|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Donna_H on Oct 12th, 2004, 9:23am ever comes up in the conversations. Of the other two, one lies (more than they usually do), and the other is so simple minded that he can't see what's going on. So seriously, Why wouldn't YOU vote for Nader? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Kevin_M on Oct 12th, 2004, 9:30am on 10/12/04 at 09:23:12, Donna_H wrote:
He might enforce seat belts on the John Deere. "Unsafe at Any Speed" Kevin M |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Donna_H on Oct 12th, 2004, 9:49am OK, one "minus". Any pluses? I really need some answers. A "friend" of mine doesn't think there's anyone to vote for this time. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by thomas on Oct 12th, 2004, 10:12am on 10/12/04 at 09:49:05, Donna_H wrote:
You could have your friend write my name in. ;;D OOps I'm not old enough yet. :-[ There is always some one to vote for, it is just usually not one of the two guys on the ballot. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by vig on Oct 12th, 2004, 10:18am I agree that our two primary CHoices are lame at best.... "Why wouldn't YOU vote for Nader? " Peter Miguel Camejo Winona LaDuke His veep CHoices..... or... http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm here's a good one: Pat BuCHanan and Ralph Nader going at it... http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 12th, 2004, 10:21am on 10/12/04 at 09:23:12, Donna_H wrote:
Because I think socialism is a really bad idea. Hirvimaki |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Rock_Lobster on Oct 12th, 2004, 10:31am on 10/12/04 at 10:21:34, Hirvimaki wrote:
Ding. +1. Nader is a socialist / attention wh0re. Why vote for Nader when one can vote for the Libertarian candidate? Or write in 'Colin Powell'? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Pegase on Oct 12th, 2004, 10:32am on 10/12/04 at 10:21:34, Hirvimaki wrote:
I dont really know Nader but how can you say that socialism is a bad idea... We need more of that in this more and more global world... In fact, just add a little bit of socialism to capitalism and the world would be greater ;) IMHO Pegase |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Woobie on Oct 12th, 2004, 10:39am on 10/12/04 at 10:32:04, Pegase wrote:
why? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Pegase on Oct 12th, 2004, 10:48am on 10/12/04 at 10:39:11, Woobie wrote:
...because socialism exist to bring back the balance and fix social inequalities... Globalisation increases those inequalities... sad, unstopable but true ;) Always IMHO Pegase |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by vig on Oct 12th, 2004, 10:55am Capitalism is great, but it doesn't work for all things. Historically, America has left a few items out of the Capitalist equation. Like Utilities.... and cable TV. [smiley=laugh.gif] We've all seen the down side to Medicine and Capitalism. Capitalism is keeping SOME medicine out of the hands of many who need it. Pharmaceutical companies CHeat and bribe public officials (ok call it lobbying). Viagra makes more money than curing CF ever will so where will the researCH dollars go? Maybe it'll take a hybrid type of government to get it all right. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 12th, 2004, 11:05am I would never vote for Nader, for several reasons: 1. His campaigns seem to be more of an ego-trip than an actual desire to make things better. 2. He has no real foreign policy experience. 3. He seems to jump to whatever party will endorse him, regardless of ideology. 4. I just don't like the man. Good enough reasons for me... Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Jeepgun on Oct 12th, 2004, 11:12am If there were a Personal, Individual Responsibility party, and their platform consisted of Mayberry's law* I would vote for them in a heartbeat. * "Do all that you have agreed to do without encroaching on others or their property." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by thomas on Oct 12th, 2004, 11:13am on 10/12/04 at 10:55:42, vig wrote:
Or maybe we should just go back to what the founding fathers intended and make people accept a little responsibility for their own self. I'm fucking sick and tired of paying for everyone else's shit. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by vig on Oct 12th, 2004, 11:21am "paying for everyone else's shit." Me too, but... You already do. It's called insurance. Health Insurance, Car Insurance, Life Insurance.... What is FEMA? Because even if you're completely responsible and I KNOW Thomas is... There's still a CHance of a catastrophic event and he'd appreciate our help. I don't like it either, but it appears to me it's still partly necessary. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 12th, 2004, 11:23am on 10/12/04 at 11:13:59, thomas wrote:
Amen brother! And while we're at it, let's remember that it was never the intent of the founding fathers to enforce majority rule in all things. Checks and balances were built into our system to protect citizens from the "tyranny of the majority." If it weren't for so-called "activist judges" interpreting the Constitution in this manner, slavery may still be happening, interracial marriage would still be banned in most places, and minority populations would be severely underserved under our laws. But yeah, I'm a BIG proponent of personal responsibility, as well as personal freedom. And while we're at it, how about parental responsibility? It's funny, we need a license to drive a car, but anyone who can accomplish the mechanics involved can bring a kid into the world. And too many of them expect our schools and other public institutions to take over the responsibility for raising them. *rant mode off* Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 12th, 2004, 11:23am Hey I've always loved Ralph Nader, but he's a consumer advocate and (sadly) in order to get anything accomplished in D.C. you gotta be one of THEM. But I wouldn't vote for Nader now because a vote for him would be a vote for Dubya. :( Just my [smiley=twocents.gif] , socialism, capitalism, whatever ism - it's all corrupted by humankind's two biggest downfalls; Greed for money and Greed for power. I personally have all the right ideas and systems to fix this country - but I won't run - my past is way too shady and I wouldn't want it pasted all over the media ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by thomas on Oct 12th, 2004, 11:46am on 10/12/04 at 11:23:42, PittsburghJoe wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 12th, 2004, 2:10pm I love the "activist judges" story. It's all Pat Robertson & Co. yell about and they will not stop until theiur activist are on the court. Hilarious coming from them. The Consitution was was designed by products of the age of enlightenment and these guys debated just how long the thing would be effective. Some said the 1820s....damn thing has done pretty well. Since the Civil War, and especially the 1930s, the U. S. has had what is called "creeping socialism." It's worked well for 70 years to prevent economic collapse and ever so slightly, give the little guy a break. The glory days of the Robber Barons made life pretty sparse for most people. The percentage of illiteracy, malnurishment, and preventable illness was shameful. Creeping socialism is a good thing and you and I have benefitted greatly from it. Drug companies won't make vaccines without a push because there is no money it. If any country needs universal health care it's us. It's all we worry about. Charlie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 12th, 2004, 2:45pm on 10/12/04 at 09:23:12, Donna_H wrote:
Cuz I'm not a pot head.... Quote:
Life isn't fair, it's not about being fair, get over it. With that mentality, I'm glad you can't vote in our elections. Socialism doesn't work, look at France, hell look at your medical system. I work for a living and I'm not standing in line for anything. I don't need the government telling me how to live my life, what health care plan I need or anything. It really floors me that people think Kerry has his $hit together. Listen to him more than 3 mintues and he contridicts himself 20 times. And don't give me that crap about Bush being an idiot. The media plays up what it wants to. No one says anything about Clinton and Bore walking into Monticello and asking, "Who are these guys?" Pointing to the statues of Jefferson, Washington and Franklin. Sheesh...I wasn't going to get on the soapbox..... T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Pegase on Oct 12th, 2004, 3:11pm on 10/12/04 at 14:45:14, Tom K wrote:
Way to do Dude... The world need more people like you... nice minding... Wow I'm impressed;-) BTW I did not said socialism was working... I just said: add a bit of socialism to capitalism... That's all... Read well... Think twice;-) IMHO of course Pegase |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 12th, 2004, 3:20pm If the world had more people with my attitude, we wouldn't have so many people on welfare. I busted my ass to get where I'm at and I don't appricate the government trying to take it from me. ESPECIALLY, people who can work, sitting on their ass thinking that something is OWED to them. Go get a F'king job, most people have them. Nobody handed me anything, I don't expect it, don't want it and wouldn't take it. PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY. That is what the world needs more of, not socialism. T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by thomas on Oct 12th, 2004, 3:23pm on 10/12/04 at 15:20:03, Tom K wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 12th, 2004, 3:26pm Actually, I would like to work with Bush. You know that he would carry out the tasks you gave him and wouldn't give you 20 different answers to a question. Working with a large crew to make a kitchen run smoothly, you need the correct answer, when you need it and you don't need someone who changes the answer everytime you ask a question. T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Melissa on Oct 12th, 2004, 3:40pm I checked out Naders website and where he stands on the issues and his and my ideals do not seem to mesh very much. Therefore, I will not be voting for him. If they had, then I would be... :)mel |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Kirk on Oct 12th, 2004, 5:27pm Having listen to Mr. Nader for many years (30+) and read through his website. I could not vote for anyone with such oppressive ideas. YMMV |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 12th, 2004, 6:26pm I forgot about Nader. I'm sure neocons are thrilled with him. He's the major reason Bush was able to steal the election. Naturally, I'd never waste my vote. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Countries in western Europe do just fine with socialism. The Scandinavian countries and most of western Europe are pretty decent places to live and aren't obnoxious enough to constantly tell the world that they’re the greatest all the time. They know we do all right and don’t need a reminder. I know: Standard Rush Limbaugh rejoinder from his 3x5 dumb file: “So go live in Europe.” Hey, could do worse. Socialism, when combined with capitalism and a democracy is a good thing. Get used to it. As I’ve posted before: Throughout history things zigzag to the left. Charlie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 12th, 2004, 6:46pm Thank you Charlie- that's a much more compelling and intelligent reply than I could come up with. I was leaning on "Hope you never need any kind of help you selfish, freakin' idiot!" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Pegase on Oct 12th, 2004, 6:49pm on 10/12/04 at 18:26:42, Charlie wrote:
