitation. Enforced mediocrity is a tragedy.

"The US is a country reknown for their Propaganda skills "being second only to Hitler" and it shows (FoxNews, CNN.. and that's only the commerical side of things)"

You just don't stop, do you? First of all, I'm curious why you quoted the Hitler comment - is that from some other source, or were you just trying to insulate yourself from the consequences of such a ludicrous statement? The US, unlike *many* other nations, does not have a state-run newspaper, state-run television, etc. And, while our media outlets can - at times - act like cheerleaders, they are notorious for finding and exposing the truth. Leftists in our nation who want to surround themselves with like-minded media can do so with National Public Radio, CBS w/Dan Rather, and the NY and LA Times newspapers, while those on the other end can do the same with FoxNews, the Wall Street Journal and some talk radio. The point is that NONE of these outlets is a propaganda tool of the government - and to suggest otherwise is to suggest that you are ignorant of the truth. Or, worse, that you are aware of it but wish to ignore it.

"Conservitives by characteristics are opposed to change.. How would somone who opposes change get a world government going?"

You're over-generalizing again - not all political conservatives are opposed to change. That is an outdated and invalid definition. More importantly, however, a conservative would NEVER get a world government going... why not? Because a world government, by definition, would not allow the kind of liberty that a national or state-level government does. (I find it interesting that you suggest a world government as a *good* thing.) The larger and more heterogenous a society, the more difficult it would be to maintain under the control of one government. Hence your conclusion that a world government could only come about via socialism is accurate because that is the only form that does not take into consideration the rights and freedoms of the individual. Let us hope, however, that such a thing never happens...

"Ever notice Conservitives don't make the best diplomats? Napoleon, The Current Isreali Prime Minister, Bush Jr., Most Monarchs, Fascists, Stalin."

I'm not quite sure of your purpose - other than to be inflammatory - behind this statement. However, rather than point out your foolishness in considering a hard-line communist (Stalin) as a conservative, I will simply point out "conservatives" who are (or were), in fact, good diplomats: Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon (despite his domestic problems, his diplomatic skills with China were legendary), Margaret Thatcher, and the list could go on. There are, of course, leftists who are poor diplomats... President Chirac of France comes to mind, and - for a more extreme example - Fidel Castro.

"So HOW would Conservitives unite the world? The obvious means: At gunpoint. Because they can't succede by diplomacy unless guns are involved. Latest example: US defying the UN and attacking Iraq. "

No, my friend - conservatives (I *do* wish you'd spell it correctly, though I understand English may not be your first language) would unite the world through liberty. It's the socialists that would have to use the threat of the military in order to gain control... only through such an effort would they be able to take private property from free individuals. As for the allegation about the US "defying" the inept UN... how many resolutions did you need? Seriously - France couldn't answer that question... can you? Oh, and we didn't "defy" them either... we just went on without them. I'm unaware of a security council resolution that told us NOT to liberate Iraq. Maybe you can point one out to me? Hmmmmm?

"The fact that your giving it a spin, A Terran spin. Propaganda is "3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) and that's wrong, its the manipulation of information thats immoral, the spin thats almost always there that's immoral, its the posters, the slogan, THATS whats evil about propaganda."

Wait a second then, Verenti... by your OWN definition, YOU are morally wrong. You are expressing ideas deliberately to further your own cause (or to damage conservatives). Well, I guess we cleared that up, didn't we? Either you're one of the growing number of leftists who believe in free speech only when the speaker agrees with you, OR you didn't think through your definition of "immoral" very well. Propaganda, one might say, is in the eye of the beholder... truth can, admittedly, be twisted - sometimes beyond recognition - to serve the speaker, but to suggest (as you did) that media outlets in the US are guilty of this is questionable. In fact, there are a large number of people in the US that think the media is biased to the *left* and opposed to the current administration as a general rule. (There is tremendous evidence to support this point, but that's a whole different argument.)

"I live in Canada, and we spend 10 billion dollars a year on holding criminals. If we placed the money into social welfare, education, etc. maybe we could prevent the crimes by educated out citizens better."

I doubt it. Our nation has spent more money on social welfare than I can count and we still have a problem... you see, there are people out there who - no matter how much you give them - want more, but don't believe they have to earn it. Human nature is, unfortunately, NOT inherently good... not universally, at least.

"I have ambition too, except mine don't extend to my family only, it doesn't stop at my countrymen, it extends to my species, to Homo Sapien. See I have no selfish need to improve my standing, that only keeps the greed ball rolling"

A noble ideal, and one that can truly be respected. However, not everyone is so high-minded... would you force them to act in accordance with your will, nonetheless, or would you respect their freedom? Hmmm. Also, have you considered that some "rich" people who you perhaps see as "keeping the greed ball rolling" are, in fact, helping others simply by *being* rich? Example: A rich man owns a company and keeps hundreds of workers employed, even in a difficult economic time. The same rich man has invested in stock - ownership of other companies who, in turn, use his (and others') investments to expand their companies and hire more people. Just a thought...

