Little Communists.

[HermesVoice]

To both of you.

Is this part of the formal curricula?

"The curricula"? You've just demonstrated why you have no business speaking on education in America.

 

[HermesVoice]

Please explain how someone making just a bit over minimum wage can pay for living, their family, and save for 30 years of retirement. Show your math.

There's also the issue of practicality and fairness.

It's all very well to say "end Social Security, and let each be responsible for his own retirement portfolio, "but it's simply unreasonable to assume that everyone can become accomplished in personal financing and asset management. Nothing good will happen if you tell the parents of four, both of whom already work two jobs: "Well, in addition to child rearing and your work, you'd better begin to learn how to manage a stock portfolio now. You'll need that later."

It's just impractical to expect these folks to take up investment management on top of everything else.

The fact of the matter is that even the spectacularly wealthy who KNOW how to manage investments don't do it alone. They pay people to help them, but we're going to place a further burden on middle and lower class workers who cannot afford a personal investment advisor and say: "Fuck you. Plan for your own goddamned retirement. What? Can't afford someone to help you plan that? Guess your retirement's going to suck then, isn't it? Serves you right for not being rich."

There are reasons the Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard all use Aviation. There are reasons we have separate branches. And guess what? They work well together. Integration is great - and it's something that's in place in the daily lives of our service members.

On the other hand there are intense intense rivalries between the services, especially for funding. One of the reasons any branch of the service hates to give up a project or piece of development is that they're frightened the funding for it will go to another branch.

If you actually wanted to integrate the Marines and Army, expect MAJOR push-back from both branches (and the Navy, who have the Marines attached to their department). When the Pentagon starts going to senators - which it will - we can saffely put to rest the idea that the various branches of the service will be fused in some way.

 

[KingOrfeo]

...political child abuse.

There's nothing new about using kid actors in political ads.

 

[eyer]

There's nothing new about using kid actors in political ads.

Good point about "nothing new"...

...as it also succinctly applies to the irrelevancy of your response.

 

[kbate]

Is this really the kind of hair splitting you want Congress to adjudicate via legislation for every single regulatory decision by every single agency of the federal government?

We do not need 3 agencies. We need one agency to manage public lands (not that the U.S. should be the major landowner in the nation to begin with). The agency should submit a "management plan" to congress and congress should say, "Yea, or Nay". Our current system, creates an agency and the head of that agency according to his or her political whimsy - makes regulations to please whichever group they like best.

I can see the logic in phasing out Social Security and making individuals ultimately responsible for their own retirement. Healthcare is a whole different animal. The de facto healthcare services distribution vehicle within the United States is invariably linked to one's employment. Given enough younger, healthier employees compared to older, less healthy workers, a company health plan has sufficient actuarial diversity to make that plan profitable to the provider and marginally affordable to all company workers.

Not so once those workers retire. Most people over aged 65 can be divided up between the sick, sicker and sickest. The age range and the range between those of good health and poor health is narrowed considerably. The risk pool has suddenly become shark infested and one which insurance carriers are loathe to wade into. And even if they did, any such seniors' only plan would be prohibitively expensive.

Shutdown Medicare, and grandma won't have to worry about government "death panels." She's condemned already.

So, you are saying that only the huge hand of government can take care of seniors? We may as well stop pretending to cut costs and just go to nationalised (meaning complete) government health. If Medicare is the only possible way, there is no point in the cost cutting measures. Medicare is the single largest factor driving the costs out of reach. That is what you ignore. Costs are driven up by the availability of medicare dollars. Costs will drop significantly if the government is not dictating regulations, and the amount paid per procedure based on an inflationary economy.

You don't think that the 2.9% of your pay that is taken today to fund medicare might be better distributed at the state level through medicaid or into private health insurance?

I reject your statement about condemned as fear mongering crapola.

Without arguing the specifics of NATO, do you recognize the legitimacy of going to the defense of an ally and fighting alongside them even though our country has not been attacked? Is that a reasonable foreign policy commitment to make in advance of any hostilities? Is it a legitimate proactive investment in our own national security? Ever?