Wow... THAT was a nice post... well said... truly realistic... so much wisdom [smiley=bow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by mawmaw on Oct 12th, 2004, 6:59pm Way to go Charlie , the country needs more people who really look at issues and don't have their collective heads up their ***. I vote and a lot of the times it's close your eyes and pick the lessor of two evils but not voting at all is worse. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Donna_H on Oct 12th, 2004, 7:04pm Charlie.....don't stop. You are realistic and are giving me an education. I was too busy raising babys and working two jobs, and now I'm ignorant to what got us here from the 1960's, when I was pretty "up" on the world situations. This is an interesting thread and I appreciate everyone's genuine ideas. I haven't read Naders website, but I certainly will now. I just can't see either Bush or Kerry. What to do? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by john_d on Oct 12th, 2004, 7:10pm Have you ever worked with the government or had to visit a Veteran's hospital? You can definitely see the machine does not work as well when the organized entity does not have to compete and perform as part of it's existence. Whenever I dream the dream of socialistic eutopia (and yes, I have thought about it before) I think about the government bureaucracies and how they can only get worse as they get bigger. That's all. [smiley=twocents.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by john_d on Oct 12th, 2004, 7:18pm look at that, my avatar just got 5 stars....congrats to me ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 12th, 2004, 7:26pm The funny thing is that of all the privately run businesses, the medical professional billing organzations, prosthetic providers, radiologists, hospital testing professionals, drug administrators, and even office procedure types are full of incredible waste by greedy little twerps bleeding Medicare, Medicaid....not to mention the out and out criminals who run drug companies and our bottom feeder insurance companies. This is one place I'd like to compare private v. public sector administration. At least our parents would not have to go through such hell to stay healthy. That alone woule be reason enough. Charlie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by john_d on Oct 12th, 2004, 7:28pm on 10/12/04 at 19:26:42, Charlie wrote:
good point actually, how about we throw out all the 'ism's and start over ;) edit ;) I suck at political debate, I see other people's points of view way too fast |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 12th, 2004, 10:38pm on 10/12/04 at 18:46:00, nani wrote:
So, I'm a selfish freakin' idiot? That's nice...let's see...busted my ass working 2 jobs while putting myself through school...oh yeah, worked one of them for free to get into the field I was going into. When I lost my job 2 years ago, went out and...got a different job in a different field so I could provide for my family. Didn't worry that it wasn't making as much money as my previous job, so I got another. When I found something back in my field, I went back into it. While I was in school, I put in 120 hours a week and maintained straight A's. Did anyone help? No. Did I want anyone's help? No, again. Selfish? Not even close. More like driven, having a goal and seeing it through. Pulling yourself up and not whining about it. What? People have a problem with someone who makes something of themselves and thinks that anyone can do it? Give me a break. I didn't come from a family with money. My Dad turns wrenches for a living and my Mom works in an office. I coasted my ass through high school, so I am the person who if I can do it, anyone can. Wasn't even going to go with the "If it's so nice there, move there", Charlie. Figured you would have slammed the door on that one. I don't understand why people have this facination with giving all their money away to taxes. Just to give to people who don't want to work. I know plenty of people who have changed careers in the past 2 or 3 years. It happens. The days of staying in one field are pretty much behind us. I think the latest statistic of how often people change jobs is 7 times during their work span. That is quite a bit higher than it was when I entered the work force. Bottom feeder insurance companies? That's pretty funny. I have Atena. Pretty good insurance. It's a PPO, so I can choose who I go to. They pay about 60-80% depending on who I see. I get my Trex for $20 per script. I can refill every day and still pay $20. With this last cycle I refilled 22 days in a row and still paid $20 each time. They pay 100% for my O2. Do I want government health care? Hell, no. I pay my co pay and about $75 per paycheck and I'm covered. No questions asked. One last thing, what's wrong with asking that the population have a little personal responsiblity? Seems as though you passed that one over! Oversight? You disappoint me, Charlie. Good to banter with you again! T PS. Don't take it personal, Nani. Your's was the first quote I saw that seemed to rip directly at me. I may get worked up by politics, that's my nature, but I never ripped on anyone who posted. Guess I'm not that big of a selfish idiot, after all. T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Rock_Lobster on Oct 13th, 2004, 10:13am on 10/12/04 at 18:26:42, Charlie wrote:
Actually, most of the civilized world is 'dumb', brother. The federal 'social programs' assist two groups. An example: --- My friend, a mid-30s single parent, recently laid off. - Spends his days looking for work and doing any odd job for ten or twenty bucks. - Has not spent a penny on himself since being out of work. --- My neighbors, mid-30s. - Plan when their unemployment benefits will kick in so they can be out of work every summer. Take action to get fired when the time comes. - Declare bankruptcy every other year. - Have a child every other year. - Spend their limited cash on cell phones, swimming pools, home theatre systems. Two groups. The 'deserving' and the 'undeserving'. Sadly, the latter are PROFESSIONALS are leaching my money from the feds. I doubt you will find anyone who does not want to take care of the poor. But... - Why should I have to pay MORE MONEY to educate my welfare-neighbors children? - Why should I have to pay MORE MONEY to fund the health-care of my welfare-neighbors? Socialism fails on the basis that some people simply do not deserve assistance, regardless of the moral issues involved. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Jeepgun on Oct 13th, 2004, 11:16am Right on, Rock. Spiritually and physically, everything must be paid for in the true coin. Truly, the first law of economics is: There is no such thing as a free lunch. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 13th, 2004, 11:30am Frank - I will give a free lunch to anyone, so there is such a thing. I even buy food for street people. I won't give them cash so I won't contribute to a substance abuse problem, but I don't care how they GOT there, I just know they're hungry. So anyone who wants a free luch - just call me :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 13th, 2004, 11:33am on 10/13/04 at 10:13:14, Rock_Lobster wrote:
Amen. Oh, and amen. Hirvimaki |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 13th, 2004, 11:45am on 10/13/04 at 11:30:03, nani wrote:
And this is where I feel the problem is...don't mean to pick on you Nani, but your quote fits my arguement...Where does help end and co-dependency begin? Everyone speaks about the alcoholic and helping them not drink, why doesn't that work for the rest of socity? If no one helps the "homeless" find food, won't they clean up their act and find work? And don't take this as a springboard for "Living Wage". Entry level jobs are just that, entry level. You move up from there. For example, Chicago spends a boatload on the "homeless", don't know the exact number but it is pretty damn big. For that money the "homeless" could be living in better houses than I do. Yet, you still see these people on the streets. Obivously they don't want help. So, take the help away. See if they turn their lives around, then. It is a pretty strong way of dealing with it, but it is one that has never been tried before. You never know, it may just work. T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Jeepgun on Oct 13th, 2004, 11:46am Nani, I wasn't speaking literally of giving someone food to eat, but the same law of economics holds true: The food is not free. It was purchased from somewhere. Someone had to work to grow it, ranch the livestock, get it to market, process it, ship it, deliver it to wherever you purchase it, and on and on. From a spiritual standpoint, everything must be earned. There is no free ride for anyone. If I see someone starving, then yeah, I'll buy them a burger, give them a bowl of soup, or point them in the direction of a shelter. Still, nothing is ever free of cost. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 13th, 2004, 11:58am OK - On a stictly earthly, physical level you may have a point. But, and I know this is gonna sound kinda "New Agey", I live my life following a belief system that says we are all ONE. That the crackhead who lives on the streets or off his girlfriends welfare, the child abuser, the hungry homeless kid, even Republicans, are all ONE. And as such, deserve every bit of our compassion and love. Don't get me wrong, there needs to be intervention of all kinds (food, shelter, counseling, even jail time if necc.) so that their condition can change. I am not a "keep throwing money at the problems" liberal as much as I am a let's give 'em a boost liberal. My politics and lifestyle are based firmly in spiritual principle. Everybody needs something once in a while, even if it's just a post on an internet support group. Love, peace and a PFD to all. [smiley=hug.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 13th, 2004, 12:03pm I agree, give everyone a boost (actually typed boot but caught it! lol) now and then. But, where is the line drawn? We have had 30+ years of "The Great Society". Has it helped? If it did, wouldn't we have seen the number of "homeless" go down? T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 13th, 2004, 12:13pm I think it's failing because we throw the money into the wrong things. I was all for welfare reform before it was done by Congress and the Clinton administration. In New Mexico you could not collect Aid For Dependant children if the children's father lived in the home. What the hell what that about!? Instead of promoting families to stay together it actually encouraged absent, deadbeat Dads to stay away and Moms to have more babies to increase benefits. My idea: Have Mom involved in a work training program or get back in school while receiving benefits even if Dad was around. Let them both get job training. The reforms did some of that, but not enough. Those are the kind of things the government has done that actually make poverty worse... How about mental health services... let's get the drunk and raving scizophrenic off the street and into the hospital...not leave him wandering around with no lifeline. Anyway, I could go on and on... but I won't. I will say that personal responsibility applies to my spiritual responsibility more to me than anyone else's. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Rock_Lobster on Oct 13th, 2004, 12:24pm I understand Nani's point and liberal motivation. She, as most liberals do, continue to confuse CHARITY with GOVERNMENT. Much as the conservatives continue to confuse RELIGION/PERSONAL CHOICE with GOVERNMENT. What is right: People choosing to fund social programs out of THEIR pockets at THEIR discretion. What is wrong: People choosing to fund social programs out of MY pockets at ANOTHER'S discretion. /easy peasy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 13th, 2004, 12:45pm The government spends MY money on the war machine that I oppose. I send donations where I can, but my tax money is as misspent in my opinion as it is in yours. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 13th, 2004, 12:47pm There is certainly nothing wrong with charity, so long as you are pursuing your own values in providing it. If pursued prudently and seriously, and not at the cost of other important values, charity can be a source of good for society and ultimately yourself. Charity can often lead to some type of improvement: a better culture, a better community, etc. But charity that does this requires attention to make certain the anticipated results are realised. Sadly, most people's concept of charity is to push more money in the direction of the problem. I find that most people who up-hold socialism are contemptuous of wealth and are suspicious of individuals who seek accomplishment and happiness for the sake of their own well-being. They believe that those who are successful have an requirement to support those who are not. They see incompetence as having a claim on competence, and seem to think wealth is created by making other people poor. I think this is naïve. What I find most morally admirable is achievement, productivity, rationality, all in the service of one's own life and happiness. Certainly we benefit from benevolent relations with others, and this can include generous support of causes and individuals we think deserve extra support. We don't have blanket obligations to support "the poor" because many poor people are poor because of their own choices and congenital vices and mere charity is not necessarily helpful - as generations of government welfare programs and decades of ever-rising spending on those programs have proved. The best we can do for others is grant them benevolent independence, an open field for achievement in a free society. This will encourage virtues of independence and productivity, and allow diligent and talented people to experience the rewards of these traits. Government social programs of today have not resolved our social problems and indeed often exacerbate them. We live in a country with a culture of poverty and a class of people habitually dependent on government aid. The morality of government social programs is that of a thug: when a politician takes credit for a new program, remember that the money for it was taken at the point of a gun from people who never approved of the program and who will never see any benefit from it. If you think that the elimination of poverty is the standard by which a social system should be judged, you are mistaken. People have free will and life is risky: there is no system that can preserve human freedom and insure that no one will be foolish or evil, that no one will have bad luck they did not insure against, and that everyone will have perfect health. Why should I mortgage my right to exist to the failings of others? Ultimately, each of us is responsible for our own lives. This must lie at the heart of any moral system based on the facts of human nature. Hirvimaki |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 13th, 2004, 12:50pm I understand the points being made here, but I still have some reservations. A few observations from me: 1. I'd much rather see money spent on personal welfare than on corporate welfare. During our recent floods here in the Pittsburgh area, I heard a lot of small business owners complaining that they weren't getting free money from Uncle Sam to help bail out their damaged businesses. Weren't a lot of these the same people who are looking for tax breaks for their businesses? So they don't want to give to the government, but they expect a handout from them. Interesting. 2. I'm waiting for the whole "tax and spend liberal" canard to be trotted out. I think I'd rather have our expenditures paid for up front than pass them on to future generations. It's the difference between a balanced budget and a budget deficit. Our government is practically owned by overseas interests anyway, with our national debt being held to a large extent by the Chinese and Japanese. People are expected to be fiscally responsible, why isn't our government? "Tax and Spend" has been replaced by "Tax Less and Spend More." I could go on, but I'm at work now. Actually working two jobs now, just to keep my head above water. Gotta love that gainful employment... I took a 30% pay cut to stay employed, but at least I keep Bush's employment figures up! THREE MORE WEEKS!!! Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by tommyD on Oct 13th, 2004, 12:57pm Quote:
Certain of the Seven Deadly Sins apply: the deadly sin of capitalism is greed; the deadly sin of socialism is sloth. [quote] The Consitution was was designed by products of the age of enlightenment and these guys debated just how long the thing would be effective. Some said the 1820s....damn thing has done pretty well. Since the Civil War, and especially the 1930s, the U. S. has had what is called "creeping socialism." It's worked well for 70 years to prevent economic collapse and ever so slightly, give the little guy a break. The glory days of the Robber Barons made life pretty sparse for most people. The percentage of illiteracy, malnurishment, and preventable illness was shameful. Creeping socialism is a good thing and you and I have benefitted greatly from it. Drug companies won't make vaccines without a push because there is no money it. If any country needs universal health care it's us. It's all we worry about. /quote] One of the major differences between the USA of the Founding Fathers and the USA of today is the rise of the power of corporations. This isn't mentioned much in most history texts, but the American Revolutionaries who founded this country did not like corporations. The corporations of the day, the Hudson's Bay Company for example, were large and powerful and they were backed by and in league with the Crown, and they generally exploited the Americans. So the Founding Fathers banned corporations entirely at first. The new nation began to allow corporations but they were strictly limited. It took an act of Congress to get a corporate charter, and the corporation was limited to a specific purpose (often big public works projects such as canals) and the charter was only valid for a short period of time: a year or two or five and then had to be reviewed and renewed by Congress. Corporate power steadily increased durting the 1800's, particularly after the Civil War, peaking in the Age of the Robber Barons Charlie mentions (also known as "The Gilded Age") in the late 1800's. The "creeping Socialism" was mostly a response to raging Corporatism. In 1887, the Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad (the case was about property taxes) that corporations enjoyed the same Constitutional rights as people, and this opinion gave great legal advantages to corporations. (It was actually in a note attached by a law clerk, and not part of the opinion itself, but that's another story). And as Charlie mentioned, things were bad for the working class during the Gilded Age. A Republican, name of Teddy Roosevelt, reigned in the big trusts and monopolies somewhat, as did the labor movement. Corporate power and its influence on government hit new levels in the late 1900's and that power and influence is still on the rise. Corporate lobbyists now control Congress and state legislatures to a great extent. There are a few powerful citizens groups with lobbyists in Congress and state legislatures - the NRA and the AARP are two of the biggest - but they and the labor unions (which sometimes are with and sometimes against the corporations, depending on the issue) and environmental groups are vastly out-numbered and out-spent by corporations and trade associations such as the National Association of Manufacturers. Some of the presidential candidates understand the impact of corporations on American government and society, and some seemingly don't. Nader understands it. John Edwards might. But I doubt if Kerry does (or he doesn't care) and I'm damn sure G.W. Bush and President Cheney don't. By the way, there are other candidates for president, though you'd never know it from the news media. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party (third largest party in the US) is focused, like the good Libertarian he is, on fighting big government, though some Libertarians are starting to understand that big corporations, with their influence on big government, are part of the problem. I expect David Cobb of the Green Party (fourth largest party) also understands this. Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party (fifth largest party) seems mainly focused on an extreme right-wing Christian agenda, and apparently does not. So check out the third parties. If you are a conservative, but don't like Bush's deficit spending, foreign interventionism, erosion of civil liberties - check out Badnarik of the Libertarians. Too religious for the Libertarians? Try the Constitution candidate Peroutka. Are you a lefty, but think Kerry is too cozy with the corporations and too wishy-washy on the war and civil liberties? There's Nader or Cobb of the Greens. (By the way, the Greens and Libertarians agree on a surprising number of issues.) Note: most election polls don't mention anyone other than Bush, Kerry and sometimes Nader. By not asking if people plan to vote Libertarian, Green or Constitution, the polls give an inaccurate picture of where the race stands. And the presidential debates, sponsored (and some say controlled) by big corporations, don't even include Nader. Want to give the pollsters, pundits and big media a big surprise? Vote third party. Enough of the civics lesson for now. I deeply apologize for any boredom I may have caused. -tommyD |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 13th, 2004, 1:00pm Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm through for now. [smiley=hug.gif] nani |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 13th, 2004, 1:17pm If, like you said, every third world nation hates us, then why do people try so hard, even to the death to come here? Additionally, I guess "freedom fighters" flew planes into the WTC and killed over 2000 people, including some people I know. Funny, what "freedom" did they gain? Other than being free from breathing? The world is not as rosey as everyone makes it seem. That's a hard truth that everyone needs to see. Starving in your village, move to where the food is. Do some decisions made by the government work? No. Is it a perfect system? Not by a long shot, but it is what we have. It's better than say...any other country out there. We have freedom, we have rights. Go argue this in another country and you probably would end up with a .45 cal asprin. Has anyone really looked at the economy in Indonesia? What is the average pay rate? Is .50, like the number that was thrown out, a fair rate in that area? If you made a product, wouldn't you try to get it produced for the cheapest amount possible? The CEO of Nike doesn't get all the money made by the sales of the shoes. They have employees, r & d, shareholders (better check your 401k), electricty, marketing and a whole host of other things to pay for that I can't even begin to list. And, if the CEO does make a good buck, who are you to question that. If you cap what someone can make at their job as CEO, who says that the same cap won't come down to other jobs like, managers and regular employees? Last I checked, there is no cap on what someone in this country can earn. Shouldn't we be able to be the judge on when