"On Iraq: By change you mean put a puppet regime to give them controll over a region rife with turmoil."

After all that you've seen, how can you possibly suggest that this is what will take place? The US plan has *always* been to topple an evil dictator (let me see you argue that he's not) and to allow the Iraqi PEOPLE to organize themselves into a democracy. Will they be our allies? Undoubtedly - after all, we and our friends in the UK are the only ones who shed blood to rescue them. But will they be a puppet? No... not a chance.

"Maybe, If America is TRUELY interested in peace freedom and liberty, they can go in and deal with the problems with Isreal oppressing inhabitants of the West Bank. Maybe they should stop funding a government that brutally suppresses people throwing rocks with missiles and armed forces."

Excuse me, but have you been paying attention? The current administration has created a "roadmap" to peace in the Middle East that will provide the Palestinians with their own nation - PROVIDED they stop the terrorism. We have come down hard on Israel at times, and should continue to do so when they go too far. However, they have been a victim of terrorism for a lot longer than we in the US have been. Furthermore, your characterization of the Palestinians as merely "people throwing rocks" is COMPLETELY out of line. A society that raises its children - KIDS, for cyrin' out loud - to despise their neighbors so much that they would become willing to be suicide/homicide bombers... let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

"Maybe if America cares about the world they could spend some of its money on feeding the nations in the undeveloped countries, not like their anti terrorism bill in 2002 couldn't of ended world hunger."

There's an old saying... "Never let facts get in the way of a good argument." The US has given more food aid and financial aid to developing nations than the rest of the world COMBINED. Not just government dollars, either - private donations, charities, groups like WorldVision. And no, our anti-terrorism bill couldn't end world hunger - why not? Because no amount of money can accomplish that. Freedom can, though. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone - it's the distribution systems and the corrupt leaders of developing nations that prevent it from taking place. Think before you speak, man...

"You know why the UN will never succede in creating a world government? Superpowers."

No, the UN will never "succeed" in such a task for two main reasons. 1 - It's not the purpose of the UN to create such a world government... and thank God for that. 2 - It's incompetent and corrupt. See 1956 Russia's invasion of Hungary, 1968's invasion of Czechoslovakia, oh heck, see just about every conflict that's ever taken place since their formation. Their not only incompetent, but they're nearly useless.

Now, for a brief break...

Okay, back to the show... Falafel, you're up next!

"Yes there is a difference, however, i wouldn't call it free press when people expressing views that are at odds with the main opinion gets fired when doing so or their privilages of visiting the pressroom gets withdrawn making their jobs impossible. One might even argue that this kind of control over the press is even more dangerous as the public thinks its getting free press thus making the propagande even more effective."

The thing to remember here is that journalists aren't there to express their opinions - that's what commentators are for... and newspaper editorials. When a reporter is reporting, that's his job... when he steps out of that job (ala Peter Arnett) and offers direct support to the enemy, he should expect to be fired. Here's the funny thing, though - he still could say what he did. In other words, noboby took away his right to free speech - it's just that there are *private-sector* consequences for exercising that speech in certain ways. I can go to work and tell my boss he's a @&%#ing idiot (not that I would, mind you), and the government can't stop me. But I can still get fired. As for being removed from the pressroom, I've watched a lot of press conferences over these couple of months and have never seen or heard of this happening. Some journalists were removed from the military units in which they were embedded, but that is *significantly* different.

"And in movies and stories making money for nothing is glorified while hard work is for succers. Then when people listen to the messages we blame them for being lazy and no good"

True... and very sad. As a culture, we tend to respect those who work hard, but we admire - and wish to emulate - those who get there the easy way. Doesn't make it right, though...

"I believe it was the US that provided the majority of saddams weapons so i think you should be very careful when putting moral blame on other coutries. Lets not forget the idolized Reagon administration. These humanitarian people vetoed a UN resolution comdemning saddam for using gas on the kurds. I guess it was ok to gas children when your friends with the US right ?"

Be careful here... you need to put certain actions in context. Yes, before the first gulf war, the US provided weapons to Iraq (conventional weapons, no chem/bio) because we were in the midst of a cold war with the Soviets who were supporting Iran. Iran, if you recall, had taken our embassy and held 52 hostages for 444 days... "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", at least for a while. As for the failure to condemn, I cannot speak to that - I do not recall the resolution nor the debate surrounding it. But no, it's not okay to gas *anyone*...

"Why do you automatically assume this? Countries with high social welfare have fewer criminals per capita and happier people."

The way you put this suggests a certain cause and effect relationship that does not, in fact, exist. Consider this - you live in Sweden, correct? Your nation's population is relatively small - a little under 9 million - and is, for the most part, homogenous. I live near the city of Los Angeles - population, over 7 million. Over 40 languages are spoken in the city and the diversity is tremendous. This can be a good thing, but it also can cause friction and conflict. And that's just ONE city. Imagine FIFTY Swedens, except they're not all Swedish... you see the problem? A small, predominantly homogenous society can - to some extent - make your system work... but it cannot logically be extended to the US, let alone the entire world.

Okay, now... back to Verenti...

"Because even handed balance is the only FAIR thing to do. Fairness is at the heart of any 'perfect' society."

From under what rock did you pull this nonsense? How about more important concepts, such as Liberty? This is, as we called it in our Declaration of Independence, an "unalienable right" that was "endowed by our Creator". Fairness, on the other hand, doesn't exist... it's not a right, no matter how pleasant it sounds. Life itself is unfair - accidents happen, people get sick and die, etc. - but they can all do so while living in a Free (but not necessarily fair) society. I'd rather be free than live in a "fair" society as determined by you, I'm afraid...

"You should fix their problems so they don't need to kill people to get their point across."

I really had to read this twice before I realized that you actually MEANT this... huh? So the United States is supposed to "fix" everybody's problems? Your question almost suggests that it is more immoral for the US to not do so, than it is for terrorists to to kill people. If this is the case, your moral perspective is questionable at best...

"If populations didn't dispise the US (face it, a lot of people do, not all of them, but there is alot) then there wouldn't be so supporters for terrorism (seeing as they're using it as the 20th-21st Privateers without the economic gain) so they wouldn't have the resources, supporters, etc. that they do today."

Interesting attempt at creating a cause-effect relationship where none exists. A significant number of terrorists will *always* hate the US... unless, of course, we all convert to Islam and kill the Zionists. Don't you see the absurdity in what you're suggesting? I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate issues around the world that the US can't address... but there are forums (oh, I don't know... like the UN??) for this. Killing innocent non-combatants to make a political point isn't a revolution... it's criminal.

"In this conversation, I'm not mad, I don't wish anyone harm except extreme conservitives, then I want you dead, those not in the far right can be reprogrammed"

Look, I understand that you were "joking" when you said this, but c'mon... you ought to know better by now. If a conservative said something like this, it would be classified as a "hate crime", or - at the least - be considered politically insensitive. I don't wish you dead, either, by the way... I just wish you'd think.

Okay... now for Za01phod...

"Travis, siocialists are usually the people who do the hard work"

Ummm. Why would I, were a socialist (again, thank God I'm not), actually work hard if I obtain the same results by working not-so-hard? By the way, the countries with the greatest per-capita GDP (i.e., the countries with people who work hard) are not generally socialist... just a point.

And, back to falafel...

Your initial point regarding journalists getting fired was addressed earlier in this post... no point in me going back to point out the difference between private-sector response (because they have a market of consumers) and the fact that the government hasn't done a thing to anyone along those lines.

"I think it [socialism] might be possible if you get people that are idialists together, i doubt that it might work on a bigger scale in our current sociatily unfortunately."

See my point earlier regarding the small, homogenous society. Hence, the required threat of force to impose such a government on the rest of us, as I suspect Verenti was arguing.

"I get the feeling that a lot of americal culture has the "look after number one and nobody else" feeling to it. I might be wrong since i do not live there but these are atleast the message i get here from the "cultural influence". And i believe that is the opposite of that our societies need in order to be happier places to live."

Indeed, falafel, you *are* wrong. Americans are more generous, both privately and through their government, than any other nation on the planet. We give more - not only as a raw dollar amount, but as a percentage of income - than any other 'civilized' nation. My concern - and those of the conservatives that Verenti wants killed (or at least "reprogrammed") is the FORCED redistribution of wealth... all this does is create a beaureaucracy that is *dependent* on the poor for their well-being. If, all of a sudden, the poor became middle-class and didn't need welfare anymore, do you think that the government departments would simply close up shop and go home? You see the problem, don't you?

In reference to Verenti's comments about dead conservatives, you say - "That i believe was said in joking way not to be taken seriously. Reread all his comments and i think you'll come to the same conclusion."

Agreed - it was said in a joking way. Nevertheless, it was inappropriate... and, in a way, revealing of the thoughts of those on the left who - once again - believe in free speech, so long as it agrees with them. I do not think Verenti truly wishes me (or others like me) dead, just quiet... which won't happen.

Regarding socialism, you say - "How about scandinavia and at occasions northern europe depending on the current government ( notice year not talking about communism here )."

It functions, to some extent, because of the small and primarily homogenous culture that lives there (Scandinavian nations, in particular). However, those countries are quickly going broke and I will be interested to see how they solve their problems in the not-too-distant future. On the other hand, the vast examples of socialism (and, of course, communism) that have failed are much easier to find...

And, just for fun, back to Za01phod again...

"I think that people in the US should be aware of the quality of their media. You only get to see what your government has agreed with the media you should see"

While our media sometimes focus on different issues, the subjects you used as examples all came out shortly thereafter (maybe not that day, but the fact that I remember them all indicates they were discussed at *some* point). However, your allegation that that we see only "what [our] government has agreed with the media [we] should see" is completely and totally without factual support. Show me one example of a state-run media outlet in this nation... show me state news censors who prevent cable and broadcast networks from airing certain pieces. Your charge is baseless and, simply, false. However, your point that we - as Americans - should look at other news services to see if we're missing anything is valid. It's just too bad that in some countries (Syria, China, N. Korea, Iran, former Iraq), that option simply doesn't exist. Were you aware that Syrian state-run television did NOT broadcast the images of Saddam's statue being toppled or the people celebrating? (Of course, they're led by a member of the Baath party as well...) THAT, my friend, is an example of censorship...

"you can easily remove the freeloaders buy requiring some sort of service for the payments. Then you have guarantied that nobody sleeps on the street if they dont want to and at the same time removed the freeloader problem. "

We've tried this and the government gets sued by advocacy groups for the poor. In fact, we don't even require any "service", we just have asked - in some states - that people who receive payments allow themselves to be tested for drugs. And did they agree? No, they sued. You see, it's that whole sense of entitlement - they "deserve" it and we *have* to give it to them... or you end up with the "No justice, no peace" threats from the radical left. You see, it is apparently a serious offense for our government to require ANY accountability on the part of those people who are receiving "aid".

"Wouldn't you like a society where you know that everybody will help you should you fall instead of being afraid they will kick you while your down ?"

Yes, I would - but I would like it to be handled by the private sector, not the government. It's not helping somebody out when they fall if the government is forcing you to pay exorbitant taxes.

And now, Jeff George... (you're not the failed NFL quarterback, are you?)

"The lemming, right wing mentality here is deeply disturbing. Greed and warmongering will be the downfall of America. "

Funny, but I don't see any lemmings here, Jeff. Some folks expressing their opinions, of course... and they apparently differ from yours. Is that what makes them "lemmings"? Is that what is so "deeply disturbing" to you? Indeed, though, greed will eventually be the downfall of America - the greed of those who decide to simply take what does not belong to them. As for warmongering - hrrrmph, you don't have a legitimate basis for the claim, so I shan't waste everyone's valuable reading time addressing it.

And, for good measure, Phaedyme...

"Actually, I'm more disturbed at the idea that "criticism of the government" = "not patriotic, so move yourself the Hell to Canada." "

I'm saddened by those - with, perhaps, similar political views to my own - who would suggest that criticism means you should move to another nation. I do, however, wish that those vocal opponents would - at least once in awhile - acknowledge that it is because of the freedom granted them that they are able to express their displeasure as they do. There is, of course, a line, though... criticism is one thing (perfectly acceptable, it's what we're all about), but criminal acts are not.

Fascinating stuff, guys & gals... I look forward to *intelligent* responses to my points. I took the time to do this right, so I would hope that any who express disagreement would do so as well.

Good luck and good GalCiving...

Travis,

It has been the right wing administration that has decided to erode our personal freedoms and initiate a police state.

~SDC~

Wow! Long and good post, sixtoes! Thanks, my man!

Jeff,

Give me an example. The left certainly is trying to by attempting to force *their* ideals down everyone's throat - and you cannot deny that unless you are party blind. The right is proposing shit like the Patriot Act which I am vehemently against. I don't care who is doing it, I still am against it.

I also love debating. debating leads to change for the better. Mud-slinging leads to problems.

Verenti: Glad we can keep it civilized You are right, I tend to wander sometimes when I type responses to this type of thing. The point I was trying to make was that the countries opposing us were letting their personal and illegal dealing's get in the way of their judgement.

The anti-terrorism thing - The root of all the hate for us down there is Israel. It's a holy war, and were helping the opposing side. This makes us infidels. I agree it needs to be fixed, and that we should't have to spend billions on protection. But we have to, to protect our civilians as 9/11 has shown us.




"I have seen this interview and he does no such thing, what he did was pointing out something that was obvious to all parties involved at the time. But let us not get stuck at a single person, how about the latest casualty :
Link"
I didn't know about that. And I'm sure there are others. It is wrong if he was fired just for protesting on a day he requested off. If he called in sick and then went to protest, that's a different matter. Lying about being sick is grounds for termination at any job.

"I think it might be possible if you get people that are idialists together, i doubt that it might work on a bigger scale in our current sociatily unfortunately."

agreed

"Let me see if i understood you correcly, what you are saying that in certain situation, all means are allowed in order to reach a goal ? Ie: Accepting the killing of women and children and then vetoing a resolution comdemning this ? In this case i'm afraid i will have a difficult time debating things of moral with you since you dont seem to have any moral absolutes. But i would like to point out that you have foregone all rights to blame others more moral lacking ie your previous points about france."

Like I said, I was in a rush to get to work and didn't have time to emphasize my point enough obviously. The cold war was going on at the time, and the 2 superpowers had enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 10 times over. We supported south vietnam while russia suppoted the north. We supported Iraq, russia supported Iran. We didn't condone the killin and gasing of innocents. As a matter of fact, I didn't hear about that until after the first gulf war (which doesn't mean there wasn't info about it oput there I'm just saying me peronally). We were fighting to stop the spread of communism. It was different circumstances, just like how we were allies with the russians during WW2.

"From 88-89 and forward the majority of arm sales to iraq was from the us. ( atlest to a documentary a saw "

and I believe most of those weapons were destroyed or taken by inspectors after the first one.


"Im not sure what you mean by this. If your pointing at corruption due to the poitical hagling of its member nations then i agree with you. Ofcourse the US is one of the worst haglers."

Corruption of it's members (US included, I don't think were the worse tho), it's leaders, and the people directing their programs.

"LoL, now that a bit cheap shot down you think ."

It was meant purely as a joke not trying to say anything bad.


"First hand as in know people that are abusing the system or have heard from friends what are we talking about. And for that matter, dont you think its a bit prejudice to judge the entire system by a few people you know ?"

From people I know telling me to all the way up to seeing it first hand. Unfortunately, I've seen someone buy crack with the welfare money that was supposed to go to her child. I've seen people who are supposed to be trying to get a job admit
they were just waiting until the unemployment ran out.

"The point that your trying to avoid is ofcourse whether you are willing to part with luxery so that someone what is not as lucky as you might have a resonable life to live ? I would guess no though from your previous answers "

Absolutely. If I felt my money was being spent properly to help these peopls, I would do so in a heartbeat. I love helping people, believe it or not :)Unfortunately,like I said above, I have seen firsthadd what it is used for.

"I get the feeling that a lot of americal culture has the "look after number one and nobody else" feeling to it. I might be wrong since i do not live there but these are atleast the message i get here from the "cultural influence". And i believe that is the opposite of that our societies need in order to be happier places to live."

I agree with you in the fact that that is the image we portray. It couldn't be farther from the truth tho. We want to help ppeople. We want everyone to live a hapy and comfortable life. Were just not willing to give it to them if they aren't willing to work a little for it.

nice debate btw

If some parts of that don't make sense, I apologize. I'm at work right now, and it takes me 2 hours to right one post. I might have lost focus in there someqwhere

Travis,

Are you going to tell me that it hasn't been the current administration responsible for the Department of Homeland Schmuckery, as well putting aside laws regarding the right of an arrested person to speak to an attorney, and not to be held indefinitely without proof of a crime?

~SDC~

I did not mention the current administration. Why do you feel the need to bring it up? Agenda? I said that I don't care what the source of crap is because it is still crap. Things have changed since 9/11 for the worse in many ways. I do not agree with a lot of what is going on right now, but the left has no pills for our ills either. In fact, they perpetuate many of the ills. I believe in freedom and it does not matter if it is rightist policing that takes it away or leftist legislation that takes it away. I'll fight both.

all county's news medias lie and slant the truth. wake up. I didnt say USA news was the best. its the same (or MAYBE better) than all the rest including Al Jezeera. Of course listening to other country's news can help you get an idea whats going on in the world. But dont you think we can see through news that cast the USA in a bad light while casting their own views in a poasitive light is NO DIFFERENT than what WE do.
Time to talk to Bobo now. I'm getting bored.

Hi sixtoes, wow, thats quite a massive post, and you just know that im not going to leave it alone dont you .

"The thing to remember here is that journalists aren't there to express their opinions - that's what commentators are for... and newspaper editorials."

So i guess in a talkshow where you bring up controversial subjects, then it's ok to say your piece, right ? As in, say , politically incorrect ?( incredible how much i know of americal internal politics isn't ). Lets face it sixtoes, if those that are reporting the news, either get their newsreporting marginilized or compleately stricken due to the content they are reporting, or worse, getting fired for opinions they have. Then your effectively censoring the news and making people fearful of what they are saying. It does not matter if this is due to self censorship from the corporations or directive from the goverment, the end effekt is the same. And as such you have news that are claiming to be unbiased but are anything but.

"But I can still get fired. As for being removed from the pressroom, I've watched a lot of press conferences over these couple of months and have never seen or heard of this happening."

First of all that is a very bad comparising. If you go and tell your coworkers the boss is an idiot then they know that its biased coming from you, further they have their own knowledge of the boss and can judge by themselves whether your comments about the boss is accurate or not. When you get news about events that you do not have knowledge of, reported by so called unbiased newsmedia ( self claimed ) then people are assuming that it is so. Like how the massive american antiwar demos got extreme little coverage. And regard to you not hearing about such events, isn't it obvious that such behavious is unreported by those that wish to stay in the loop ? I have given you a link in the above posts to another such incident and reported several to you, do i have to dig up all of them before you are convinced it is happening ?

"Be careful here... you need to put certain actions in context."

No i'm afraid i will not be that as the crimes committed is so henious that it sticks out from any context. You have an administration that is selling weapons, supporting and covering up for a regime that murders children and women with gas in tousands. In many ways this reminds of nazi germany though i will give you that was on a much more orginised and massive scale. There is nothing that can excuse vetoing such a resolution or continuing coorperation with such a regime. It would be equally acceptable if i was to voice support for 9/11 terrorism and then tell you to look at it in context. Sure, the US has been in some really bad conflicts causing lots of innocents to die but that does not excuse any terrorist act. So my original point ( which is somewhat lost in the wilderness off all this text that as an american citizen one should be careful laying moral blame on other nations while excepting ones own, still stands to a very high degree.

"The way you put this suggests a certain cause and effect relationship that does not, in fact, exist."

I would claime that is does. Yes, it's not the only cause that causes that effect but logically, if you have a piece of the population that is living in such poverty that their choises are either to live in misery or commit a crime then you will have more crime that otherwise. Or do you claim that poorness and misery has nothing to do with crime ?

"Consider this - you live in Sweden, correct? Your nation's population is relatively small - a little under 9 million"

Good point, but somewhat less valid i think than what you claim, first of all 20% of the swedish population has foreign root ( im one of them ). Second, you have less crime per capita in entire scandinavia and northern europe. This is still less than the population of the us and still more homogenous but not that much of a difference or you claim originally.

"See my point earlier regarding the small, homogenous society. Hence, the required threat of force to impose such a government on the rest of us, as I suspect Verenti was arguing."

Intresting, so that you believe is the only was to unify the world, by conquring it ?( strange that the eu is getting larger with no wars going on but lets ignore that for now ) I would on the other hand claim that by education, cooperation and dialog we can come closer to each other, it might take a few centuries but i would claim it would be possible. And please lets note that the original point, that US was one of the reasons the UN does not have more power, got lost here.

"Indeed, falafel, you *are* wrong. Americans are more generous,"

In that case i'm very glad to be wrong . However, i beilieve we are still getting the opposite impression here, but i guess that can be blamed on hollywood .

" We give more - not only as a raw dollar amount, but as a percentage of income "

There you are wrong and i'm almoust sure of it !! The swedish government gives about .8% of the GNB as help to other nations and that is the HIGHEST in the world. If you have other numbers i must ask you to give me proof becouse i'm quite certain of this. I do not know which rank the us comes in but i'm pretty sure all of scandinavia surposses it in %.

"is the FORCED redistribution of wealth.."

Due to the characteristings of our society ( or perhaps the basic human being ), that is the only way you will get people to contribute other than token sums. And as regards to the generosity of the rich americans, isn't strange that they need to deduct what they give away from the goodness of their hearts ? Here in sweden we have no such thing and still we give away though .

". all this does is create a beaureaucracy that is *dependent* on the poor for their well-being."

So your basically claiming that the beuracracy is keeping the poor poor ?
I'm afrai i must once again disagree to that.

" However, those countries are quickly going broke and I will be interested to see how they solve their problems in the not-too-distant future. "

No not at all, to the unfortunate headache of the "conservatives" , we are corrently doing extremely fine and not only that but beating the us in such things as IT development and atractive IT investment place. Altough your not the first to say this as it has been said since the sixties that social benefits and tax like this has to bankrups a nation like this.

"believe in free speech, so long as it agrees with them"

I'm afraid the only thing you guys have at the moment regarding free speach that is better than us is the illusion of freedom sixtoes. Your need for security has driven you so far into the big brother society you fear that i wonder if there's any turning back. The liberties that your government takes in the name of security is down right chilling so i'm not sure its us lefties you need to watch if you fear for your freedoms.

PS: I have only read the parts where you responded to me, if i commented in a wrong way due to this, i appologise.

/ Falaffel

I've seen multiple comments about the whole welfare situation and whether or not it's being taken advantage of.

As someone with fairly strong socialist leanings, let me say that i think that welfare money is a fundamentally _wrong_ idea.

I think that every human being is entitled to having certain basic needs provided. Primary among these is food, and shelter.

If you want to make sure that people have food and shelter, then giving them money and hoping they use it to buy food and shelter is a bad idea. Some people will be wise and use it properly, some will not. If you want to make sure people have food and shelter, then give them food and shelter!

Ideally, if i could rehape the world to my will, then there would be sufficient free housing supplied by the government for everyone who wanted it. It wouldn't be _great_ housing, but it would meet code.

The US would take the surplus food they buy off farmers to keep prices jacked up and give it to the poor. Some methods would need to be worked on such that it didn't affect the prices that were being supported in the first place, perhaps only people on welfare would be able to use the stores where it's given away, maybe sufficient social stigma would be associated with it that only those truly needy (and therefore wouldn't have been buying it on their own in the first place) would go in.

If such a system could be worked out, i would hope that most people would agree that it would be far and away better than the current welfare system.

For those neo-conservatives who still have reservations, consider that those people who don't have jobs but want to get them would have a much easier time if they didn't have to scramble to provide their basic needs first, and therefore have a better chance of contributing to the economy and maybe purchasing something from the company you work for eventually. Those that don't have jobs and don't want them would have _no_ source of income. No welfare checks, just a place to live and food to eat. You probably wouldn't see many panhandlers around either, who's going to give money to a begger when they know that they can go down to the welfare store and get food for free?

"nice debate btw"

Sure is danny .

"Like I said, I was in a rush to get to work and didn't have time to emphasize my point enough obviously. The cold war was going on at the time, and the 2 superpowers had enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 10 times over. We supported south vietnam while russia suppoted the north. We supported Iraq,"

I have posted above what i think of viewing these actions in "context".

"and I believe most of those weapons were destroyed or taken by inspectors after the first one."

I did not know that, but it's a bit outside the point of whether they should have been sold at all.

"From people I know telling me to all the way up to seeing it first hand. Unfortunately, I've seen someone buy crack with the welfare money that was supposed to go to her child."

In sweden you get cut of some or all welfare if you to not agree to going treatments for drugs if your a drug addict. ( which is actually the reason why we have a few homeless people ).

"Absolutely. If I felt my money was being spent properly to help these peopls,"

Now if we just can get you to vote for Nader . Just kidding, glad to hear that though, hope you can be a part of a society that feels secure enough to do that.

"We want to help ppeople. We want everyone to live a hapy and comfortable life. Were just not willing to give it to them if they aren't willing to work a little for it."

Considering the state of the us society right now i would claim it's a bit more than little currently. But who knows, things can change ?!?

/Falaffel

Travis i think you took me comments personally, that was not my intension, it was to get my point across. No offence intented.

Perhaps you've not heard of Food Stamps and Government houseing (usually refered to as Projects...) these programs worked so well that, well, actually they worked very poorly.

The main problem is really education, and while the US system certainly leaves much to be desired, the main failing as I see it, isn't necessarilly with the schools, but rather with the general attitude towards education. This attitude that education isn't needed has been a *direct* result of the wellfare state here, and until that issue is addressed (and I don't know how to do that) these problems will continue.

For those earilier people who couldn't tell "kill all extreme right-winged" was a joke.. It was.


Travis. Liberalism do not subdue freedom. Conservitism subdues freedom, the whole "Freedom for Security" thing, Thats not a liberal plan. The curtailing of free speech amongst ANY of its citizens, The not the liberal thing to do. Not allowing states to sucede from your Union, that not a liberal thing to do.

Check out Amsterdam, (uncomfirmed) the most liberal place in the world. Do YOU have the freedom that they do? Not likely becuase the US is the land of the and the home of the I'm basically trying to this: very much some one would . Its like libs. This has been a broadcast by CNN, news network

What a tick... What aurora bomber!?

~SDC~

Heh, liberals and conservatives both can subdue freedoms. Which ones are the question...

If we limit ourselves to free speech then both sides have tried to subdue it, though the liberals are a bit more sneaky about it. But don't delude yourselves, both sides will claim the moral highground to back their arguments, neither is really any more or less moral than the other.

Libertairians on the other hand typically try to protect as may freedoms as possible or senseable. Lets just not confuse them with your stock conservatives....

looks like my summoning worked after all.

cheers

h

ubertaco:

Yeah, i've heard of them, and they're crappily done and not at all what i had in mind.

Food Stamps, that's not free food, that's a level of abstraction up from free food, and it's rather limited who can get it. I've heard stories about people buying crappy stuff with food stamps, or selling them for cash to get alcohol, drugs, whatever. Some of that's probably right-wing propoganda, some of it may not be, i don't know.

The ideal is that you should be able to walk into a government store, that has only medium quality but healthy food, and take what you like. You can't resell it, who'd want to buy what they could get for free themselves?

Government Housing actually works fairly well, when it isn't crippled by corruption and/or bad planning.

"Conservatives and the real estate industry also fought to ensure that participation by cities was voluntary and administration was local. Decisions about whether, or where, to build developments were left to local officials, often dominated by private real estate interests. Few units were built in affluent areas. As public housing became the home of blacks and other minorities, local control by white politicians contributed to patterns of racial segregation."

So yeah, if you build housing in "undesireable" high crime areas, guess what, the housing will be undesireable and high in crime.

Build better housing in better areas and have better enforcement, and a lot of the problems would go away.

I wonder if you could work out a way where you build a sectrion of pretty good apartments in each of them, and let cops live there free?

"Wow, Verenti has a very, um, er, interesting view of the U.S. and people of conservative beliefs."

"That i believe was said in joking way not to be taken seriously. Reread all his comments and i think you'll come to the same conclusion."

I read it several times in fact, so there is no need for me to reread it. I don't think it's acceptable to say something like that, even with a winky eye or smiley face after it. I would have been equally offended if the comment had been aimed at liberals.

I will espouse some things I believe in, call it what you will, conservative, liberal, libertarian, you pick your own label. This is not an attempt to persuade others to my way of thinking.

I believe if someone is too lazy to work, we do not need a mechanism of government to provide for them through taxes. But, if they want to sit around all day smoking crack, whatever they want to consume should be legal. I believes criminal laws (with the exception of certain traffic laws) should exist to penalize misconduct, not simple things like possession or consumption. I share this view having developed it over a lifetime, but more recently due to 17 years as a street cop. You won't find legalization on the conservative dinner plate.

I would personally like to find some hybrid between a tax system and a fee based service government, in a perfect world. I do not support a one world government (the Socialist's idea of redistributing the resources of the US and other countries). But I have no problem with the US offering assistance to other countries. I believe in the death penalty, but not abortion. I believe in Capitalism, but in holding Corporations and Corporate individuals responsible for illegal or unethical fiscal behavior.

I believe Socialism is an "extreme" (and I tend to dispise the word extreme because it's sooooo subjective, I'm using it sarcastically) leftist attempt to redistribute the wealth to all, unfairly taking away from those who work harder, produce more, are more innovative and creative, which generally benefits everyone to begin with.

I believe in charity, volunteer work, community efforts to reach those "in need" and "at risk". I chose my occupation so I could improve the community in which I live. My family contributes to charities such as the Heifer Project (a global oriented charity), Samaritan House, DAV, a couple others. I do not like contributing my money involuntarily to the government as well when the massive beauracy attempts to pass itself off as a charity organization. Charity should NOT be a function of the government, IMO. I do however recognize the benefit of assisting unemployed people on a very short term basis, while they REALLY seek to reemploy themselves.

I'm agnostic, though I can't say that my views weren't in some way influenced by the Judeo-Christian community in which I grew up. However, I still subject my beliefs to thoughtful consideration in an attempt to ensure that that's what I think is right or wrong, not what someone else has told to think that way. This takes me well outside the realm of being "a religious nut".

I believe terms like "the less fortunate" or "underprivileged" are bandied about way too often. It seriously takes away from those who have worked hard to improve their quality of life, and "let's off the hook" irresponsible people who have squandered opportunity and have not worked hard. As another poster alluded to, I believe firmly in personal responsibility.

And while some folks on here might attempt to lead you to believe that they are selfless and are only concerned for the species, I think that's a load of crap designed to elevate their OPINIONS to "the high road".

As for the US disregarding the UN on the war in Iraq, how many more years and resolutions would it have taken to the UN to accomplish what the US did in weeks? If the UN is going to demonstate itself to be an ineffective organization in dealing with world concerns such as I Iraq, then somebody has to step up to the plate. You can piss and moan all you want, while the US takes out the trash and does the dirty work, but in the end, I believe most people recognize that it was for the good of all, and the situation in Iraq, for Iraqis, will likely improve dramatically as well.

I should finish (what some will no doubt refer to as a "diatribe") with a truly offensive remark followed by a smiley face so that it makes it okay, but I'll forego any misunderstandings at this point. I have attempted to state SOME of my opinions in the best manner of my capability. It's not as objective and emotion-free as I would like, but I have gotten tired of the "Let's take cheap shots at America" crowd.

~SDC~