Where did I say we cannot go to the aid of an allied nation attacked? We did that in WW2 without NATO, we can do it again without a treaty. We are still playing "forward defense" - an anti-soviet tactic meant to stop them from advancing beyond the Rhine and south of Iceland. That is too costly and should be scrapped to deal with the realities of war in the 21st century. We no longer need keep a field army in Europe. We need to be able to put one on the ground and in the air when needed.

Who did you have in mind? Prisoners in GITMO?

Repatriation of POWs typically occurs when a war has concluded and there is no longer any "motherland" for whom the prisoner can return to fight for or be supplied by.

The "war on terror," or more precisely the "war on multi-national Islamic Jihad" presents unique challenges in terms of when the war will be concluded or which nation might next harbor and support enemy combatants.

Until those challenges are adequately resolved in favor of the United States' long term security, repatriation of enemy combatants looms as being dangerously premature -- as has already been demonstrated by various repatriated Jihadists returning to combat against us.

I am uninterested in the entire prisoner issue and consider it completely a red-herring in this discussion. It has nothing to do with cutting our military and appears to be your excuse to keep 1.5 million men under arms.

Essentially, this has already been done, but the "consolidation" took place on a geographical basis rather than an individual "force" basis. In fact, we once had a Space Command which was a "unified combatant command" which is defined as "composed of forces from at least two Military Departments and has a broad and continuing mission."

Currently, we have six multi-force unified combatant commands based on geographic theaters they are tasked to opperate within along with three "functional" unified combatant commands that can be directly attached to or deployed in support of the geographic commands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Combatant_Command

You advocate the consolidation of military commands based on the environment they operate in (air, land and water). The Pentagon simply goes one step further and acknowledges the existence of all three environments in the larger geographic areas under the specific unified combatant command authority.

Under your plan, helicopters supporting ground troops in a specific action would require the coordination of two separate service branches. What if they don't agree on the best course of action or coordination? The current command structure ensures resolution of that stalemate through a single chain of command.

I have no way of knowing which organizational plan would be cheaper or if the cost could even be proven, but since national security is what I'm buying, I think I'll go with the generals.

Yes of course you'll go with "Status Quo" and a 700 billion budget. I'll advocate a change. You say "go with the generals" but the "generals" primary interest is defending their own service and career - not defending the nation on the lowest dollar possible.

My plan would not require "two coordinated services" any more than does today's military. My plan is One command, one uniform, one war. Currently - we have to coordinate Naval air with marine air, army choppers and air force radar and hope it all comes in with the correct codes and times. One Air commander - working in centcom with one ground commander - can easily coordinate just as well as they do today. Another red-herring argument against that has no provable validity. Again - just argue for status quo because, well that's how we do it.

The pentagon fights as it does - because that is how the pentagon has always fought. Not because it is the best way to fight.

The idea of "space" is because we are moving toward the drone army and it is going to be worthy of a total command. I know it is not new, it is time to take advantage of our supremacy in space born technology to allow a reduction in other forces.

FWIW (and I suspect you will find it worth very little), however poorly we have attempted 'nation building' in the past, it was usually attempted out of a motivation NOT to have to go in and destroy a nation later. That is why we are fighting the Taliban now, and attempting to build the capability of Afghani forces to maintain their own defense eventually.

It is an attempt to save lives and property in the long term. Condemn or support each effort on its merits, but at least give our military under the command of the last two Presidents that benevolent presumption.

[/quote]

How wonderful. We had to go back into Iraq. We had to spend 8 years the second time. Russia tried nation building in Afghanistan and lost. We are going to pull out and they are going to get the taliban back.

The reason is because we went in to "nation build" and not to defeat the people of the nation.

In WW2, we defeated Japan, they knew (with few exceptions) that they had been beaten. Mind, military, body and soul they were defeated - and then we went home and gave them back their nation - and we haven't had to go back.

In WW2 - we (and others) crushed the Axis in Europe. The Germans knew to the last person that they were defeated and had lost the war. We then forgave debt, signed with the new government as an ally and moved on.

Since then, we have sent in troops to fight with limited power. To build nations and sovereign military. We have a divided Korea. We have communist Vietnam. We have 230 dead marines in Beriut. We have Somalia and withdrawal in shame. We have Iraq/Kuwait 1 - and a resurgent Iraq. We have Iraq 2 - and an 8 year insurgency. We have Afghanistan (and the taliban IS going to take over when we leave that pit).

In war, you must defeat the PEOPLE, not the military forces only if you wish to leave a changed nation behind.

War is not meant to be sanitary and kind. It is violent diplomacy and should be horrible, and in fact must be horrible or it is pointless.

You cannot prove a single saved life from our nation building in Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Kbate ----we did not come to the aid of any nation willingly in WWII. America was remaining relatively neutral. USA did not enter the fight till Pearl Harbor and then 4 days later Hitler declared war on the US.

 

[Cade Is Here]

This is what is being taught in the nations elementary schools.

Contract for the American Dream

Ishmael

Obama and ACORN have been changing school books for some time now.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

We do not need 3 agencies. We need one agency to manage public lands (not that the U.S. should be the major landowner in the nation to begin with).

The United States isn't the major landowner in the nation. Approximately 60% of the land area is privately owned. The federal government owns about 28% with state and local governments owning most of the rest.

The agency should submit a "management plan" to congress and congress should say, "Yea, or Nay". Our current system, creates an agency and the head of that agency according to his or her political whimsy - makes regulations to please whichever group they like best.

So what's stopping the evil agency head from submitting a "management plan" to Congress that reflects the very bias that you find so offensive? Answer: Nothing.

What are the odds that a Democratic Congress is going to meticulously examine every agencies' regulatory actions and then actually countermand the recommendations of the agency head who just also happens to be a Democrat and who just also happens to be exercising the specific regulatory authority granted to him by Congress? Answer: Zero. Absolutely zero.

You obviously have a burr up your ass over some government regulations you don't like, and you somehow think you can fix the "problem" by forcing Congress to approve or reject said agency regulations. It's as if you believe agency heads are blindly partisan, but Congress never is.

No matter. Your "solution" simply does not solve the problem you've identified. The inherent illogic is blinding.

So, you are saying that only the huge hand of government can take care of seniors? We may as well stop pretending to cut costs and just go to nationalised (meaning complete) government health. If Medicare is the only possible way, there is no point in the cost cutting measures. Medicare is the single largest factor driving the costs out of reach. That is what you ignore. Costs are driven up by the availability of medicare dollars. Costs will drop significantly if the government is not dictating regulations, and the amount paid per procedure based on an inflationary economy.

You don't think that the 2.9% of your pay that is taken today to fund medicare might be better distributed at the state level through medicaid or into private health insurance?

I believe you advocated phasing out Medicare (along with Social Security) entirely.

Meanwhile, the elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses. The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64). (http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm)

But at least the vast majority of working age people had coverage through their company healthcare plan.

How do you expect the elderly to be insured if they're not working? If Medicare is a financial nightmare for the nation as a whole, as it most surely is, how do you think that problem is solved by simply shuffling the nation's elderly into Medicaid? And why would you even use the words "private insurance" in reference to the elderly? An entire class of people in excess of age 65 who account for 36% of total U. S. healthcare expenses and whose individual annual costs are over three times that of all those under age 65 are simply uninsurable in the private insurance marketplace.

The whole concept of "insurance" requires a larger, healthier population of insureds paying part of the healthcare costs of a smaller, less healthier population. I'm not at all certain how we are going to make those numbers work to adequately care for the rapidly growing elderly population.

I only know that nothing you've suggested so far gets us anywhere closer.

Where did I say we cannot go to the aid of an allied nation attacked? We did that in WW2 without NATO, we can do it again without a treaty.

I didn't say you did. I merely asked if you believed that it was a legitimate use of American combat forces to fight in defense of an ally even if we were not directly attacked. You answered the question. Thank you.

Yes of course you'll go with "Status Quo" and a 700 billion budget. I'll advocate a change. You say "go with the generals" but the "generals" primary interest is defending their own service and career - not defending the nation on the lowest dollar possible.

My plan would not require "two coordinated services" any more than does today's military. My plan is One command, one uniform, one war. Currently - we have to coordinate Naval air with marine air, army choppers and air force radar and hope it all comes in with the correct codes and times. One Air commander - working in centcom with one ground commander - can easily coordinate just as well as they do today. Another red-herring argument against that has no provable validity. Again - just argue for status quo because, well that's how we do it.

The pentagon fights as it does - because that is how the pentagon has always fought. Not because it is the best way to fight.

What do you know about the best way to fight? What year did you graduate from the National War College?

I'm sure the Pentagon will be as bemused as I am to learn that their methods and strategies of war are hopelessly stuck in the past despite your own admission that we are moving forward with drone technology.

As for saving money, reasonable people have suggested, as have you, a substantial draw down of forces in Europe. Fine. It's a legitimate topic for debate.

As for, nation building, I'm not certain you can hold the Pentagon solely responsible for that. Many of those policies have been implemented from the White House. The military largely did what it was told, although there are a fair share of generals who subscribe to the strategy as well.

I've never heard anyone suggest eliminating "Army" helicopters by simply transferring them over to the Air Force for no other reason than they happen to be a weapons platform that flies or that billions would be saved by combining Marine and Army infantry regiments. This part of your plan is just goofy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

America is in the grips of absorbing 79,000,000 retiring Boomers who vote. There are no liberal retirees, every last one of them morph into bill collectors at 62. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

I was fortunate to find an old fashioned MD for my needs. I'm 62 and have no insurance. My doc charges a modest fee and takes care of business without tests and more tests and referrals. And he doesnt accept Medicaid patients. I pay cash and he sticks the money in his pocket.

 

[kbate]

Kbate ----we did not come to the aid of any nation willingly in WWII. America was remaining relatively neutral. USA did not enter the fight till Pearl Harbor and then 4 days later Hitler declared war on the US.

Willingness has little to do with it. We were shipping arms, ammunition, fuel, ships, planes, food, clothing, steel, and thousands of other products to Britain from 1939 to 1941. Roosevelt was willing to sell ships to England to combat the U-Boat problem. That is 'faux-neutrality'.

Plus, you missed the point entirely. It is not the manner of entry that is the salient point, it is the manner of execution. We fought to win the war, without regard for the damage to the enemy. Sure, some attempts were made to lighten civilian deaths, but overall - we fought to defeat the German and Japanese People. The firebombing of Tokyo was not for military value, it was a message about the future of the Japanese people.

We won and won lasting peace in both theatres - because we defeated the People so fully that they abandoned their governments and changed the course of their nations.

We haven't done that since. We now fight with compassion and concern and not with the brutality required to make war the final diplomacy tool it truly is.

 

[unregistered]

 

[kbate]

The United States isn't the major landowner in the nation. Approximately 60% of the land area is privately owned. The federal government owns about 28% with state and local governments owning most of the rest.

So, show me who owns more land than the federal government. That is what being the majority landowner means. Total percentage of land? Really?

So what's stopping the evil agency head from submitting a "management plan" to Congress that reflects the very bias that you find so offensive? Answer: Nothing.

Accountability to the congress. The public opinion and a vote of record by the politicians who control the agency's budget. Today we do not have that. We have arbitrary regulation as 'regulation authority is interpreted by unelected and unaccountable authorities'.

What are the odds that a Democratic Congress is going to meticulously examine every agencies' regulatory actions and then actually countermand the recommendations of the agency head who just also happens to be a Democrat and who just also happens to be exercising the specific regulatory authority granted to him by Congress? Answer: Zero. Absolutely zero.

Prove it. Congress now can pass off their power and remain blameless. I am trying to end that. What possibility that your republicans would veto or change a bill giving oil rights across the globe to Exxon? 0 today. If they have to go on record with a personal vote? Who knows?

You obviously have a burr up your ass over some government regulations you don't like, and you somehow think you can fix the "problem" by forcing Congress to approve or reject said agency regulations. It's as if you believe agency heads are blindly partisan, but Congress never is.

No matter. Your "solution" simply does not solve the problem you've identified. The inherent illogic is blinding.[/quote]


Ad-hominem - ignored.

I believe you advocated phasing out Medicare (along with Social Security) entirely.

Meanwhile, the elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses. The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64). (http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm)

But at least the vast majority of working age people had coverage through their company healthcare plan.

How do you expect the elderly to be insured if they're not working? If Medicare is a financial nightmare for the nation as a whole, as it most surely is, how do you think that problem is solved by simply shuffling the nation's elderly into Medicaid? And why would you even use the words "private insurance" in reference to the elderly? An entire class of people in excess of age 65 who account for 36% of total U. S. healthcare expenses and whose individual annual costs are over three times that of all those under age 65 are simply uninsurable in the private insurance marketplace.

The whole concept of "insurance" requires a larger, healthier population of insureds paying part of the healthcare costs of a smaller, less healthier population. I'm not at all certain how we are going to make those numbers work to adequately care for the rapidly growing elderly population.

You are blinding yourself with numbers. You ignore the government's effect in which by edict they have pushed more seniors to receive more health care benefits because the money is there. Why do you think the AARP, AMA and other's are so into Medicare? Because it brings in Billions of dollars. Not because it is a necessary, valid and the world's best manner of delivering health care.

I am saying - take the Federal Government out but do it slowly enough that people have time to adjust. I consider it a failed program.

Why do you think, group health insurance plans issued by private insurers and paid by employers - cannot include seniors who opt to keep their plan on retirement? You do not think the private health industry can adjust rates to remain profitable? You think only government can do this?

What do you know about the best way to fight? What year did you graduate from the National War College?

I'm sure the Pentagon will be as bemused as I am to learn that their methods and strategies of war are hopelessly stuck in the past despite your own admission that we are moving forward with drone technology.

Ad-hominem ignored.

As for saving money, reasonable people have suggested, as have you, a substantial draw down of forces in Europe. Fine. It's a legitimate topic for debate.

As for, nation building, I'm not certain you can hold the Pentagon solely responsible for that. Many of those policies have been implemented from the White House. The military largely did what it was told, although there are a fair share of generals who subscribe to the strategy as well.

I've never heard anyone suggest eliminating "Army" helicopters by simply transferring them over to the Air Force for no other reason than they happen to be a weapons platform that flies or that billions would be saved by combining Marine and Army infantry regiments. This part of your plan is just goofy.

I am not holding the pentagon responsible for nation building. I am holding their political masters responsible. I am saying that War should be our final policy tool - not our second choice. War with the United States should be something an entire nation fears. Today, we have backward goat herders asking for war with our nation. Why? Because they know we wage war against only those we find carrying guns and not against the entire nation.

Now you can bring up, "War on Terrorism" - but we cannot end terrorism through force of arms and even those fighting know that. The terrorists certainly know it. We can end Terrorist but not terrorism - and since we value every life more than they do - every U.S. death is a victory to them. How long would their support last if we burned the earth down in battle? How long would the secret money flow from the villages to the Taliban if we treated that village as enemy?

I know it is heartless, but nearly every military theorist since SunTsu, to Wellington, to Clauswitz - makes that recommendation.


As far as changing force structure. There you are, off into ad-hominem again.


Billions would be saved - by:

1. Cutting ground forces to match the new mission. Largely trained to current Marine standards. A force of no more than 250-350,000 soldiers.

2. Dropping the assorted logistics commands required for maintenance of the different air-transport systems. With Marines/airforce/navy/Army/Spec OPs - we also gain 5 logistics commands, 5 maintenance sections, 5 entire command sections and that is just for their air assets.

3. You want to keep/fund a coast guard force that cannot protect our nation's borders because they have too few ships and assets to do it? Fine. All I am doing is putting them into naval uniforms and cutting some commanders billets.

4. Because YOU have never heard of something - makes it silly? How very empowering for yourself. I am glad that you are the final arbiter of what would cut costs, work and ensure the mission. See, I can use ad-hominem also.

But as always, you argue for status-quo because that is comfortable, and ignore that I am attempting to come up with ideas to change the entire way we structure our force, the way we use it and the missions we accept.

You do understand that in every war - someone loses? Rommel was lauded as a visionary - he lost. Stonewall Jackson was a visionary - He Lost. Being a General does not mean one knows how best to win wars. Stop attempting to credit their rank with mystic knowledge of military perfection.

 

[The_Trouvere]

This is what is being taught in the nations elementary schools.

Contract for the American Dream

Ishmael

If this video was created by a public school with public school money, you might have a legitimate complaint. It is created by moveon.org, so I do not see what the problem is. Just because a few children are more enlightened than you are, Ishmael, does not mean that the are "Communists." By claiming that they are, you expose your inability to make distinctions. The ability to make distinctions is a mark of intelligence.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Ad-hominem - ignored.

If you want to get all technical, little lady, he's using the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority" rather than "ad hominem" here.

 

[dmedic61]

I'm still waiting for my t-shirts and bumper stickers.

You have buy them, nothing in life is ever really free.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Willingness has little to do with it. We were shipping arms, ammunition, fuel, ships, planes, food, clothing, steel, and thousands of other products to Britain from 1939 to 1941. Roosevelt was willing to sell ships to England to combat the U-Boat problem. That is 'faux-neutrality'.

Plus, you missed the point entirely. It is not the manner of entry that is the salient point, it is the manner of execution. We fought to win the war, without regard for the damage to the enemy. Sure, some attempts were made to lighten civilian deaths, but overall - we fought to defeat the German and Japanese People. The firebombing of Tokyo was not for military value, it was a message about the future of the Japanese people.

We won and won lasting peace in both theatres - because we defeated the People so fully that they abandoned their governments and changed the course of their nations.

We haven't done that since. We now fight with compassion and concern and not with the brutality required to make war the final diplomacy tool it truly is.

Let's call it for what it was. The US was arms dealers to our allies.
I blame our fighting style on the media. Nothing pisses me off more is when the media cries foul when some "innocent" civilian gets caught in the crossfire. War sucks and is worse now because are opposition flies no colors for us to easily recognize. During war there is always civilian casualties. Suck it up America. Better them than us.

America wants us to kill the enemy but points fingers and whines if we do it in an ugly way. They cry foul if we torture to get information that very well may save lives. America wants results but they are not willing to allow the military to do what is necessary to get the job done. War is not pretty. There is no nobility in war. There is no good way to kill, it is just killing.

War on terror cannot win by conventional means because the enemy doesn't play by any rules. If we are to be victorious we need to take off the kiddie gloves and get nasty. If this means bombing those fuckers back to the stone age I will re-up and bomb those rotten goat fuckers myself.

 

[MysteriousVik]

I just love reading these political threads on here, mainly cos i disagree on these issues with most that post on them.
War, economy, media, political struggle for ideals...whatever, the ordinary "little" person is just a pawn.

We're in the 21. century, have never been as advanced, more informed and civilized as human beings...yet still, things aren't getting much better are they?
Call me a socialist, communist whatever...i'm a humanist.

The kids in the video probably dont have a clue what they're talking about, yeah. But are the things they say really that bad?
I come from a country that just a decade ago was ran by a socialist regime. Serbia. Back then the word "democracy" made people shiver with excitement, hoping for a better future. They wanted free press, good and equal opportunities for everyone, fair elections. And here's what happened under the watchful eye of the democratic European union (and the US at the end of the day).

Free press? For the most part, cos the government privatized the local media, selling them to shady characters who took the companies apart and making a quick buck fairly fast, with no regard to the community or the people employed in those media companies. As a result, more then 80% of the local media are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Good and equal opportunities? Yeah, right. Getting a job in the private sector means the following. You'll most likely work for minimal wage, without any benefits and insurance. Getting a job on the public sector? You'll have to work a bit harder on that one. Firstly not a single person who works in it, who isnt a member of a political party. Even if you are, they first have to brainwash you with years of meetings in your local branch. Now i could go on and on, but seeing as most of you are from the US, i dont think you realize just how things go down in other places around the world. And i am not trying to insult anyone, or be disrespectful.

Serbia has been living in the dark for ten years, stumbling around holding on to whatever it could. All of the sudden, someone turned on the lights, and again we were blinded by the lights of hope in democracy. Now enough time has went by for us to realize it isnt all it's cracked up to be.

Basically, democracy is just a word. Just like sex. It can be implemented in a good way or a bad way.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Obama and ACORN have been changing school books for some time now.

Really? Which books & how?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So, show me who owns more land than the federal government. That is what being the majority landowner means. Total percentage of land? Really?

NO! That is most certainly NOT what a "majority" landowner means. You apparently don't know the difference between majority and plurality. You are not the majority landowner if you only own 28% of the land. But you very well may be the LARGEST single landowner among all other land owners in question. That particular subset of all other landowners known as "private" land owners own 60% of all land within the borders of the United States.

Private landowners collectively are the majority landowners in the United States because they actually own a MAJORITY of all the land.

The federal government is the single largest land owner in the United States if, in fact, no other single landowner owns more than the 28% holdings of the federal government.

They are two distinctly separate statements of fact with different implications and ramifications.

The ease with which you are or were confused on something so simple is why, imho, it is so frustrating in attempting to discuss the logical or illogical consequences of your plans and theories.

Of which there is none better than this:

Accountability to the congress. The public opinion and a vote of record by the politicians who control the agency's budget. Today we do not have that. We have arbitrary regulation as 'regulation authority is interpreted by unelected and unaccountable authorities'.

Regulatory authority specifically granted by Congress is neither "arbitrary" nor "unaccountable." Why do you persist in this fiction? The specific words "arbitrary" and "unaccountable" are rendered meaningless by the very fact that the authority being exercised flowed directly from the Congress.

You apparently assume (without any evidence), that the behavior of agency heads in drafting certain policies and regulations will be more careful or temperate if Congress has to take the additional action of approving all federal agency regulations in advance of their implementation. You apparently believe this step will actually alter the substance of those regulations and that they will be less partisan or unnecessarily burdensome to the public at large. Why do you seem to believe that regulatory authors have no motivation to "get it right the first time" or that they don't believe in the wisdom, fairness, necessity and, for that matter, the outright genius of the regulations they write? Why this seeming belief that government administrators are engaged in a conspiracy of bad faith governance from which only Congress can protect us?

Your belief ignores the fact that current government regulations are not "published" in secret. Regulations wouldn't result in much regulating if the people affected didn't know what they were. Thus, the harsh light of public scrutiny shines as bright as that same public demands.

Nor is Congress' legal authority in holding agencies accountable diminished simply because it is exercised after the fact.

If Congress decides that the best use of its time is greasing only those wheels which squeak from the howls of public outrage and that our relative silence as to the other activities of government indicate an acceptance that may or may not be true, it won't mean that their assumption is accurate.

But I suspect it would mean you would have a particularly difficult time convincing them that they ought to be exercising their responsibilities differently.

And with that, I am done with you. Howl at the moon and eat fleas.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If you want to get all technical, little lady, he's using the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority" rather than "ad hominem" here.

You might want to bone up on the fact that an "appeal to authority" does not always constitute a logical fallacy.

I'm sure she has no clue. I'm less certain about you.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

[fair_warning]

We're in the 21. century, have never been as advanced, more informed and civilized as human beings...yet still, things aren't getting much better are they?
Call me a socialist, communist whatever...i'm a humanist.

The kids in the video probably dont have a clue what they're talking about, yeah. But are the things they say really that bad?

Absolutely agree.

 

[Ishmael]

I just love reading these political threads on here, mainly cos i disagree on these issues with most that post on them.
War, economy, media, political struggle for ideals...whatever, the ordinary "little" person is just a pawn.

We're in the 21. century, have never been as advanced, more informed and civilized as human beings...yet still, things aren't getting much better are they?
Call me a socialist, communist whatever...i'm a humanist.

The kids in the video probably dont have a clue what they're talking about, yeah. But are the things they say really that bad?
I come from a country that just a decade ago was ran by a socialist regime. Serbia. Back then the word "democracy" made people shiver with excitement, hoping for a better future. They wanted free press, good and equal opportunities for everyone, fair elections. And here's what happened under the watchful eye of the democratic European union (and the US at the end of the day).

Free press? For the most part, cos the government privatized the local media, selling them to shady characters who took the companies apart and making a quick buck fairly fast, with no regard to the community or the people employed in those media companies. As a result, more then 80% of the local media are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Good and equal opportunities? Yeah, right. Getting a job in the private sector means the following. You'll most likely work for minimal wage, without any benefits and insurance. Getting a job on the public sector? You'll have to work a bit harder on that one. Firstly not a single person who works in it, who isnt a member of a political party. Even if you are, they first have to brainwash you with years of meetings in your local branch. Now i could go on and on, but seeing as most of you are from the US, i dont think you realize just how things go down in other places around the world. And i am not trying to insult anyone, or be disrespectful.

Serbia has been living in the dark for ten years, stumbling around holding on to whatever it could. All of the sudden, someone turned on the lights, and again we were blinded by the lights of hope in democracy. Now enough time has went by for us to realize it isnt all it's cracked up to be.

Basically, democracy is just a word. Just like sex. It can be implemented in a good way or a bad way.

We are the most technologically advanced society the world has see so far. However, with regards to man's relationship to man and man's relationship to his government there is nothing new under the sun, nothing. Throughout the course of history it has been the governments that have been the largest and most consistent oppressor of men.

Being a 'humanist' is quite alright by me. You can work as hard as you want and give all you want to charity, or perhaps even start a leper colony. That would be the truly 'human' thing to do. But as soon as you demand that the government take the fruits of one mans labor to give to another that hasn't labored at all, that is where you have crossed the line into Communist dogma. That is extortion of the worst sort. In a free society men and women of conscience should be able to give in any manner they choose, to what ever organization they choose. The removal of those choices is the first step on the road to slavery.

With regards to jobs (labor). If I choose not to work for one man, or company, I can exercise my free choice and go work for another. When all are under the thumb of the government once more free choice is removed from the equation and I have surrendered my life to the biggest slave master of all.

For 50 years now we've been fighting the "war on poverty" with as much success as we've fought the "war on drugs." About all we've achieved is that our 'poor' own 2 cars, have all the electronic toys, a large proportion own their own home, and enjoy more living space per person in the household than the average European middle class worker. And yet they demand more rather than giving a heart felt "Thanks" for that which they have received through the labor of others. And here we witness a little video with children crying for even more. And if they were to receive that which they are lobbying for, whether they understand or not is immaterial, they will become wage slaves to the government that they demanded these benefits from. Indeed it might be said that their parents have already indentured them.

The government doesn't care about you in the least. Their only interest in your health is to prolong your productive years for the purposes of paying taxes. They have no interest in caring for the terminally ill or the elderly. They don't do it now, nor will they in the future. Once you reach the age of pension their only interest is that you should die before they have to write too many checks. Their goal is to control and direct your life so that they can control and direct the economy so that they are never surprised and never have to answer any embarrassing questions. Politicians hate to be bothered by the peons.

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Here's some big Communists:

Save the nation! Tax corporations! Tax the rich!

http://cpusa.org/save-the-nation-tax-corporations-tax-the-rich/

Sound familiar?

You've got that site bookmarked, don't you?

Pussy Marine.

 

[unregistered]