a social program isn't working? It's OUR money, after all. Yes, you can argue that the war is our money, also. But, isn't it better that we went in and took care of someone who was paying people to wear C-4 vests and walk into a mall full of people? Everyone says that care about people so much, what about the ones who die by the hand of these so called "freedom fighters"? What about their rights? What, because it happens overseas, it's ok? What if one of those "freedom fighters" went into your kids school and blew themselves up? Bet your tune would change in a minute...probably less... T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 13th, 2004, 1:45pm If this administration had been that interested in terrorism, we would have spent more time and money investigating 9/11 than whether Bill Clinton lied about a blow-job. If this administration had been that interested in terrorism, our President would have demanded an immediate investigation, rather than opposing the formation of a commission for months before finally bowing to public pressure. If this administration had been that interested in terrorism, this administration would not have opposed the formation of the Department of Homeland Security before finally bowing to public pressure. If this administration had been that interested in terrorism, the bin Laden family would have been detained rather than being flown out of the country at the first opportunity. If this administration had been that interested in terrorism, they wouldn't have left the Afghanistan campaign halfway finished before diverting our military to an unrelated mission in Iraq, allowing warlords and a revitalized Taliban take control of most areas. If this administration had been that interested in terrorism, Osama bin Laden would still be a priority. Bush/Cheney: Tough on Terror... eventually. Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 13th, 2004, 2:12pm on 10/13/04 at 13:45:46, PittsburghJoe wrote:
Wasn't that taken care of during Clintons term? Don't recall anything being said or done during Bushs'. Quote:
Hmmm...didn't Tom Ridge get appointed by Bush? Wasn't DHS formed pretty quickly after 9/11? Quote:
Dont' get your info from Michael Moore...because he is wrong. Quote:
If this is true, why were free elections held this week in Afghanistan, even though the Taliban said they would kill anyone who voted. There was 75-85% voter turnout, IIRC. Quote:
Where has it been said that he isn't? How do you people want it? Should we give out the info that we almost have him and he is in cave #9 in the mountain of such and such, then watch him bail...then you would all bitch that he got away! There are things called covert ops, listen to the speach after 9/11 again. "Somethings you will hear about, some you won't." It's called National Security. Do you go and let you neighborhood crackhead know that you won't be home and your doors are unlocked? Quote:
T Joe[/quote] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by floridian on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:07pm Quote:
"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:15pm Spin, spin, spin. Watch FoxNews much? BTW, the Homeland Security Department was formed on March 1, 2003. Tom Ridge was brought on as an adivsor for HS on October 8, 2001. As for the bin Ladens, their flight out of the country wasn't made up by Michael Moore, it really happened. I read about this long before Fahrenheit 9/11 was released. On the subject opf Osama, these are direct quotes from President Bush: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 What a difference 6 months makes, eh? I give you the Afghan elections, though the elected government will be in control of Kabul and maybe some other areas, but nowhere near to being in control of the whole country. And finally, I do NOT expect instant results. I was merely pointing out some Bush flip-flops, as well as the fact that the job wasn't done in the first battle before we went hogwild into Iraq on faulty intelligence. The Iraq war has created more enemies to the US than it destroyed. How would YOU react if our country was invaded and occupied? Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:28pm Our country was attacked. Bring the fight to them. If someone was going to attack your family, wouldn't you bring it to them, on your terms? Seem to recall that Saddam was paying families for their sons and daughters to wear the Semtec (C-4) vests. How long before one of those found their way over here? Watch Clinton News Network, much? I don't watch the news or read the paper. Too much spin from both sides. On the issue of bad intelligence. Isn't that the same intel that Clinton used to blow up an asprin factory? What happens if WMDs are found? Are you going to say, it was held back to help Bush get reelected? What if it is found and Kerry wins? Will it be the big story of his Presidency? Will credit be given to Bush for going in? I think not. If they are found the left will be all over the big "conspiricy" that they were held back. If they are found and Kerry has won (shudder), then he will be named Saviour of the World, for having the vision and insight to vote for it before he voted against it. You can't have it both ways, just like the left loves to point out to the right. And, if you do a little research into what is going on over in Iraq, you will see that we are starting to find new Miriage jet fighters under ground....haven't heard anything about that on the news, have you? T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by floridian on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:32pm Hey Joe, How can you say the intelligence on Iraq was faulty? It had the exact effect the White House wanted. "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan but there are lots of good targets in Iraq." Donald Rumsfeld, in the week after 9-11. Hey, Tom, who are They? If someone attacked your family, would you take out on that person, or their neighbors? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:32pm The Bin Laden's and the Bushes are friends from way back. They even invested in GW Bush's oil company. No conservative ever talks about that correlation. Or that the jihad is funded mostly by wealthy Saudi citizens. Funny - I haven't heard any talk about invading Saudi Arabia. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:36pm on 10/13/04 at 13:00:25, nani wrote:
Marx would be proud. Labor Theory and Surplus Value Theory? The labor theory of value holds that physical labor is the only real source of wealth. Capital itself - land, factories, ports, railroads, etc. - represents simply "stored" labor, since it was, at some point, constructed by wage employees. According to Marx, even "human capital," the education and skills of trained professionals like doctors and lawyers, is a form of stored labor, since at some point those individuals received their education from laborers. In the Marxist worldview, the factory owners and fat cats (those eveil CEO's) simply sit back and watch the money roll in, never contributing one iota to the production process. Hence, in surplus value theory, the core of capitalism is exploitation. When Marx looked at humanity, he did not see individual human beings coming together for cooperation and trade. Instead, he saw two huge, warring classes, the capitalists (bourgeois) and the workers (proletariat), into which any specific human being could be easily categorized. Since he was the self-appointed defender of the workers, Marx found it necessary to deny the contributions made by factory owners, industrialists, and entrepreneurs. Thus he arrived at the labor theory of value, which is the basis of his exploitation theory. The problem with the Marxian exploitation theory, as with so many other failed political and economic theories, is that it rests on false premises, most notably the labor theory of value itself. Sheer physical force and labor are of little use if they are not directed by careful thought so as to contribute most efficiently to human well-being. True, it takes labor to construct a factory, but throwing 100 directionless men into a lot with some steel girders, tools and their own muscles - and with no plan, blueprint, or leadership - will not yield anything that contributes meaningfully to production. This is the critical function performed by those hated CEO's: organizing production according to better systems and techniques so that the same amount of labor can produce vastly more goods. And it is not easy; the wealthiest and most successful businessmen work long hours and stay up nights thinking of new ways to expand output. Take a look at the beginning of the industrial revolution, poor people chose to work under very difficult conditions, because that compared favorably to the alternatives available. We see this in the third world today, where the fortunate poor are "exploited" by capitalists, and the unfortunate poor scrounge for survival in shanty towns and on ever-smaller plots of land in the countryside. The really fortunate live in well-run countries where "exploitation" takes hold long enough for development to take hold. Hong Kong is a good 20th-century example. What happened to unemployment and workers' pay in Hong Kong between 1950 and 1990? The radical improvement was the effect of that evil, exploitive laissez-faire capitalism. I'm much happier living in a society run on capitalism - and not the various forms of collectivism and statism - where an individual is free from the power of the whims of bureaucrats or the random chance of his family name to determine how far he can go and how much he can achieve. The development of the abilities necessary for my success is a matter of my personal choices: to apply myself in school or to drift through it aimlessly; to labor diligently at work or perform only the bare minimum; in essence, to think or to evade. Hirvimaki |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by floridian on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:38pm on 10/13/04 at 15:32:25, nani wrote:
The president loves to talk about the fact that women can vote in Afghanistan, which is good news. He probably won't mention yesterdays report on the 'elections' in Saudi Arabia: "RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Women will not be able to participate in Saudi Arabi's first nationwide elections ..." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:46pm on 10/13/04 at 15:32:25, nani wrote:
I can't speak for what our government is doing or not doing (and for the record I am neither Democrat nor Republican), but no dictatorship is a just government. Any free people have the moral right to overthrow such a regime, and replace it with better. The U.S., being the government of some free people are perfectly justified in removing a government like that of Iraq (or like that of Saudi Arabia, or China, or Cuba ) should it prove necessary and prudent to do so. The only reason to tolerate fundamentally unjust governments is realpolitik. If we have the ability to replace and improve a fundamentally unjust government, and we have an interest in undertaking the expense and risk to life, then morally we should do it. Just opion. Hirvimaki |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:49pm We need to get our own house in order before we start dictating to the world how their lives must be run. To quote a famous liberal: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:53pm on 10/13/04 at 15:49:26, PittsburghJoe wrote:
Hence: The only reason to tolerate fundamentally unjust governments is realpolitik. Hirvimaki |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by floridian on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:58pm on 10/13/04 at 11:45:23, Tom K wrote:
One of the problems with a major HMO that a friend works for is that they treat the customer service people as 'entry level' in spite of the fact that it takes 2 years experience to really understand the policies and answer people's questions. Given the attitude you describe above, plus poor working conditions and poor pay, most of them burn out and don't make it to 2 years. The end result is that consumers get shit for service and executives get bonuses. Another problem with the 'entry level' delusion is that there are only so many high paying positions. Is the solution to America's economic problems for everyone to become doctors and lawyers and engineers?? Welcome to Lake Wobegone, where all the children are above average!! What about the 15% of God's Children who are really only suited to a job like janitor? Just pretend they will move up, and call them lazy if they can't? Just tell them they deserve to live in poverty? There are plenty of employers that justify the use of immigrants (legal or otherwise) because "Americans don't want the job." Surprise - the employer offers a wage below the poverty level, no benefits, and miserable working conditions, and people are reluctant to take those jobs. You could say that there is a labor shortage, or you could say the employers have colluded to create a wage shortage. The idea that because a small number of people can overcome incredible adversity means that everyone should be able to is delusional. Some people overcome the odds to win the lottery, but that doesn't mean the system isn't stacked to guarantee that people lose. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 13th, 2004, 3:58pm So, you believe the "moral" thing to do is to impose the will of the USA upon the world? Here's a newsflash: You can't legislate morality, nor can you impose it upon others. Morality is a fluid concept, and therefore cannot be enforced. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 13th, 2004, 4:25pm on 10/13/04 at 15:58:54, PittsburghJoe wrote:
I assume that was aimed at me. I agree with you, in a sense. There is a vast difference between the moral and the legal. The law is founded on morality, but its purpose is not enforce morality. The legal is what accords with individual rights. The moral is what accords with an individual's moral code. Living morally is the responsibility of each of us. But you imply that morality is undefined. I disagree with that. To say that just because you did not commit fraud or perjury (legal) you did nothing wrong is silly. Hirvimaki |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 13th, 2004, 4:37pm What I mean is that there are different moral codes, and they chage from time to time and from person to person. An action that may be immoral for one person can be completely moral for another. The same is true under differing circumstances. For instance: 1. I am a homosexual male. I live with my partner of 6 years and share a life with him. To some, this is an immoral way to live. But, because I am inherently homosexual (and homoaffectional), I am living what I consider to be a moral life. And nobody has the right to legislate or enforce their own version of morality upon me to prohibit what, to me, is a right and moral way to live. 2. If someone breaks into my home and threatens my life, it is not an immoral act to kill that person. However, passing the same person on the street without that invasion and intent to kill, it would be immoral to kill that person. 3. Hindu societies have a moral code that prohibits them from consuming beef. This does not make it immoral for me to consume beef, as I do not subscribe to that particular moral code. 4. Under Levitical law, a man was forbidden to sleep with his menstruating wife. That moral code has changed over the years to remove that restriction. This was a version of morality that changed over time. A belabored point, I know, but that was what I meant by my post above. Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 13th, 2004, 5:00pm on 10/13/04 at 15:32:15, floridian wrote:
I think the "they" you are referring to from my post is the "freedom fighters" as some call them. As for would I take out them or their neighbors, given the situation with the whole Middle East, does it really matter? Plug one hole and another springs up. Turn the whole damn area into a big glass parking lot with oil under it, for all I care. In some way, shape or form any country over in the Middle East has had some hand in bringing terrorism to this country. The Cole, our embasays, the list goes on. Go ahead and act all rightous, but that's the way I feel. I am sick and tired of these extremist killing our service men and women and not being held acountable. Nobody did crap when the first WTC bombing happened, nobody gave a rats ass about the Cole. Bomb them into the 1st century. Now we have a president that is taking a stand against these pieces of crap, "freedom fighter", give me a fawking break. "Freedom" from whom? Us? Please, we didn't do anything to bring on WTC 1 or 2 or the Cole. Oh yeah, wait...we were successful and made money when they live in a cave. BFD. Like I said before, you don't live where there isn't any food, you move. Pretty funny, everyone who bitches that we are the Big Bad Evil USA, sits behind their computer, in their home driving their car and being able to eat 24 hours a day. Kinda like a vegetarian who wears leather shoes. T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Rock_Lobster on Oct 13th, 2004, 5:04pm on 10/13/04 at 16:37:42, PittsburghJoe wrote:
Under Levitical law, I can own Canadians. Not relevant to the current discussion, but quite a bit more interesting. [smiley=thumb.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Rock_Lobster on Oct 13th, 2004, 5:07pm on 10/13/04 at 17:00:30, Tom K wrote:
Foul! /and belts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 13th, 2004, 5:14pm Thought that was vegans? Oh well, who gives a shit... Chris ;;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by BlueMeanie on Oct 13th, 2004, 6:57pm on 10/13/04 at 13:17:42, Tom K wrote:
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. My CEO's pay went from $1.5 mil to $8 mil last year. The rest of us got 3% pay raises. 2% of that went for the increase in medical insurance cost. I guess you think that's o.k. I wonder how the guy can sleep at night knowing he received a 600% pay increase while we received less than the rise in inflation. By the way, we DO have a cap on our pay scale. Same goes for government and there bullshit taxes. Except with them, it's not take from the rich give to the poor; it's take from us hard working middle class and give to anyone and everyone except us. IMHO |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 13th, 2004, 7:07pm on 10/13/04 at 18:57:05, BlueMeanie wrote:
I don't think that is ok. I do think though that you have a choice whether or not you work there. It comes down to how bad do you need the job and how much BS are you willing to tollerate. To the unemployed a 3% pay increase still yields 0. Chris |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 13th, 2004, 8:15pm Since the " red scare" after WWI, socialism in this country, has been the victim of communism. Aside from the unconstitutional incarceration of socialists.....and communists for that matter, it's a waste of money as well as energy. Communism never had a chance over here. True socialism, not much better. That's good actually. Socialism works better with capitalism which works when there are consumers with some capital. Socialists will spend capital and need to buy need microwaves and vibrators too. They will earn a living. A few so-called socialist ideas, such as health care, are cheap ways to insure that most of the population are just enough well-fed and healthy to not want to knock over the traces. It's cheaper to deal with the poor, handicapped and even some indolent when not in hospitals or prisons. A lot more of them get off the dole than is commonly thought. My ex and a lot of her friends did exactly that and became well-trained LPNs. New York State has a good record there. I got to know a lot of them. The up by our own bootstraps argument is wonderful when applied to healthy and literate populations. Most of the world isn't and without government support for education, will be a bigger burden on society, often dangerous, or perhaps join a Jihad. It's hard to believe that providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism, but that's what we have to do deal with for now. Responsibility? OK, try George Bush. He blames you, me, Congress, liberals, middle of the roaders, John McCain, and anyone but himself when something like WMD fizzles. Responsibility is a dirty word in Washington. The world has always been complicated. It’s not black and white, it’s multidimensional. It is not a cartoon that can be managed by those who tell us they speak for a deity. That has the bloodiest history of all. Charlie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by LeLimey on Oct 13th, 2004, 8:32pm Charlie you should go into politics! Reading yur posts makes more sense than any party political broadcast ever did! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Pegase on Oct 13th, 2004, 9:13pm Way to go Charlie... The world really need more people like you... and I'm not sarcastic like it was the case with T... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Kevin_M on Oct 13th, 2004, 9:31pm on 10/13/04 at 20:15:01, Charlie wrote:
Good point Charlie Without tax dollars for schools, teachers and libraries, how would we maintain the literacy needed, literacy needed for health too. Knowledge is power, provided by..... tax dollars. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 8:26am on 10/13/04 at 21:13:23, Pegase wrote:
Sarcastic? Me? Please, go buy a clue. Have had these mental sparring bouts with Charlie in the past. He knows where I stand, I know where he stands. Don't try so hard. Knowledge is powered by tax dollars? Please. What happed to people teaching their kids how to read. I'm only 36 years old, but I was taught to read by my mother, far before I started attending school. And yes, she worked. To everyone else out there...this has been very enjoyable. I love it when people are involved in the world around them, no matter what side they are on. We all know who we are voting for and no one is going to change that. It is good that we can have a dialog about the issues. So, thank you for keeping minds sharp. T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Kevin_M on Oct 14th, 2004, 8:59am on 10/14/04 at 08:26:17, Tom K wrote:
But how do you do teach tens of millions of people? Reading and writing is the first rung on the ladder only. The continued education of middle, high school and public colleges is best not left as a family function for a nation of 260 million or so. The cost of police and fire for communities? The list goes on. Taxes provide more opportunity to be employable through education. But there is abuse of it's spending. Kevin M |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by BobG on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:21am Keivn is rihgt, Evryethnig i knwo i leanred in pulbic shcool. Btu it wsa my momma taht tauhgt me redanig and writnig. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:41am Quote:
Quote:
[smiley=laugh.gif] I was actually going to try and make a serious point...not all parents CAN read... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Melissa on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:41am on 10/14/04 at 08:59:59, Kevin_M wrote:
By getting parents to take responsibility for their childs learning beginning at home at a young age instead of leaving all education up to the schools. Education is more than just learning to read and write, it also has to do with being a productive, moral and responsible member of society. That stems with spending time with your child while their young, interacting with them by reading, playing educational games, letting them learn the value of a dollar through hard work like yard work for neighbors, teaching them manners and respect instead of using TV, video games and the computer to babysit them, etc. I could go on and on... Out where I live, there were many parents in an uproar because they changed the school bus schedule so kids didn't spend so much time riding on the bus and could be picked up later and dropped off at home sooner. I thought it was wonderful that my daughter got home sooner so she could not only get her homework done but we had enough time for me to take her to Karate without having to pick her up from school and spend more time together talking about her day and current events. The parents were upset because they needed their kids to ride the bus longer (we're talking 45min to an hour) before getting home from school because their jobs kept them from being home in time. These are families where both parents work. It seems that they are completely unwilling to lower their standard of living and give up the extra money for the video games, tech stuff, brand new vehicles, snowmobiles, 4 wheelers, boats, pools, etc. in order to possibly work part time so they can be there for their kids when they get home. I'm not saying that one parent HAS to stay home, I'm saying to put your priorities in line. It is though, entirely possible to have one parent stay home these days, you just need to lower your standard of living. Many are not willing to do that. just MHO |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Rock_Lobster on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:48am Consider many of the issues... health care, social programs, employment, education, social security... These are not issues the federal government should be involved with. These are all state and local issues. The way I read the constitution, the federal level of government should be worried about 2 things... foreign policy and regulation of interstate trade. Our federal government exercises 20x the power that was intended by the forefathers. The states would have never given up that much control. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Melissa on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:52am Rock, I just wanted to say I am LMAO at your sig line, because it's SO TRUE!! hahaha [smiley=laugh.gif] ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by BobG on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:57am Quote:
You're right nani. If the parents of one generation can't or won't teach the child then every generation that follows will be illiterate. Quote:
That would be the ideal dream Melissa. But, it ain't never going to happen :( |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:22am I agree with you to a point Mel. Many folks, however, are working for wages that would not even advance them into the poverty class. Additionally, numerous people that are working these types of jobs are not even getting 40 hours a week. In those types of situations, one paycheck will not meet the basic needs. You cannot even discuss standards of living when the basic needs have not been met. Everything is give and take. The problem many Americans face when dealing with employment is location and lack of financial planning. By location, I am referring to an unwillingness to relocate in order to match income from a job they are trained to do to the cost of living in the area of the potential job. A perfect example is Dallas, TX. It is not uncommon to find average wages for skilled labor much lower than what you can find across the rest of the U.S. I know this first hand. I had several job offers at $16/hour doing the same thing that I am doing in elsewhere in TX for $22/hour. Combine that with the phenomenal cost of living in Dallas (compared to the rest of the US)... Ok, financial planning...an emergency fund should be in place to handle periods of unemployment and relocation expenses as well as day to day emergencies. This amount of the fund needs to be determined based on "worst case" and must be liquid. Additionally, one should consider the overtime potential and available shifts before taking the job. A company will rarely promise OT in writing so, that takes research and talking to current employees. A 40 hour work week is a joke for trade skilled employees. The problem with a second job is additional commute times, matching schedules and still getting payed at the straight time rate. In comparison, It takes 27 hours of overtime to match 40 hours of straight time. It really is a vicious cycle once entered. Working > getting by > laid off > broke and REALLY needing a job > accepting the first opportunity that is offered > back to the beginning. My point is there is much more than meets the eye with the job market. I don't think anyone should reduce their standards of living because their job sucks. I am damn certain the American Dream is not just paying your rent, utilities, food and taxes. The reason I work is for $$$$. If it wasn't for that, I'd be fishing! Since I work for money, I am going to get the most value for every hour I spend at work (big picture). Until folks are straight financially, they will spend time worrying about this or that. The time spent with their children will not be as "productive". There are exceptions, but otherwise, everything is give and take. Chris |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Melissa on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:22am on 10/14/04 at 09:57:55, BobG wrote:
Au contraire, I am doing that right now myself. So are both my sister-in-laws and 3 of my neighbors (that I know of). And that is in an unincorporated village. We send our kids to a school in a nearby town, of about 350 people, 9 miles away. I guess I'm just one that believes in taking responsibility for yourself and your kids and not place blame on everyone and everything else. Like, society is to blame for the pressures, our schools are to blame for not disciplining our kids, etc. etc. No, it all starts at home. Hell, even I am a product of my mom's 3 marriages, being abused, being poor, etc. but that still did not give my mom an excuse to let me fall by the wayside. When I was a single mom, I paid my rent for a 1 bedroom small duplex apartment, utilities, food, household supplies, car payment, phone and cable on a $6.50 per hr. full time job with insurance. I did receive child support, it was about $200 a month and I was lucky that there was only 1 month that went by where I got nothing, which made me end up losing my car to the bank, but it still wouldn't have mattered, I would have still found a way to make it on my own. The only assistance I asked for help with was daycare (state paid 1/2), medical insurance until mine kicked in from my job, and I used WIC. I didn't sit on my ass and act like a victim of the system, I worked my butt off to make sure my child was taken care of AND I still had time to read to her every night before bed, play dolls, barbies, go visiting to her grandparents, teach her the alphabet, simple math, manners and compassion. We all make our own path, we all can control our reaction and response to the situations life throws at us. But to sit and place blame is to not take responsibility. I admit when I've screwed up, and try to correct it, and I'm finding many are not willing to do that anymore. I thank God my mom instilled good values in me and also took the time to educate me while I was at home. We need more parents to do that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Melissa on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:28am on 10/14/04 at 10:22:52, Prense wrote:
My version of the American dream, is being proud of your accomplishments, raising good kids who have common sense, are caring and empathetic and just being happy for being alive and doing things that make you happy. To me, none of that has to do with material possessions or travel, it has more to do with my core being of who I am and how I give to others. Everyone has different versions... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:28am on 10/14/04 at 10:22:58, Melissa wrote:
Absolutely! Remember that many of today's parents are under the age of 20 (very conservative) and will probably not be as wise as you. Chris |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Melissa on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:30am Chris, guess how old I was when I got pregnant? 19 :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:33am on 10/14/04 at 10:28:16, Melissa wrote:
If it had nothing to do with material possessions, you could move out west, cut down some trees, build a house and have a garden... Sorry, it has everything to do with material things. Even the almighty dollar (sarcasm) is a material possession. I do not condone this ideal, but it is what our generation has inherited. Chris |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:34am on 10/14/04 at 10:30:23, Melissa wrote:
That seems to be old by todays standards for starting a family. That is why I said (very conservative). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Melissa on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:48am Quote:
According to much of society it has to do with material things (not sure this is wholly true tho, I wonder if there are any polls on it?). But as for me, like I wrote, that was MY opinion on what is important to ME. As for cutting down trees and build a house and have a garden, that wouldn't be a problem for my family. ;;D Quote:
At that time, it wasn't considered old, it is today tho. But anyway, like I said, it all stems with the parents and their taking responsibility for their children. Perhaps if the kids got more attention at home from their parents and told that happiness can come from within, they wouldn't feel the need to search for it elsewhere. My mom was not perfect, she worked a lot inbetween her marriages and I sort of got a skewed view of what it means to be happy (having a guy in your life), and so I ended up seeking happiness through others instead of realizing I can be happy and love myself without needing an outside influence. Parenting is tough, and even though it is cliched, it is the toughest job in the world, but that is why it is the MOST IMPORTANT. The kids are what shape our, and their, future. It's time to take responsibility now. Sorry for my ranting, I get quite passionate about this subject... :)mel |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:57am on 10/14/04 at 10:48:12, Melissa wrote:
I have access to a 320 acre farm with a house on it. I cannot afford to go there and live. Pretty shitty, huh? The point you are missing is that to aquire even your version of the american dream requires material possessions. It is nieve to believe otherwise. You are dead on as far as parents raising children correctly though. The problem with that is at least two generations cannot be undone. Children that were not raised properly are now trying to raise their own children. This problem will get worse exponentially which makes Bob's statement true. Don't appologize for your passion...I appreciate it. Chris |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Melissa on Oct 14th, 2004, 11:10am on 10/14/04 at 10:57:10, Prense wrote:
First off, I want to say I modified my post to reword a couple things. Secondly, I completely understand where you're coming from, but you gotta admit that Americas overconsumption of unnecessary material goods is enormous and adds to the problem with misplaced values of the future generations. I think somewhere along the road, the meaning and rewards of hard work have been lost, and entitlement for all has taken its place, no matter what the circumstance. I guess that makes me conservative. Please don't no one beat me up...LOL. [smiley=laugh.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 14th, 2004, 11:13am on 10/14/04 at 11:10:16, Melissa wrote:
Now we (Americans) need to figure out how to fix it. This is still a fairly young country that "got rich quick". We have so much to learn. Chris *edited* I had to add the word "Nader" so I could claim thread relevancy. ;;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 14th, 2004, 11:22am But, Mel, you used that dirty word "responsibility". ;) The problem with trying to take care of all the "needy" in society is that some people will make themselves "needy" no matter what anyone else does. People have free will, after all, and can make terrible and stupid choices. But, there are good reasons to think that in a society where individual responsibility is taken very seriously, far fewer people will be "needy" than today. Take a look at free market Hong Kong's experience, for example. Do people really think that massive government intervention, intensive regulation, and huge taxes will take care of all the "needy" in society? It never has in any society I have ever observed. And as the U.S. experience shows, subsidizing the poor usually creates a permanent, immiserated, skill-less underclass that has neither clear incentives nor the cultural values required for healthy, productive living. A just legal system holds individuals responsible for their choices. And a morality that respects human life doesn't hold you chained to the choices of others. Hirvimaki |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by floridian on Oct 14th, 2004, 11:28am on 10/13/04 at 17:00:30, Tom K wrote:
Yeah, I think it does matter. If we go after the few thousand people who are part of Al Qaeda and are plotting against us, then success is a possibility. If you go after all Arabs, or all Muslims, then the size of the struggle jumps 4 or 5 orders of magnitude. It will be bloodier and far more expensive for everyone. Quote:
They don't hate us - but they do disagree or hate some of our policies. Do the Republicans hate all Cubans, or just Fidel and his dictatorial government? Most people in other countries make a clear distinction between the people and the government. Unlike some Americans, who lump friends and enemies into one simple "them." Freedom Fighters? To my way of thinking, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that a terrorist targets innocent people while the freedom fighter targets those that oppress them. Not sure why that question was raised, as everyone here seems to agree that Al Qaeda is a terrorist group and should be destroyed. On the other hand, if we don't distinguish between our enemies and their innocent neighbors, then ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Rock_Lobster on Oct 14th, 2004, 12:01pm on 10/14/04 at 11:10:16, Melissa wrote:
Hey Mel... we agree on something! (other than our plans to have rough sex together at the next convention) ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 12:31pm on 10/14/04 at 11:28:32, floridian wrote:
Have a few friends get wiped out by a bunch of yahoos in planes and see how your views change about this. Quote:
This was implied a few posts back. I make the distinction between people and governments. Do I hate all French for how the government broke the Oil For Food program? No. Quote:
The posts a few pages back said that someone didn't think of them as terrorist but "freedom fighters". Tell that to anyone who gets their family member blown to hell. Make sure you duck, cuz I'm pretty sure a right cross is coming your way. Not everyone here has the disconnect between terrorist/"freedome fighter". What needs to happen is that the Afgani/Iraq war need to be looked at as a WAR. Not as a police/law enforcement issue. That is what happened with WTC 1. Law enforcement. Not the way to handle this situation. The Taliban and Iraqi (sp?) insurgents don't care about listening to reason, don't care about innocents or collateral damage. The more the better in their view. Wanted to add this one for thought...Japan bombed the hell out of our Navy...Germany didn't. Why did we bother going there? To free oppressed people. Kinda seems the same reasons today, doesn't it? T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 14th, 2004, 1:30pm If we were going to Iraq to "free oppressed people," that should have been spelled out from the beginning and the decision to go to war should have been weighed on those merits. In reality, that reson wasn't even mentioned until a few other rationales had been proven untrue. BTW, we attacked Germany because they were allied with the Japanese who attacked us, and the Allies in Europe had been begging for our help for years before we got involved. Don't be making some falsely altruistic reasons for our participation in WWII. I will say this once again: The Iraqis did not attack us on 9/11/01. Most of those who did were Saudis, but we don't hear any call for attacking Saudi Arabia. And many of the Iraqis who are fighting our soldiers over there are trying to repel an invasion, not blindly kill as many as they can. They see the designs for American imperialism in the Middle East, and they don't want to see their own culture destroyed and replaced by Enron and Wal-Mart. I've mentioned this before on oanother thread a while back. I am not ashamed to be an American. I served in the US Navy for 7 years of my life, and I'm a proud veteran. It is my pride in my country that makes me angry when she goes astray. BUT, even before I am an American, I am a human being. Borders and nationalities are arbitrary distinctions, an accident of birth. And I do not believe in the needless slaughter of people in a country that was no threat to ours. Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 14th, 2004, 1:53pm on 10/14/04 at 13:30:26, PittsburghJoe wrote:
How soon we forget... If we used that mentality on Russia during the cold war then WW III would have already happened. As for Saudi...our government is afraid of them. The same can be said for Israel. Chris |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 14th, 2004, 2:03pm on 10/14/04 at 13:53:17, Prense wrote:
I don't quite catch your drift here... could you elaborate? Quote:
And rightly afraid, considering if the Saudis withdrew their investments in our country, the stock market would crash and burn. Don't even get me started on Israel... Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Prense on Oct 14th, 2004, 2:12pm on 10/14/04 at 14:03:30, PittsburghJoe wrote:
While Iraq may not have posed a direct threat to U.S. soil, they posed a huge indirect threat. If Russia had established themselves in Cuba the way they intended, WW III would have happened. The U.S. has been in this defensive posture for years. It worked for a long time mainly due to the geographic nature of our location. Japan taught us on two separate occasions that we were capable of being attacked. Pearl Harbor was one and the bombing of the western U.S. was the other. The time for being reactive is over.... Chris |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 14th, 2004, 2:22pm Quote:
Quote:
Tom Freidman wrote today, in part: The president has exploited the terrorism issue for political ends - trying to make it into another wedge issue like abortion, guns or gay rights - to rally the Republican base and push his own political agenda. But it is precisely this exploitation of 9/11 that has gotten him and the country off-track, because it has not only created a wedge between Republicans and Democrats, it's also created a wedge between America and the rest of the world, between America and its own historical identity, and between the president and common sense. (Karl Rove told a GOP audience to do this in a speech in Texas a couple years ago) Quote:
Charlie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by floridian on Oct 14th, 2004, 2:25pm on 10/14/04 at 12:31:22, Tom K wrote:
So rather than have rational people decide on policy and prosecute the war, we should embrace anger and grief to the point of being irrational? Abandon common sense, or logical policy like the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force, clearly defined objectives, exit strategy, etc)?? Lash out at anyone and everyone that isn't like us? Pick a fight with people that had nothing to do with inflicting the 9/11 tragedy on the US? That just doesn't make sense. Justice is found by punishing the wicked and sparing the innocent. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 2:30pm on 10/14/04 at 13:30:26, PittsburghJoe wrote:
American Imperialism? Please, what like England and France had back in the day? If America wanted to, we would be running the planet, and it would have happened long ago. How many times does it have to be said before it gets through to you? Intel said the WMDs were there, the burden of proof wasn't on us to find them, it was on him to prove he didn't have them. How many countries in the ME had begged us to interveen(sp)? Or since, we also have "no" coalition, even though 30 countries are over there, don't they matter in your world view? He had WMD, used them on his people and was planning on them against the Israelis, even showed that he would launch against Israel in the 1st Gulf War...oh but wait, we wouldn't want Joe to get started about them... Let's see...given land by...The UN...blown to crap on a daily basis, then when they fight back...condemed by Joe. Don't get me started about defending Israel. I'm a hetro, I've been hetro all my life. I live with my wife, who is Jewish, of 7 years. I've had family fight in every major battle for this country including the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Since we are going to give our backgrounds, I thought mine would fit in here, too. I don't care if you are black, yellow, gay, straight, a 1 legged amputee who likes to have sex with broomsticks...nobody gives a crap, so why bother to throw it out there? I get torqued off when people who benefit from the good will and opprotunity of this country, bag on it on a daily basis. Did the Iraqis fund parts of 9/11, you know the money trail? No threat to the US? Really? No one from Saddam's little country could have ever made it over here and done any damage...nah...no one from the ME, could ever get over here and do anything to harm us....If Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then I guess WTC 1, was just a fluke. Since the players in that bombing were from Iraq...just a cooincidence... T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 14th, 2004, 2:38pm The modern home schooling craze was begun by political evangelicals because their kids weren't learning all the mistakes in the bible. It's a bad idea to keep kids from interacting with the rest of the world. I don't much care if they hear something about religion so long as they don't have to trip over it all the time. It's easier to be "responsible" if you can't blame all the ills of society on those not "saved." It's not realistic. Charlie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 2:51pm on 10/14/04 at 14:38:02, Charlie wrote:
Have to give you a big star for that one, Charlie. The bible is a bunch of short stories that make an interesting read, kinda like fairy tales. I wasn't home schooled but having some pretty bad schools in Chicago, I can see where it can be a better alternative. Then again, I work in a private school that blows away most schools in the state. Not everyone can afford that, hell most people can't. Kids need interaction with others, helps them become more "rounded". My point was that if parents, today, took more responsibility with raising their kids, not being their friends, we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today as a whole. From respect for others to respect for themselves. My favorite is..."I'll get a tatoo to show my individuality, by looking like everyone else." T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 14th, 2004, 2:52pm Ah...more to come here. Tom keeps things lively: Quote:
Zounds. What a statement. Ever since the 9-11 commission told Bush he was full of shit, the reason is now that he wanted WMDs. Nothing Bush ever does is wrong. Somehow I have difficulty in counting the Marshall Islands and Tonga as significant allies. Charlie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:01pm Don't remember saying he wanted them, though that has been written. Said he had them, used them on the Kurds and launched against Israel. If I'm not here to entertain you, Charlie, then my life's mission has failed! [smiley=laugh.gif] T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:01pm Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:19pm on 10/14/04 at 14:30:51, Tom K wrote:
We didn't have administrations with these designs until now. Check out the Project for the New American Century sometime. Quote:
A classic logical fallacy: It is impossible to prove a negative. How the hell was he supposed to PROVE there were no more WMDs in his country? Send inspectors to break apart every structure and dig up every inch of the country? Quote:
Quote:
...which he bought from the USA ... Quote:
...which was fine with the US government at the time... Quote:
So much for the "Never got a weapon he didn't use" theory... Quote:
Ah, so now it's a personal attack... I can do this. Quote:
And don't put words into my mouth... very few things piss me off more. If you notice, I said don't get me started on Israel. Not a word about which side I'm on there. Quote:
So have I... when did you serve? Quote:
Sorry, I didn't realize this administration was trying to pass an amendment to discriminate against heterosexual couples... which is really off of where the topic moved to, but I'll let it pass. Quote:
Proof? Quote:
A terrorist could come from any country, including our own. Should we invade the planet in case someone somewhere decides they don't like us? What imminent threat did Iraq pose? Please be specific. I dont' claim there were never Iraqis who wished harm on the US. Far from it. But they were hardly the most imminent threat to this country. Again, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi. The majority of Al Qaeda's funding has come from Saudi Arabia. As for the 1993 bombing: Quote:
But hey, go ahead and attack me personally. I would hate to cloud the issue with facts. Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:21pm Just to keep it on topic... Nader is still a Socialist. Socialism is still a bad idea. IMHO, of course. Hirvimaki |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:29pm Aw shaddup http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/slap.gif Charlie ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:31pm Pure socialism does not work. Nor does pure communism. Nor does pure capitalism. Nor does pure democracy. Different problems require different solutions. We do not live in a black and white, one-size-fits-all world. And man, why can't I piss Charlie off? ;;D Joe (Edited for spelling) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by nani on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:32pm Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Hirvimaki on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:34pm And further more, I think democratic socialism, protectionism, paternalism, and statism are all bad ideas, too. So, [smiley=tongue2.gif]. Hirvimaki PS: I do rather like Laissez-faire capitalism. I know, big surprise. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:43pm on 10/14/04 at 15:19:43, PittsburghJoe wrote:
Classic liberal rag Quote:
That's what everyone is expecting us to do to prove he had them. Quote:
And England, Australia and Greece to name a few... Quote:
That seemed to be a good idea at the time. Better to deal with Saddam who was also against Iran. Since we see the upheaval from going to war with a ME country. Hind sight is 20/20. Quote:
See above. Quote:
Must have missed the launches on Israel during Gulf 1. Quote:
Didn't take it as a personal attack, didn't mean it as a personal attack. If it was taken that way then I appologize. Got a little emotionally envolved. Sorry. Quote:
You are correct, you didn't say which side you were on, from the tone of your post, it sounded to me, that you were on the anti-Israel side. Made an assumption, won't happen again. Quote:
Wish I could say I did, but I didn't, CH kept me out, especially having one in the Recruiters office. Had I served it would have been with the Corps, like my father and his father. Quote:
Is this supposed to be about gay marriage? Don't really have a feeling either way about it. If you want to join into a group that has a high failure rate and then the outcome is dictated by lawyers, then have at it. Quote:
Was asking for that myself. You seemed to be more up to speed as how the money trail flowed. Quote:
Shouldn't we be able to defend ourselves from any threat? Or should we wait for another batch of idiots to fly into another building? This issue as well as others that revolve around this election are clouded with spin from BOTH sides. Didn't mean to take this to a personal level, was never intended in the least. As I said in a post above, it is good to hear the debate. Each person here has their "guy". Though, it seems there are more people who aren't voting for my "guy", I can deal. Seems that being Republican has been a minority dealing that I have had through my entire life. I got over it a while ago. Tell ya what, Joe...when I'm out in PA with my Jeep club, next May...beers and dinner are on me. T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:48pm on 10/14/04 at 15:01:47, nani wrote:
Nani, reread your initial post about "freedom fighters". It was a bit clouded because the Chile reference was put after the statement. And yes, I have heard about the School of the Americas. Yes, Bin Laden was considered a freedom fighter at the time. I said it before and will say it again, hind sight is 20/20. Had we known then what we know now, the outcome (then) would have been completely different. T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:49pm Quote:
Aw shaddup Runnin' of stuff here.....http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/backforthbitch.gif Just funnin' yuz http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/makeout.gif Sweetness and light Charlie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by PittsburghJoe on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:57pm on 10/14/04 at 15:43:18, Tom K wrote:
Conventional weapons, not WMD. Quote:
No problem man, happens to me too. Quote:
This is actually one issue I'm in the middle about. Hell, I've even been known to contradict myself on this one. Quote:
CH didn't keep me out, though I had a lot of nights at sea when I wished it had... Quote:
I'd just like to be able to get into my home if my hubby dies (it's in his name), visit him in the hospital if he gets sick, be able to make medical decisions for him, get joint insurance, etc. Same concerns a married couple can take care of with one stroke of a pen. Quote:
Honestly, that's one part of it I haven't read up on as much as I should have. I need to remedy that... Quote:
But how do we distinguish the "evildoers" from the innocent? If we don't try to make this crucial step, we're no better than terrorists ourselves. It's all part of the concept of "justice." Quote:
Truer words were never spoken... Quote:
Ya got a deal, Tom. And trust me, the discussion may be heated, but there are really no hard feelings. Joe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Charlie on Oct 14th, 2004, 3:59pm Quote:
Charlie |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 4:09pm Hey, as much as small countries, as they are. It sure took some balls to put up when the chips were down. I feel that Poland was a pretty big deal. Remember that they were part of Russia, with them basically telling Russia to go take a flying leap and to join the US...says a lot. To me, at least. I know you won't agree with it, but that is my view. Don't know if Bush or anyone else agrees with it but fawk them if they don't! [smiley=laugh.gif] And one more thing...Joe and I agreed on something...holy crap, pick me up off the floor! [smiley=laugh.gif] T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Kevin_M on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:33pm on 10/14/04 at 14:38:02, Charlie wrote:
I'm late on this one but home schooling can slant a child's learning to the beliefs of their parents, "scientific creationism is not a science. Character building at home is always welcome; science, math and humanities is done to a greater advantage for millions by schools, teachers and libraries funded by taxes. Individual responsibilites for maintaining the level of learning needed would be unfullfilled and suspect if the parents were not aware of newer published works on subjects. Interacting is part of that learning. Excellent Charlie! Kevin M |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Rock_Lobster on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:38pm The more I read this thread, the more I am assured of my superiority. /kinda drunk |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Jonny on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:39pm Someone tell me what is wrong with a thread about Ralph Nader that has been viewed 1020 times? Get a fucking life!! ......................................jonny |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by kimh on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:40pm JONNY!!!!!!!!!!!! ;;DLMFAO. How come you just posted what i was thinkin like TWO seconds ago??? ;;D Too funny ;;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by john_d on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:41pm on 10/14/04 at 21:38:20, Rock_Lobster wrote:
lmao, classic rock_lobster, that needs to be recorded ;;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:44pm on 10/14/04 at 21:39:04, Jonny wrote:
Well...you see...it's like this...there was this thing called the internet and a bunch of people who had nothing better to do, got together...awww fuck it, you know the rest! T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Rock_Lobster on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:44pm on 10/14/04 at 21:41:08, john_d wrote:
Tell me you do not feel the same way my brother! Without naming names, my bipartisan ass is detecting a few room-temp IQs in the room. I mean some of these arguments are so fucking bad it is making my head swim. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 9:46pm on 10/14/04 at 21:44:57, Rock_Lobster wrote:
Where does one get one of those? T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by BlueMeanie on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:00pm on 10/14/04 at 21:44:57, Rock_Lobster wrote:
on 10/14/04 at 21:46:42, Tom K wrote:
Left Cheek Republican Right Cheek Democrat Liberal Up The Middle :o |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Speaking of voting, Ralph Nader hardly Post by Tom K on Oct 14th, 2004, 10:01pm on 10/14/04 at 22:00:46, BlueMeanie wrote:
Ok, that's pretty fucking funny! ROFLMMFAO!!! T |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |