[besson3c]

Do we all agree with this basic premise? If not, why not? If so, isn't much of the partisan ranting and raving that goes on in here really about whose turds are the least smelliest? At the end of the day, turds are still smelly, no matter who is producing them. Doesn't this form of debate ever become boring to you?

I mean seriously, sometimes some of these threads just want to put me to sleep... How long have we been bashing Republicans vs. Democrats in here? What has ever been solved? Has anybody ever changed their minds? What is the point of all of this?

The sooner we can drop the whole left vs. right pretense, the sooner we can (maybe, just maybe) have some more productive conversation in here about things which affect Americans - not Republicans, Democrats, but regular Americans.

I challenge you all to stop trying to elevate or step on a political party.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Is this your funny little way of announcing your candidacy?

[Rumor]

[brassplayersrock²]

colbert was denied his name on the ballots

[Uncle Skeleton]

Write-ins.

[brassplayersrock²]

true INSOMNIA SUCKS!!!

[Big Mac]

Both parties may suck, but there are still huge differences in political philosophy between the right and left. One problem is that the Democratic and Republican parties don't represent either respective side very well.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Both parties may suck, but there are still huge differences in political philosophy between the right and left. One problem is that the Democratic and Republican parties don't represent either respective side very well.

Yes.

And I'd take it one step further: Democrats and Republicans only suck to the extent that Americans in general suck. We are wholly responsible for them and what they do. If we didn't like deficit spending, they wouldn't do it. If we didn't like the Iraq war, they wouldn't have done it. Etc. Let's not blame them until we first blame ourselves. It's quite a cop-out to blame elected officials in a democracy.

[Big Mac]

I have to disagree with you there. I recognize some of your critique of Americans as valid, but there are two indisputable facts of life in American politics: It's an essentially two party system, and the Dems and Repubs are the parties. We continue to get failed policies precisely we don't have much of any choice between the two. At this point we're getting big, intrusive government either way we vote. Too much special interest influence, too much protection of incumbents, too much compromise of marginal values held, far too little respect for Constitutional limits.

[BadKosh]

Great point Big Mac! Now the voters get their say to elect the creeps, and the lobbyists, and stupid interests groups corrupt them even further.

[gumby5647]

so....who here are Libertarians?

[nonhuman]

I'm vaguely libertarian. By which I mean that I think the basic premise of small, non-intrusive government is good. The problem is how we get there from here. I've yet to hear anyone who actually has a good, workable plan to do that, and I'm at a loss to come up with one myself. I actually think that the best plan I've seen so far has been the Free State project; taking advantage of the (still somewhat, though at this point pretty pathetically) decentralized nature of our government to illustrate the advantages of a particular system in one state compared to a different system in another is, in my opinion, one of the greatest strengths that this nation has (and has been slowly giving up for the past couple centuries). If it could be demonstrated that a Libertarian form of government is workable and even successful in one context, then we'd have a much better chance of spreading it around to the other states and eventually the whole country. Unfortunately the Republicans and Democrats are pretty well entrenched at this point and they're going to fight tooth and nail to prevent any sort of change that would take power away from them. Really, the only way to make the change at this point might be an actual revolution. But we'll see. One way or another the system as it is won't survive forever.

[besson3c]

Honestly, I think that the whole premise of Libertarianism today is incompatible with this country, and therefore would be ineffective. It seems more like an interesting theory than an actionable set of ideals.

We can go on and on about small, non-intrusive governments until we are blue in the face, but the bottom line is that we are part socialist, and are quite entrenched in these social programs. If we can't even fix our health care system, I don't see the wisdom in repealing public education, Medicare, welfare, the CIA, FBI, and all of the other government run programs we depend on.

The reason why so many Americans don't like government intervention is because governments lately have been horrible at running social programs effectively. This doesn't mean that the problem is with the mere premise of social programs, but with our leadership. The real fix for this is better leadership.

[nonhuman]

I agree entirely. Hence the problem of how to get there from here. Eventually people will either flee the US for freer waters, or revolt.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Honestly, I think that the whole premise of Libertarianism today is incompatible with this country, and therefore would be ineffective. It seems more like an interesting theory than an actionable set of ideals.

There's feasible libertarianism and utopian libertarianism. People focus on the latter and dismiss the philosophy as a result, but Ron Paul has been turning heads because so much of what he says makes tremendous sense to people. His foreign policy views are wacky, IMO (and I think merely a pretense to account for his non-interventionalist views), but otherwise he's spot on in what he says.

We can go on and on about small, non-intrusive governments until we are blue in the face, but the bottom line is that we are part socialist, and are quite entrenched in these social programs.

Then there's no point in opposing it because it already has partial hold on the country, right?

If we can't even fix our health care system, I don't see the wisdom in repealing public education, Medicare, welfare, the CIA, FBI, and all of the other government run programs we depend on.

We've broken our health care system to the extent it is broken through over-regulation, socialization, waste, overhead and fraud. I think it would be very easy to fix much of it if the new national policy were to promote health savings accounts for the masses. People like socialism in education, and I agree public schools are a net benefit for most. But we should weaken the control of the leftist teachers unions and promote private competition in order to give public schools incentives to do their jobs well. As for the FBI and CIA, two agencies of dubious value, certainly there's a lot of room for reform. Yet, I don't think the LP or Ron Paul would call for the termination of those agencies.

The reason why so many Americans don't like government intervention is because governments lately have been horrible at running social programs effectively.

I think you've made my argument for me with this comment.

This doesn't mean that the problem is with the mere premise of social programs, but with our leadership. The real fix for this is better leadership.

Better leadership, that's quite vague. Better in what ways? Clearly the type of leadership of these services we've gotten in the past will be very similar to the type of leadership will get in the future. So the question is, do we naively do the same things we did in the past yet expect superior results without any fundamental changes?

More fundamentally, do we really want an American citizenry that is beholden to the State? Did we really break away from the Crown and declare our liberty to become vassals to a behemoth government of our own creation? That's certainly not what the founders of the country wanted to produce. Perhaps you believe the world is too complicated for America to return to anything resembling the political philosophies of the founders - I would disagree with you there. Unfortunately, much of the country is ignorant of the founding principles; many are content to merely live out their lives based on Freud's Pleasure Principle. And those who look to a higher political ideal are stymied by the political institutions that prevent change.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by gumby5647 

so....who here are Libertarians?

Libertarian parties are a wasted effort. Why join a fringe party and and endure the endless bickering between the anarchists, Austrians, Rortyians, Rothbardians, Objectivists, neo-Objectivists, neo-neo-Objectivists, and Christian-Rightists, when instead you can join a mainstream party and actually make a difference? (That's what Ron Paul did. And Alan Greenspan.)

We actually have two libertarian parties in Canada, the other being the Freedom party. Neither matters much, except to themselves.

[Big Mac]

You're right, lp. That's why I'm registered Republican and call myself a libertarian Republican or a Goldwater Republican if I'm talking to an older crowd.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There's feasible libertarianism and utopian libertarianism. People focus on the latter and dismiss the philosophy as a result, but Ron Paul has been turning heads because so much of what he says makes tremendous sense to people. His foreign policy views are wacky, IMO (and I think merely a pretense to account for his non-interventionalist views), but otherwise he's spot on in what he says.

All I've heard him say is radical stuff like that he'd abolish the IRS and other programs, but what would he replace these with? Is it not idealistic, and possibly dangerous to think that the states will sort everything out?

The best form of government we could possibly have would be a benevolent dictator, but since such a thing doesn't exist (unless you believe in Jesus Christ), there are times when it helps for a leader to step up to the plate and make some decisions about things, sometimes in a near fascist way as to prevent abuse of personal freedoms in doing things such as cheating on taxes.

Then there's no point in opposing it because it already has partial hold on the country, right?

Sure you can oppose it, but gutting these programs is a *huge* undertaking, and there is little point in having these sorts of pie-in-the-sky discussions when we don't even have something even remotely airtight to replace these programs with. If there is a sound alternative solution, sure, let's put it on the table and examine it open-mindedly. So far, I haven't been exposed to any of these solutions though.

We've broken our health care system to the extent it is broken through over-regulation, socialization, waste, overhead and fraud.

No, it is broken because it is too expensive and non-sustainable, in large part due to too much corporate power.

I think it would be very easy to fix much of it if the new national policy were to promote health savings accounts for the masses. People like socialism in education, and I agree public schools are a net benefit for most. But we should weaken the control of the leftist teachers unions and promote private competition in order to give public schools incentives to do their jobs well.

We have this competition now in No Child Left Behind, and that has been a disaster quite literally...

Better leadership, that's quite vague. Better in what ways? Clearly the type of leadership of these services we've gotten in the past will be very similar to the type of leadership will get in the future. So the question is, do we naively do the same things we did in the past yet expect superior results without any fundamental changes?

I honestly think that we have seen utter incompetence in the leadership we have had in running the programs that we have.

Education is a great example... Our schools our failing and NCLB is a joke. Why doesn't the Ministry of Education listen to the overwhelming messages coming from teachers of all political persuasions and recognize that NCLB is *not working*? Do these people actually talk to teachers?

Energy is another example. Why is it that our automobiles are still getting the same fuel economy that they were getting decades ago? Why aren't we providing hefty tax breaks for implementation of new energy technologies, and/or research of these technologies? Why no hybrid car tax credits only apply to domestic cars? Whether or not you buy into global warming is irrelevant here - strategically it is in our best interest to not be dependent on foreign oil. We can do *much* better here.

More fundamentally, do we really want an American citizenry that is beholden to the State? Did we really break away from the Crown and declare our liberty to become vassals to a behemoth government of our own creation? That's certainly not what the founders of the country wanted to produce. Perhaps you believe the world is too complicated for America to return to anything resembling the political philosophies of the founders - I would disagree with you there. Unfortunately, much of the country is ignorant of the founding principles; many are content to merely live out their lives based on Freud's Pleasure Principle. And those who look to a higher political ideal are stymied by the political institutions that prevent change.

That all sounds great, but I just don't see it as realistic. If there was no "State" (i.e. government), that state would become the corporations that control us. There will always be a hierarchy of social class and corruption. There will always be some things that government is better equipped at providing than private corporations. For the foreseeable future, we are reliant on the government providing us these things.

What we can do is strive for greater transparency, us having greater control over how the government is run. Why can't we remove Bush from office now given that only 25% of the population seems to want him there? Why is it that a great many things are being kept from us? We already *are* beholden to the state in thsi sense.

[besson3c]

To elaborate on things that are being kept from us, I'm not suggesting that each and every wartime secret be revealed to Joe six pack.

However, when the Attorney General is asked to testify about matters which are of concern to us and he comes up with bullshit answers like "I do not recall" to a thousand questions, this is following the constitution to the letter, but not to the *intent*. That whole trial of Alberto Gonzales was a pointless dog and pony show, sad to say.

[besson3c]

I hope that even the most stanch, albeit semi-reasonable Republican can see why, at this point, some not-so-stanch-Republicans would be displeased with certain aspects of this administration.

I'm tired of this group of **** ups. I have no illusions that a Democratic leadership would offer us a night and day difference, but damn, we can't get much worse than what we already have, can we?

I mean, it is astonishing to put together a list of things that this administration badly mismanaged, from the war, to Katrina, to the issue of torture, to dealing with in-party political scandals and corruption, to...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Honestly, I think that the whole premise of Libertarianism today is incompatible with this country, and therefore would be ineffective. It seems more like an interesting theory than an actionable set of ideals.

[SNIP]

The reason why so many Americans don't like government intervention is because governments lately have been horrible at running social programs effectively. This doesn't mean that the problem is with the mere premise of social programs, but with our leadership. The real fix for this is better leadership.

So personal liberty is just an interesting theory, but creating a superior line of human beings is actionable?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All I've heard him say is radical stuff like that he'd abolish the IRS and other programs, but what would he replace these with? Is it not idealistic, and possibly dangerous to think that the states will sort everything out?

Mike Huckabee, who is rising in the polls, also wants to do away with the IRS as we know it. The IRS is highly unpopular, and direct taxation was never supposed to be a part of our system - it was specifically outlawed by the Constitution. The country survived before 1913 when we ratified the 16th Amendment, and we could survive without it now. The federal government derives much of its power from incredible amount of money it takes.

The best form of government we could possibly have would be a benevolent dictator, but s[ince such a thing doesn't exist (unless you believe in Jesus Christ), there are times when it helps for a leader to step up to the plate and make some decisions about things, sometimes in a near fascist way as to prevent abuse of personal freedoms in doing things such as cheating on taxes.

Huh? Are you saying government has to make tough choices? If so, I agree. But we very likely disagree on the role the feds are required to play.

Sure you can oppose it, but gutting these programs is a *huge* undertaking, and there is little point in having these sorts of pie-in-the-sky discussions when we don't even have something even remotely airtight to replace these programs with.

Great endeavors involve huge undertakings. We both seem to want improvements, and I'm telling you improvements to entrenched systems come with fundamental, thoughtful change.

If there is a sound alternative solution, sure, let's put it on the table and examine it open-mindedly. So far, I haven't been exposed to any of these solutions though.

You may not be looking hard enough.

No, it is broken because it is too expensive and non-sustainable, in large part due to too much corporate power.

That is part of it, but more socialism is not the answer. Medicare for everyone clearly isn't the answer, unless America wants to declare bankruptcy.

We have this competition now in No Child Left Behind, and that has been a disaster quite literally...

I agree with you but for different reasons. In this case you're seeing the fruits of federal intervention you seem to otherwise support.

I honestly think that we have seen utter incompetence in the leadership we have had in running the programs that we have.

You can blame the leadership, but don't you think it's also an institutional issue? Political leaders can only work within the defined parameters (laws and regulations) of the programs they're leading, so perhaps what you're pointing to is actually defective law or regulation.

Education is a great example... Our schools our failing and NCLB is a joke. Why doesn't the Ministry of Education listen to the overwhelming messages coming from teachers of all political persuasions and recognize that NCLB is *not working*? Do these people actually talk to teachers?

I don't know enough about NCLB to talk about why it's not working. I don't agree with mandatory federal intervention in education, but the feds responded to calls that public schools were failing and this was the solution that was devised. I don't think our schools are failing, but I do think there's substantial room for improvement.

Energy is another example. Why is it that our automobiles are still getting the same fuel economy that they were getting decades ago? Why aren't we providing hefty tax breaks for implementation of new energy technologies, and/or research of these technologies? Why no hybrid car tax credits only apply to domestic cars? Whether or not you buy into global warming is irrelevant here - strategically it is in our best interest to not be dependent on foreign oil. We can do *much* better here.

I'm pretty sure fuel economy is better than it was decades ago, but as far as raising cafe standards they've been resisted across the board. The auto industry claims they'd have to reduce weight to the point that the cars would be less safe. As for government incentives for the development of energy alternatives, just look at the Energy bills passed in recent years that contain a bunch of such incentives. The big problems are that oil is still too cheap to really affect people's habits, good alternatives haven't gotten to market and the petroleum using industries are too entrenched in the country and in government. It will take some sort of disruptive situation in the price of oil or in a technological breakthrough to shift us away from oil in a dramatic fashion. And There isn't too much government can do about it.

That all sounds great, but I just don't see it as realistic. If there was no "State" (i.e. government), that state would become the corporations that control us. There will always be a hierarchy of social class and corruption. There will always be some things that government is better equipped at providing than private corporations. For the foreseeable future, we are reliant on the government providing us these things.

I agree with you there, obviously some government will always be necessary. But I said beholden to the State, vassals to the state. We've gone so far in the wrong direction in growing government's size and scope. Citizens should be looking to reduce government and take power back for themselves, which is what you seem to be saying in the next paragraph.

What we can do is strive for greater transparency, us having greater control over how the government is run.

I agree, so reduce government power and we'll have greater control over it.

Why can't we remove Bush from office now given that only 25% of the population seems to want him there? Why is it that a great many things are being kept from us? We already *are* beholden to the state in thsi sense.

You'd need a Constitutional amendment for that, and I would be against such an amendment. We have two four year terms for the presidency, and aside from that we have impeachment provisions to deal with criminal offenses of the president.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So personal liberty is just an interesting theory, but creating a superior line of human beings is actionable?

No, it isn't, but giving more power and transparency to the general populace is..

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That is part of it, but more socialism is not the answer. Medicare for everyone clearly isn't the answer, unless America wants to declare bankruptcy.

How do many other countries provide something similar without going bankrupt? How is it actually statistically cheaper to provide these programs in comparison to what we have now?

I agree, so reduce government power and we'll have greater control over it.

So you are correlating size and transparency? Are the two mutually dependent on each other?

[BadKosh]

Other countries have much greater taxes than we do here, unless you are vastly successful. Thats how they pay for the slacks.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Other countries have much greater taxes than we do here, unless you are vastly successful. Thats how they pay for the slacks.

The US spends a greater cost per capita on health and gets less - our life expectancies are shorter. Which is worse, paying a hefty lump sum (or many hefty lump sums), or paying less in taxes in payments that are spread out? If you aren't utilizing health care at all, the answer to this question is easy from a personal standpoint, but what if you are?

[Big Mac]

You talk a lot about how disappointed you are in America and American government, so your solution to the shortcomings is to federalize a huge part of our economy and create a new, gargantuan, universal entitlement? That's like attempting to cool your house by putting the heat on and turning up the thermostat to 90 degrees.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The US spends a greater cost per capita on health and gets less - our life expectancies are shorter. Which is worse, paying a hefty lump sum (or many hefty lump sums), or paying less in taxes in payments that are spread out? If you aren't utilizing health care at all, the answer to this question is easy from a personal standpoint, but what if you are?

Life expectancy calculations are skewed by the different methods used to collect data in different countries. For example, a baby born premature in the US is considered a live birth. If it then dies, it dies at the age of 0. In some other countries, they simply don't consider it to be a live birth, thus it isn't considered to have died. In this way the US' child mortality rates are inflated compared to the rates in other countries. It also reduces the life expectancy by adding a bunch more extremely young deaths. Unless you actually understand the nature and background of the numbers you're looking at statistics are more likely hurt your understanding of the situation than help.

Also, when comparing the US healthcare system with others, consider that in the UK they're starting to refuse service to people who are obese or people who smoke. By doing so they're basically removing the two costliest segments of the population from their health care costs. Of course that makes it much cheaper to run a health care system. Also consider the fact that the reason they're doing this is because otherwise they can't afford to treat anyone.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You talk a lot about how disappointed you are in America and American government, so your solution to the shortcomings is to federalize a huge part of our economy and create a new, gargantuan, universal entitlement? That's like attempting to cool your house by putting the heat on and turning up the thermostat to 90 degrees.

No, that's not necessarily my solution across the board.

My solution is to return to some fundamentals and figure out what programs the government ought to be providing, and commit aggressively to doing these jobs correctly both in terms of funding and strong leadership. These programs don't have to be giant and overly bureaucratic or costly to run. I think part of the problem with this administration is that it seems like there some things they just want to make go away, so they just blindly throw a bunch of money at the problem. Remember the 9/11 Commission? They gave us an F in just about everything but funding.

In order to do so we need to stop electing retards, which is where my ideas become idealistic, I guess... However, I still think that this would be just about the only way we can pull this country up from where it is.

In order to get specific about what programs I'd support and whatnot, we've obviously have to hash out a list which would deserve a lot of attention.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Life expectancy calculations are skewed by the different methods used to collect data in different countries. For example, a baby born premature in the US is considered a live birth. If it then dies, it dies at the age of 0. In some other countries, they simply don't consider it to be a live birth, thus it isn't considered to have died. In this way the US' child mortality rates are inflated compared to the rates in other countries. It also reduces the life expectancy by adding a bunch more extremely young deaths. Unless you actually understand the nature and background of the numbers you're looking at statistics are more likely hurt your understanding of the situation than help.

Also, when comparing the US healthcare system with others, consider that in the UK they're starting to refuse service to people who are obese or people who smoke. By doing so they're basically removing the two costliest segments of the population from their health care costs. Of course that makes it much cheaper to run a health care system. Also consider the fact that the reason they're doing this is because otherwise they can't afford to treat anyone.

I know that it is very problematic to make blanket statements across the board based on these sorts of stats, but my general point is that it is not an absolute given that public health is more expensive. In fact, there are arguments which state the opposite.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know that it is very problematic to make blanket statements across the board based on these sorts of stats, but my general point is that it is not an absolute given that public health is more expensive. In fact, there are arguments which state the opposite.

There are arguments which state anything you want.

All the facts that I've seen, however, suggest that the way both the UK and Canada do things, even if it costs less (which is also dubious), is worse than what we have now. Trying to take such a system and scale it up for a country as large as ours and the flaws will be exaggerated.

One thing that I'd be very curious to learn more about though is the health care systems in Singapore and Japan. I've heard both good and bad things about Japan. But Singapore, from what little I know, sounds like it's more successful than anyone else at accomplishing this goal. I only know a small number of people over there though.

[besson3c]

How is Canada's system worse than what we have now?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How is Canada's system worse than what we have now?

Burdensome taxation to provide it, shortages of doctors who would rather relocate to the United States, reports of high job stress, Canadians coming to America to get routine surgeries because they're denied access in Canada. Just look at the headlines.

[besson3c]

There are all sorts of stories, good and bad. There are all sorts of stories good and bad in this country too. What makes you draw the conclusions you have? Have you researched the bad in this country too?

[BadKosh]

The British don't seem to get Dental care...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hope that even the most stanch, albeit semi-reasonable Republican can see why, at this point, some not-so-stanch-Republicans would be displeased with certain aspects of this administration.

Of course. This also includes the fact that you'd have to be a blind partisan hack to deny there are displeasing aspects of this Democratic Congress. The American people that voted them in certainly hold quite a low regard for them now right on par with Bush.

I'm tired of this group of **** ups. I have no illusions that a Democratic leadership would offer us a night and day difference, but damn, we can't get much worse than what we already have, can we?

Yes, we can. Granted, I'm a little tired of this group of ****ups too, but we have an election in the offing with choices that make our current situation look like the friggin' 50's.

I mean, it is astonishing to put together a list of things that this administration badly mismanaged, from the war, to Katrina, to the issue of torture, to dealing with in-party political scandals and corruption, to...

Couple of problems with this assessment. In the interest of keeping this thread in line with "Democrats and Republicans suck"; (by the way, I've not agreed with you more than in the past few days with this sentiment. I've tried this line of reasoning for some time w/ no luck. All the best to you besson3c.) I'd like to add that the "suckiness" mentioned above transcends "this Administration". Part of the honesty in this thread would be to admit that mismanagement of Iraq and this war is not exclusive to Bush. This is, but the icing on the cake of a long history of Iraq mismanagement. Katrina certainly holds a host of guilty parties and while that includes "this Administration", it also includes the governor of Louisiana who subsequently lost her job and the woefully inept leadership of New Orlean's mayor Nagin. After all, a mock drill was run in New Orleans less than 18 months prior in which all the problems you saw the day of the disaster were exposed. Torture? You'd have to believe that isolated incidents of torture are less than 8 years old. I'd have to disagree there. In-party political scandals and corruption...? Certainly, an open mind would have to acknowledge that this is most definitely not an exclusively Republican problem.

All this said; yes we have real problems and a great many perpetrated by this Administration. I'm cautiously optimistic about a change in direction and leadership, but it's not going to come from someone only pointing fingers at "this Administration" and "that Administration". The time for divisive and destructive rhetoric is past. Introspect is in order for change and we've got to be willing to acknowledge not only our stake in the future, but our contributions to it.

[besson3c]

I agree ebuddy, it's just that this administration has been in office long enough, and for many of these years controlled both chambers... Since they are calling the shots right now, the bulk of the blame lies squarely on their shoulders. Believe me, if we had a Democrat president and things sucked this bad, we'd be having this same conversation.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have to disagree with you there. I recognize some of your critique of Americans as valid, but there are two indisputable facts of life in American politics: It's an essentially two party system, and the Dems and Repubs are the parties. We continue to get failed policies precisely we don't have much of any choice between the two. At this point we're getting big, intrusive government either way we vote. Too much special interest influence, too much protection of incumbents, too much compromise of marginal values held, far too little respect for Constitutional limits.

I just don't believe that the parties come from nowhere. They come from us, they are us. We'd have different choices if we believed different things, and communicated that to our government and to the parties.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do many other countries provide something similar without going bankrupt? How is it actually statistically cheaper to provide these programs in comparison to what we have now?



So you are correlating size and transparency? Are the two mutually dependent on each other?

I can't think of any large nation that can provide for the needs of every citizen. The ones that try usually end up scaling the original plan down to the point where it doesn't resemble what was initially promised. It's a difficult thing to promise everyone a full share of a limited resource. No, wait. It's an impossible thing.

I agree that neither Democrats nor Republicans are the answer. Lately I just call myself a 'conservative'. We don't have our own political party. Thinking back, I was never really represented by any party. I chose the Republicans because I agreed with more of their ideology than I agreed with Democrats.

The reason we all tend to choose from one of the two is related to why some of us choose a baseball team to support. I think Mets fans probably all voted for Nader.

[Chongo]

are you a moderate, libertarian, statist, liberal, or a conservative?
World's Smallest Political Quiz

[BadKosh]

OK, so who sucks MORE????

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OK, so who sucks MORE????

Boring debate, not really important... Turds smell, regardless of whose butt they come from.

Besides, these sort of debates bring out the sort of team sports politics mentality that I loathe.

[peeb]

Democrats and Republicans both suck because they are different flavors of extreme right corporate lapdogs.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

are you a moderate, libertarian, statist, liberal, or a conservative?
World's Smallest Political Quiz

10 easy to answer questions

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

10 easy to answer questions

Too easy. For instance, you're given the option to agree to international free trade, but not given the option to agree to international free movement (i.e. ending restrictive immigration laws). Also, these "personal freedom" questions aren't very provocative. Where's the flag-burning question? Where's the abortion question?

This test is slanted in favor of libertarianism.

[Chongo]

Defacing a flag is an act of protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as established in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

[lpkmckenna]

Of course it is. So's free speech, but that survey asked anyways.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Of course it is. So's free speech, but that survey asked anyways.

test question

Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.

Yes=statist
No=libertarian
Maybe:Charlie Brown, sorry, moderate

these are basic nuts and bolts questions to get an idea of where one stands.



liberal≠libertarian

[ryaxnb]

I do like debating what is smellier though. Whether or not I think the whole republicans vs. democrats thing is bad, I love to debate people, ideas, and philosophies.
As a Democrat, I would not be one to just vote for the democratic candidate.
I'm a democrat largely because I need one party to standardize on, otherwise, I wouldn't be able to pick a candidate for either of the two big sides in any of the political races, just pick which party's candidate I would like to see in an elected office. And I'd like to be able to do that.
If their aren't any democratic candidates who appeal to me, I would pick a popular one who most agrees with some of my ideas, thus influencing which candidate would be on that side; then, even if she/he appears, I might not vote for her/him, instead choosing a republican or third party candidate.

[Chongo]

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

Just Why Democrats Are 'Dangerous' When It Comes To America's Defense
While Democrats in Congress always assert they "support our troops," their political policies and actions have continually undermined our nation's fight to win the war on terror and defend America. Here is their national security record:

1. On missile defense of America — Democrats voted against it.

2. On the Patriot Act — Democrats voted against it.

3. On tapping foreign terrorists' phone calls to the U.S. — Democrats voted against it.

4. On tracing terrorists' money flow between foreign banks — Democrats voted against it.

5. On building a border wall to control illegal immigration and stop dope — dealers, terrorists and criminals — Democrats voted against it.

6. On interrogating captured terrorists — 194 Democrats just voted against it.

7. On telling the world (and our enemy) about a timetable for withdrawing from and deserting Iraq — this is Democrats' retreat and defeat plan.

Think that's bad? Here's the Democrats' national defense record for the last 40 years:

A. Democrat President Johnson misjudges the Gulf of Tonkin incident, pursues the Vietnam War until a liberal CBS TV announcer thinks we're losing and says we should quit. So we quit and lose. The victorious communists then kill 2 million innocent civilians.

B. Democrat President Jimmy Carter during the Cold War withdraws U.S. support for our longtime military ally, the Shah of Iran. Carter doesn't like his human rights treatment of Soviet spies in prison. The shah is overthrown, and Ayatollah Khomeini returns, seizes power and creates an Islamic nation. Opponents are killed, the idea of suicide bombers is introduced to the PLO, and Iran's oil wealth is used to spawn and support Hezbollah, a terrorist militia that killed 241 Marines in a Beirut bombing and that lately attacked Israel. Iranian radicals storm our embassy, taking 52 American hostages for 444 days. Carter fails in an amateurish attempt to rescue them. Eight military personnel and eight aircraft are lost in a desert foul-up.

Democrat Carter, self-assured and well-meaning but dangerously naive, was responsible for bringing into power an Iranian Islamic regime that's now creating nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel and blackmail the U.S. and Europe. Iran has further provided weapons and support to Shiite militia and death squads in Iraq and could provide nukes to al-Qaida, with which it has a working relationship.

After the Soviets meet the inexperienced Carter, they invade Afghanistan. Then the communists capture Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua. The Afghanistan invasion attracts young Osama bin Laden, who raises money and recruits other Muslims to fight the anti-Soviet jihad. After the Soviets leave, this band becomes al-Qaida.

So Carter's glaring weakness in dealing with the communists and Iran leads directly to both the current terrorist nuclear threat of Iran and the birth of al-Qaida, a group of mass murderers that would never have been possible if the Soviet Union's Leonid Brezhnev had not been emboldened to invade Afghanistan after seeing an inept, appeasing American president, Carter.