Republicans generally say that uneducated voters should not vote. They should instead get educated on the issues and make their decision. They would like to see stricter controls on elections. For instance, you should present picture id before you vote. You should prove that you are a citizen before getting registered.
Democrats tend to imply that you should vote whether you are educated on the issues or not. They have also been shown to support illegal aliens and felons voting as well.
I think it says a lot about the parties and their priorities.
I believe the third parties are useless. You can get a lot of your issues done if you choose the right party and form a coalition within that party. (There is a time and a place for a third party - this election is not one of them. Take a look at how the republican party got started if you want a good example.)
I agree with a lot of the libertarian platform. Yet I am a republican. What am I doing actively working in the republican party trying to get Bush elected when I know that Badnarik would better represent me?
Quite simply, I am working with others who feel like I do. We've already caused a divide among our party in my local town. Next year, we may have the power needed to put our choices for local politics on the ballot. If they win, we will hold the power in our district. Our party platform in our area will have so many similarities to the libertarian one that perhaps we can convince the 500 libertarians to team up with us. The republicans agree with a lot of what the libertarians agree with. We are getting - for free - a couple thousand votes from people who are "blind" republicans. That's something a third party could never get.
Eventually, I hope to cause a shift in the republican party like the shift that Jerry Falwell and others have instituted. I think it is far more possible if I work from within than without. When we get our people in the state house and senate, we can get our ideas out. Eventually, one of our guys will get the governorship and become the de facto party boss.
So if you want to get your issues out, choose the party closest to yours and start working for them. Over time, you will gain the power you need to tell them what they are going to stand for. And you'll have far more power than Badnarik does now.
Consider the theory of the unlimited universe. The universe and energy and matter extend in all directions forever. You can never find the edge of space, in any dimension.
Now consider that the word used in Hebrew for "create" is more similar to our word "organize". In other words, it was written that the world was organized from already existing matter and not created from nothing. (This is one interpretation of many.)
With an infinite universe, in all directions, the origins of God or the universe are moot points. The universe always has been, and always will be. There was no beginning to the universe, and there is no end.
Now imagine this: If the universe is infinite, why would there only be one "earth"? Why would God create one earth and call it quits? It sure doesn't fit to have the entire universe revolve around one tiny planet in the corner of an anonymous galaxy in an unknown region of an infinite universe.
No, I believe that the universe is infinite, and so are the works of God. He has an infinite number of earths, all going through similar things that we are going through, all "organized" from surrounding matter. Our planet is no more or less important to God than those, just like one person on this planet is no more or less important than any other.
For all practical purposes, the number of humans on this earth alone is "infinite" as far as our mortal understanding goes. We can barely understand the few humans around us in our families and close friends. How can we be expected to understand the billions and all their cultures and customs and languages? The number 6 billion is just a collection of words that has little meaning to us.
This is what you get if you think through the infinite universe concept.
Another alternate idea is the closed universe theory. Here, there is a limit to the universe around us. In fact, this may be one of several billion universes. In this instance, the entire universe was created just for our one planet. Again, and omniscient and omnipotent God wouldn't be satisfied with a single earth or a single universe, so he would go about and create several more universes and earths and perhaps several more.
It's all OK until: - Someone else's religious belief get in the way of teaching my human morality and right from wrong. - Someone else's beliefs mean my taxes are spent on convincing children to copulate before marriage and then to kill the child as it is being delivered. - Someone else's beliefs prevent me from raising my child in the way I see most proper. - Someone else's beliefs are used to determine what can and cannot be taught to our children. - Someone else's beliefs are prominent in the election of the leader of the world's most powerful economic and military force.
At this point, someone else's beliefs very concretely become my concern, and I reserver the right to disagree with them and oppose them if necessary.
Well, lions and tigers and bears are stronger and have better claws and teeth. Even a baboon could easily rip a grown man to shreds. I guess because there are animals that are better than humans out there in some aspects, that this whole God thing is a farce. You have me convinced.
Oh wait. There's this thing that just happened. It's called a thought. Wow. I just had several thoughts that put together made a plan. And the plan became a sentence and the sentences formed an argument. And I just used irony, or the intentional arguing of your opponent's argument to make your opponent sound stupid.
See, we humans are not superior physically to most of the creatures on the earth. But the one area where we kick serious butt is our intellect. Got a bear problem? We'll make spears and arrows and knives and high powered rifles to take care of that! Squid can see better than us? Still, they end up on our plates as a delicious appetizer.
Even though lions and tigers and bears and squid are more advanced than us, where are their highways and cities and skyscrapers? Where are their works of art and literature? Heck, where is their language? All they can do is grunt and squeal, while we worry about grammar and spelling and irony.
The glory of God is intelligence - not good looks or advanced eyes or a buffed bod. We humans have that gift because we are divine children. Let the animals have their advanced eyes and teeth and claws. I'll keep my divinity. While the animals were created, the humans had the breath of God in its soul. We were given the whole earth as ours, and we were charged to take care of it. We are masters of this world. We are mini-gods. They are animals, and live out their existence without understanding how they ended up in my belly.
Politics is all about emotion. I know some republicans and libertarians will disagree with this, but they do so because they get an emotional response to their ideas that are based on logic. Ultimately, they feel more comfortable with the policies of their candidates. It just sits right.
I know I feel a strong aversion to big government. I feel inspired by the idea of lower taxes and reduced government. I have an emotional connection to these issues that obviously a lot of others don't.
What makes a good politician is he understands what excites people and how to get them out there to do something for the candidate for free. It's called leadership, charisma.
Real leadership is positive. You saw it with FDR, John Kennedy, and Reagan. They gave a vision, then spread that vision to the masses, then coordinated the effort to achieve that vision.
Most politicians are not good at what they do. (I'll leave a judgment of their character or their ability as a governor or legislator as a seperate issue.) The only way they can inspire is by fear and hatred.
Luckily, fear and hatred are emotions that are easily conquered by vision and inspiration. For instance, Dr. King's speech "I have a dream" inspired probably the majority of the people to lower their fear and hatred of racial integration.
I think that politics will always be a human art. There will only be a handful of really good politicians out there. They will be the ones to add that touch to the campaign and speeches that all the science and understanding in the world can't bring. There is a soul to good politics that can't be described with machines and numbers.
You all are missing the point. Yes, a wish for the death of the president *is* a threat. If she wants the president to die, then she may help someone else kill the president or kill the president herself.
If I wanted you to die, wouldn't you want to know more about me?
I can't even believe there are people in this country that want to see the president dead. I'm a staunch Republican, and I never wanted to see Clinton dead. Impeached, yes. Dead? No. At least not without a fair trial before a jury.
Yes, I have free speech. But I can't go around yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. I can't call up the cops and report non-existant crimes, or call the FBI and say, "I have the man you are looking for." Just as well, I can't go around telling people, "I am going to kill you!"
If I use my "free" speech to testify in court, and tell lies, and get found out, guess what? I go to jail. If I'm a lawyer and I use my free speech to tell my clients that what they're doing is A-OK! when it's really not, I go to jail! If I'm a doctor and I use free speech to tell a patient, "Here, take three of these cyanide pills a day and you'll get better in no time!", what should happen to me?
Let's just clarify: Sure, you have free speech. The government can't throw you in jail because you disagree with them. But they can throw you in jail for threatening people, harming people, or doing all kinds of bad stuff with your free speech!
I think this is a very significant find. The sun is the single most dominant factor in environmental conditions.
While we know that there are ways to deflect or absorb sunlight in the earth, this only deals with a fraction of the sun's energy. For instance, putting more water in the atmosphere will "reflect" the sun's light, but even if we saturated the atmosphere with water to reflect excess incoming sunlight, we wouldn't be able to do enough should the sun increase its radiation. Conversely, if we used greenhouse gasse to trap the sun's heat, if the sun drops in output, there will be less to trap, and the "warmest" blanket of greenhouse gasses will not be enough to keep the earth warm.
What does this mean? It means that the weather is something beyond our control and our understanding. Until we can control the output of the sun, we can't expect to control the weather on earth.
(0) He hasn't made up their mind or doesn't have a strong feeling on the issue and allows others to decide for him. This is the meaning of a non-vote by definition, and the reason why non-votes are allowed.
(1) He would've voted with the party, but doesn't want to say so.
This assumption is valid because the non-vote could be interpreted as missing data. You can assume that he would do what he normally does, it's just that that event wasn't measured. This is the most valid assumption when he is out windboarding or snowsurfing.
(2) He would've voted with the majority but doesn't want to say so.
By not voting, he is actually helping the majority. To get a majority, you need 50% (rounded down) + 1 votes among all who voted. When you don't vote, you decrease the number of votes needed for a majority. If he voted in the negative, he would've increased the number needed for a majority.
(3) Would've voted with the minority but doesn't want to say so.
In this case, he knows he is going to lose, so he doesn't want to come out looking like he is one of the losers.
(4) He wanted to vote one way or the other but other priorities prevented him from doing so.
Now, let's assume four possible motives for the above:
(A) John Kerry wanted to vote, but doesn't vote because he supports a controversial issue but doesn't want to look like he supports it. This would lead to the conclusion (2) above.
(B) John Kerry doesn't have an opinion on the issue at hands, and allows others to make the decision for him. This may be true for some issues, but I am sure that as a senator, he was contacted by several people for every vote, and if he didn't care about the issue, he would at least know who did. As a senator who represents his state, he had an obligation to make a decision for his state. By not voting, he threw away half of his state's power.
(C) John Kerry really wanted to vote, but other priorities took him elsewhere. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this one. If he actually thinks there is something more important than the work in the senate, I'd like to know what that is. I'll give a pass for a senator missing a few votes due to illness or they're travelling for some important cause, but too miss so many votes in this way is not acceptable.
(D) John Kerry can't make up his mind, so he doesn't vote. Is it possible that John Kerry has a hard time making up his mind? Is he really wishy-washy and indecisive? I believe he is. Others would say he is not. All you have to do is look at his record and see how inconsisten it is.
We are in the process of "negotiating" with the terrorists right now. All they seem to understand is bloodshed. Osama came to the table with his "offer" of destroying the twin towers. His demands were simple: Submit to Allah and enslave your wives and children in the Koran. We responded with a "counter-offer" of bring democracy to the middle east and destroying the Muslim fanatic religionists. Our demands are simple: Die.
They're trying to bring more "negotiators" to the table, but our military has been careful to "limit" the number of people allowed to "debate". We have also been certain that all the "meetings" have been held overseas, in particular in a country that has been helping prepare "diplomats" for years - Iraq.
I especially like the part where the people in Fallujah decided it was time to have a "debate" between the Jordanian terrorist - err - "diplomat" al-Zarqawi and the Iraqi nationalists. The Marines are now preparing to bring their own "negotiators" to the "table" in this debate as well, at the invitation of the nationals.
So negotiations are going quite well. We have "convinced" several hundred top al-Qaeda members, as well as the entire Hussein regime, to submit to our demands (die!) while they have only been successful in holding "conferences" at a train station in Spain and a few other places around the world. None of the "meetings" have occured in the US, thankfully, except for a minor incident at the LA Airport. We are actively seeking the "approval" of our plan by members of the Al Qaeda network who remain and other "diplomats", including Yassar Arafat.
Recently, debate has been intensifying with North Korea as well. Historically, North Korea has been a major supplier of the tools that the "diplomats" have been using to "debate". We have brought five nations to the table to meet with North Korea. Hopefully, dimplomacy will not explode there as well, but should that happen, we are ready. Our demands on North Korea have been simple: Stop giving "diplomats" their equipment, and don't try to develop more "persuasive" equipment. We also have a demand on the table for the leadership in NK to step down and free their people. Their demands have been pretty much to stop debating and go home so that they can continue to "debate" their South Korean brothers.
Iran is an interesting issue. Unfortunately, John Kerry, a master debater (he did very well in Vietnam, apparently) has proposed that we give Iran the nuclear materials they need - like Clinton gave the North Koreans. But Bush has been firm in his resolve on this issue. He is encouraging multiple parties to get involved in the debate, including our new partner, Iraq. Hopefully, this will be a relatively calm "debate", but if push comes to shove, there are many people in Iran who would like to "debate" their government about democracy, namely, the lack thereof. We would be more than willing to provide air support for these debates. Israel has already threatened to debate the nuclear issue with Iran at one of Iran's nuclear facility.
I guess for me it comes down to whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq in the first place. Would these firefights and "terrorist" killings be taking place if we weren't there? At least from an Iraqi citizen's point of view, we are responsible for creating the conditions in which these things are taking place.
Reverse the roles. Iraq has sent a superior military and occupied the US. How do you respond? Do you start killing your own children, blaming it on the invasion forces? Of course not. That is absurd.
But that is what the terrorists are doing. The terrorists, as the people and Fallujah have found out, are foreigners. It's like Mexicans and Canadians coming down to America to help fight Iraq that has invaded by killing our children and blowing us up.
And would the terrorists be fighting us if we didn't provoke them? Yes. I cite as precedence 9/11. I also encourage you to go read about the Barbary "pirates" (who weren't pirates but actually religious fanatics. Which religion? Islam, the religion of peace.) What did the US do back then to provoke them? Nothing. We don't provoke terrorism. They just have it out for us because we are the great Satan. Nothing we do - save convert to Islam and chain up our women and put half our population back into slavery - will satisfy them.
People seem to have forgotten what military victory is. The basic definition is having removed your enemy's desire to fight. (Whether that comes at the cost of your desire to fight is irrelevant.) You can seize all the land you want, but you won't really own it until the enemy stops trying to take it back.
What that means a long time ago was killing all the enemy's soldiers or sending them packing home out of fear. That doesn't work for today's military. First, killing a lot of men will not help in the reconstruction process. We learned from WWI that winning the war is not enough - we need to set up a stable government that will reduce the desire to fight in the future. Second, if we go through and kill a lot of people, that also means we have to kill their leaders as well, which could be very powerful allies in the future.
So what is a modern military victory? It is bankrupting the enemy. When the enemy cannot pay their soldiers, cannot buy spare parts, and cannot continute taxation against its population, and the population is starving, it is a simple matter of riding into town with food and water and promising the world while you set up a new government.
How does this work with terrorism? Simple. Terrorists need recruits. They get these recruits through brainwashing via the media and via the madras (Islam schools). All we have to do is go in and shut down the broadcasting stations and the madras and replace them with some more worthwhile activity - universities and schools. If the people latch onto the new infrastructure, they will distance themselves from the terrorists that try to recruit them. It's really easy to convince a boy who has a starving family that the only way to salvation is through murder. But convincing a wealthy happy family with all their basic needs met that the boy should go out and give up his promising future to murder some people is a lot more difficult.
Combine that with the effects of democracy. When something is not right in the society, they will hold a vote. And that will be that. There will never be a majority that distances it from the government - it will always embrace it. People will be encouraged to work together and to cooperate with their enemies (thus leading to the two-party system, incidentally) to get what they want. Rather than blow people up, they will form coalitions. Terrorists will lose.
Bottom line: bankrupt the terrorist economy. Get rid of their supply of "ammo" - young Islam boys - and provide them with a more effective means of expressing themselves.
Yes, they would be. We wouldn't be fighting in downtown Baghdad, but we would be fighting in downtown New York. Remember 9/11?
By fighting in Iraq, and keeping the borders porous, we are attracting terrorists to Iraq like flies to honey. The more of them that show up in Iraq, the more easily we can kill them without putting American lives in danger.
Interesting statistic: The number of terrorist attacks in the world has gone down significantly since 2003. Reason? Hint: When terrorists attack US military forces, it doesn't count as a terrorist attack but a military action.
After all, our boys are wearing body armor and have guns and ammo and tanks and they are expecting an IED or a suicide bomber. People in Manhattan don't have body armor or guns and ammo and tanks, and aren't expecting a terrorist attack. They are expecting the 6:30 train.
Let's allow history to be our guide. What occupying force has done such a stand-up job as the current ones in Iraq?
When Babylon invaded a country, they sent the inhabitants to different parts of their kingdom. This would force them to integrate into the society.
When Romans invaded a country, they were more intelligent. They would set up a king and give him pretty much whatever he wanted. The occasional slaughter was a small price to pay for stability.
When the Allied forces occupied the Axis territories, they didn't do so well. Looting, rape, and civil disorder was the norm for several *years*. It took nearly a decade for the societies to resemble something other than a dictatorship.
We are really on the cutting edge of human history as we try to manage a dissimilar society and bring democracy where the fundamental concept of human freedom is foreign. We are trying to bring 1500 years of human innovation to a culture that is still set back in the middle ages. Who has ever done this successfully? Oh that's right, we have.
The problem with the IBC numbers is that they don't distinguish between combatant and civilian numbers. It's impossible to do so. We found out quickly that one of the terrorist tactics is to go through after a conflict and take the weapons, making it look like America just slaughtered a bunch of civilians; the Americans swear on the Bible that they were being fired at, but the weapons and such are gone.
Then there is the problem of getting a count of the dead. When Americans do their business in a serious conflict, all that is left is giblets. How do you count bodies when there are no bodies left?
Add to that the fact that terrorists are killing more civilians than Americans, and you see another problem. Are we supposed to be held responsible for people that the terrorists kill? If we get in a firefight, and they start shooting children, are we responsible for the children's death? Of course not. That is absurd.
Will there ever be an accurate count? Unfortunately, no. While I admire IBC's ambition, I doubt their method's accuracy.
See, we have this strange faith in democracy. If we spread democracy to the Middle East, it will break up the madras and the religion of "peace" that is preached in the name of Islam. You know, the version wher 10 year old boys are taught that Allah wants them to strap explosives to their chests and blow themselves up in pizza parlors filled with young Jews?
We also believe that idealism - the idea that we should strive for perfection, rather than consign ourselves to imperfection - drives more people to achieve more than otherwise. Set expectations higher than they can possibly achieve, and they will achieve it. What do you think the Olympics and all sports are about?
We also believe in determiniation. That's why we know that even though bombs are going off in Baghdad, that as long as we keep our eye on the goal of democracy and peace, eventually we will get there. Eventually, we will bring peace to the Middle East because we are more determined than the terrorists.
We also believe in human ingenuity. That's why when we see global warming or oil shortages or any kind of incredible problem on the horizon, we don't worry about it too much. Someone somewhere is going to come up with a solution that will lead mankind through the next century. That is, as long as people are free to do as they wish and don't have to report to some bureacrat in DC.
We also believe in freedom. We believe that people are happiest when they are free. We fight for our freedom, antagonizing anyone who challenges. There is nothing more sacred to a republican than freedom. We are willing to kill to protect it, unlike other people. We will also fight to lower taxes, reduce regulations, and to help people start their small businesses or own their own piece of land. We fight for the right to freely speak, to bear arms, to worship God however they like.
We have a lot of things we have faith in. What do you believe in?
Funny, the parent post got modded as funny, but it is absolutely true. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations are bastions of liberal ideology. Go read about them. While Ford and Rockefeller were extremely conservative, their foundations are not.
Yeah, I remember this one. It turns out, they were wrong on a lot of the questions and the Fox news watchers were right. I can't seem to find the questions and the "correct" answers at the moment... they seem to have cleverly hidden them.
Here's the one that sticks out like a sore thumb: "48% incorrectly believe that evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda have been found, [and] 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq."
If there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, why did a federal judge (appointed by Clinton) award $100,000,000 to plaintiffs payable by Saddam?
If there is no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why was there an IED with sarin gas in it found, along with other warheads with various chemicals? Isn't sarin a WMD?
Anyway, it's just a liberal hit piece against conservatives, trying to pass it off as research. They label truth as "misperception".
I believe that women are for more intelligent than men.
First, I'll lead you with this idea: Einstein was really not that smart. In fact, it was his lack of intelligence but careful attention to details that made him a phenomenal physicist. Too often, a smart person will overlook interesting results because they don't seem correct. (How long before someone realized that the other answer to the square root is the positron?) Einstein was simple enough to examine the results closely, despite their odd initial appearance. He was simple enough to write it down in a clear manner. He was simple enough to believe in pure logic.
Now on to the questions: Are women smart? Yes. Very much so. Human relations are the one area that women truly shine. They are able to identify emotion and character with a simple glance. I still have problems identifying the emotional state of someone, even under careful examination. (Humm, you are grimacing, your eyes are squinting, and your fists are clenched... so you must be happy to see me?)
Human relations are also one area that is so complicated that scientists don't even know where to begin. At least we understand that no human language can be described with a formal language.
The intelligence of women really shows in the natural instincts of a woman to mother a child. I tend to drive the children to strict obedience because it simplifies life tremendously if people do what they say. My wife is perfectly happy to live in this limbo of uncertainty, where every word and every action is part of a dialog with the child.
Let's compare something I am really good at with her. I think I am pretty smart with programming and such, but my wife is quite frankly *bored* with the topic, as it is not interesting enough compared to the art of dealing with children and friends and neighbors. Yes, that is true. One of the reasons why I like programming so much is because it is one of the simplest things in this world that is actually useful.
Another example. In financial matters, we tend to be equally weak. That is because, in my mind, it is too simple for a woman to understand, and just a bit more complicated than men can understand. I see how she handles our account - she has a running total of all of our accounts in her head, and can predict what we will have in our accounts 6 months out, pretty much for each week. I can't do that. I have to sit down and write it all out and then look at the numbers and then draw up a budget to figure it all out. It takes me hours to come to the conclusions that she has made 6 months ago. Unfortunately, she isn't careful with her math and sometimes makes poor decisions - like paying off the lower interest debt first - but that is only because she trusts her natural intelligence and allows her mind to carry her to conclusions without understanding the "why".
Perhaps time and money would better be spent addressing those reasons instead of bribing people to overlook them.
Sounds like a great idea. Let's have a class in school that is mandatory for all 8th graders called "civics". Here, we teach them about our country's history from Charlemagne, to English history, and then to American history. We'll teach them how many people fought and dies so that we can be free from a king. And we'll show them how to vote. We'll bring in representatives from the republican, democratic, libertarian, and every other party that wants to come and have them talk about their party. We'll teach the children about government, from the local school board to the supreme court. We'll have them learn about important national figures. We'll have them memorize the constitution of the united states and the constitution of their state.
And then after all this education, we'll get them involved in the community. We'll show them how to be responsible and democratically aware. We'll show them how to form a coalition, how to organize, how to advertise, and how to manage and govern.
No, you don't understand the philosophy of libertarians and conservative republicans with regard to government income.
We believe that limited government is the best form of government. Government is a necessary evil because it has certain benefits like law and order. However, government has a violent tendency to exceed its role and to exert its power for evil. Thus, limited government is the only tolerable government.
All this spending that the government does is unjustified, and in some cases, specifically outlawed in the constitution. The federal government doesn't need to spend nearly as much as they do. Consider what it has to do: run some courts, pay some legislators and officers, and do this foreign relations thing by sending ambassadors and diplomats to foreign countries. Raising an army is not part of the federal government - that's for the individual states to do. The president only commands troops in times of war, as declared by congress. Until that time, the states control them.
The Federal Government could probably do everything with a couple hundred million dollars, not the couple of hundred BILLION dollars budget it has now. A couple hundred million dollars equates to about a buck a citizen in the US.
We believe that the federal government should only collect taxes from specific sources, namely a per-capita tax charged to the individual states, or a tariff on imported goods. The per-capita tax, if it were levied today, would amount to thousands of dollars per person, which is unbearable. But with limited government, it would be in the range of a few bucks. The tariffs are useful as a negotiating tool. Since the purpose of federal government is to handle all the foreign relations stuff, it could be a handy tool to them. (In particular, tariffs are levied with unfriendly countries, and will build up the coffers before a war with said country.)
We believe that governments shouldn't incur debts, enslaving the next generation, but build wealth. They should have extra money that they either loan out or deposit in a bank account and earn interest on. This way, eventually the government could function in times of peace *without* taxes! Maybe with a big enough reserve, we could survive a war without incuring any debt.
Consider that if you put your cash into any decent fund, it will return about 10%. If you stick it in the stock market, say, the Dow Jones index, historically, you will get a 20% return over time. If the government had a reserve of only a billion dollars, that would bring in about $300,000,000 to $600,000,000 of revenue without collecting taxes or tariffs. That should be more than enough to run the federal government - tax free.
We believe that states are free to tax however they like, provided it is in accordance to the state constitution. In my state of Washington, that's property taxes. What has happened recently under democrat rule is that we have been nickled and dimed to death. First we had a state sales tax. Now that tax is up to about 9% in most areas, and they're talking about raising it another "penny", or a billion dollars. There are other unconstitutional or extra-constitutional taxes that our state burdens us with, but thanks to Tim Eyman, we are able to tell the government that we don't want the spending and we don't want the taxes. We want to be free.
We believe that fines are appropriate, provided that they are used as a means of extracting damages or punishment of the offender. I believe that jail time or perhaps physical punishment or humiliation is more appropriate than a fine. So you were caught speeding? You'll spend tomorrow in the stockades with a sign "I can't obey simple laws like the speed limit" around your neck. Fines are something that favor the rich. Jailtime, humiliation, and physical punishment favors no one, and all are equal under the law.
Fines shouldn't be used for the government. If they are collected, it should be destroyed, increasing the value of the dollar. Otherwise, it will encourage the
I haven't heard any conservative talk show hosts advocating violence or property destruction against their opponents. In fact, it's quite the opposite. When a caller calls in with a bad idea like vandalizing, the host corrects them quite quickly. "How would you feel if it happened to you? Do you think this is what should be the political environment?"
To retaliate against the vandalization and violence against the right by the left, hosts are encouraging their listeners to document it and to report it to police.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans generally say that uneducated voters should not vote. They should instead get educated on the issues and make their decision. They would like to see stricter controls on elections. For instance, you should present picture id before you vote. You should prove that you are a citizen before getting registered.
Democrats tend to imply that you should vote whether you are educated on the issues or not. They have also been shown to support illegal aliens and felons voting as well.
I think it says a lot about the parties and their priorities.
I believe the third parties are useless. You can get a lot of your issues done if you choose the right party and form a coalition within that party. (There is a time and a place for a third party - this election is not one of them. Take a look at how the republican party got started if you want a good example.)
I agree with a lot of the libertarian platform. Yet I am a republican. What am I doing actively working in the republican party trying to get Bush elected when I know that Badnarik would better represent me?
Quite simply, I am working with others who feel like I do. We've already caused a divide among our party in my local town. Next year, we may have the power needed to put our choices for local politics on the ballot. If they win, we will hold the power in our district. Our party platform in our area will have so many similarities to the libertarian one that perhaps we can convince the 500 libertarians to team up with us. The republicans agree with a lot of what the libertarians agree with. We are getting - for free - a couple thousand votes from people who are "blind" republicans. That's something a third party could never get.
Eventually, I hope to cause a shift in the republican party like the shift that Jerry Falwell and others have instituted. I think it is far more possible if I work from within than without. When we get our people in the state house and senate, we can get our ideas out. Eventually, one of our guys will get the governorship and become the de facto party boss.
So if you want to get your issues out, choose the party closest to yours and start working for them. Over time, you will gain the power you need to tell them what they are going to stand for. And you'll have far more power than Badnarik does now.
Consider the theory of the unlimited universe. The universe and energy and matter extend in all directions forever. You can never find the edge of space, in any dimension.
Now consider that the word used in Hebrew for "create" is more similar to our word "organize". In other words, it was written that the world was organized from already existing matter and not created from nothing. (This is one interpretation of many.)
With an infinite universe, in all directions, the origins of God or the universe are moot points. The universe always has been, and always will be. There was no beginning to the universe, and there is no end.
Now imagine this: If the universe is infinite, why would there only be one "earth"? Why would God create one earth and call it quits? It sure doesn't fit to have the entire universe revolve around one tiny planet in the corner of an anonymous galaxy in an unknown region of an infinite universe.
No, I believe that the universe is infinite, and so are the works of God. He has an infinite number of earths, all going through similar things that we are going through, all "organized" from surrounding matter. Our planet is no more or less important to God than those, just like one person on this planet is no more or less important than any other.
For all practical purposes, the number of humans on this earth alone is "infinite" as far as our mortal understanding goes. We can barely understand the few humans around us in our families and close friends. How can we be expected to understand the billions and all their cultures and customs and languages? The number 6 billion is just a collection of words that has little meaning to us.
This is what you get if you think through the infinite universe concept.
Another alternate idea is the closed universe theory. Here, there is a limit to the universe around us. In fact, this may be one of several billion universes. In this instance, the entire universe was created just for our one planet. Again, and omniscient and omnipotent God wouldn't be satisfied with a single earth or a single universe, so he would go about and create several more universes and earths and perhaps several more.
It's all OK until:
- Someone else's religious belief get in the way of teaching my human morality and right from wrong.
- Someone else's beliefs mean my taxes are spent on convincing children to copulate before marriage and then to kill the child as it is being delivered.
- Someone else's beliefs prevent me from raising my child in the way I see most proper.
- Someone else's beliefs are used to determine what can and cannot be taught to our children.
- Someone else's beliefs are prominent in the election of the leader of the world's most powerful economic and military force.
At this point, someone else's beliefs very concretely become my concern, and I reserver the right to disagree with them and oppose them if necessary.
Well, lions and tigers and bears are stronger and have better claws and teeth. Even a baboon could easily rip a grown man to shreds. I guess because there are animals that are better than humans out there in some aspects, that this whole God thing is a farce. You have me convinced.
Oh wait. There's this thing that just happened. It's called a thought. Wow. I just had several thoughts that put together made a plan. And the plan became a sentence and the sentences formed an argument. And I just used irony, or the intentional arguing of your opponent's argument to make your opponent sound stupid.
See, we humans are not superior physically to most of the creatures on the earth. But the one area where we kick serious butt is our intellect. Got a bear problem? We'll make spears and arrows and knives and high powered rifles to take care of that! Squid can see better than us? Still, they end up on our plates as a delicious appetizer.
Even though lions and tigers and bears and squid are more advanced than us, where are their highways and cities and skyscrapers? Where are their works of art and literature? Heck, where is their language? All they can do is grunt and squeal, while we worry about grammar and spelling and irony.
The glory of God is intelligence - not good looks or advanced eyes or a buffed bod. We humans have that gift because we are divine children. Let the animals have their advanced eyes and teeth and claws. I'll keep my divinity. While the animals were created, the humans had the breath of God in its soul. We were given the whole earth as ours, and we were charged to take care of it. We are masters of this world. We are mini-gods. They are animals, and live out their existence without understanding how they ended up in my belly.
Politics is all about emotion. I know some republicans and libertarians will disagree with this, but they do so because they get an emotional response to their ideas that are based on logic. Ultimately, they feel more comfortable with the policies of their candidates. It just sits right.
I know I feel a strong aversion to big government. I feel inspired by the idea of lower taxes and reduced government. I have an emotional connection to these issues that obviously a lot of others don't.
What makes a good politician is he understands what excites people and how to get them out there to do something for the candidate for free. It's called leadership, charisma.
Real leadership is positive. You saw it with FDR, John Kennedy, and Reagan. They gave a vision, then spread that vision to the masses, then coordinated the effort to achieve that vision.
Most politicians are not good at what they do. (I'll leave a judgment of their character or their ability as a governor or legislator as a seperate issue.) The only way they can inspire is by fear and hatred.
Luckily, fear and hatred are emotions that are easily conquered by vision and inspiration. For instance, Dr. King's speech "I have a dream" inspired probably the majority of the people to lower their fear and hatred of racial integration.
I think that politics will always be a human art. There will only be a handful of really good politicians out there. They will be the ones to add that touch to the campaign and speeches that all the science and understanding in the world can't bring. There is a soul to good politics that can't be described with machines and numbers.
You all are missing the point. Yes, a wish for the death of the president *is* a threat. If she wants the president to die, then she may help someone else kill the president or kill the president herself.
If I wanted you to die, wouldn't you want to know more about me?
I can't even believe there are people in this country that want to see the president dead. I'm a staunch Republican, and I never wanted to see Clinton dead. Impeached, yes. Dead? No. At least not without a fair trial before a jury.
... the president!
Yes, I have free speech. But I can't go around yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. I can't call up the cops and report non-existant crimes, or call the FBI and say, "I have the man you are looking for." Just as well, I can't go around telling people, "I am going to kill you!"
If I use my "free" speech to testify in court, and tell lies, and get found out, guess what? I go to jail. If I'm a lawyer and I use my free speech to tell my clients that what they're doing is A-OK! when it's really not, I go to jail! If I'm a doctor and I use free speech to tell a patient, "Here, take three of these cyanide pills a day and you'll get better in no time!", what should happen to me?
Let's just clarify: Sure, you have free speech. The government can't throw you in jail because you disagree with them. But they can throw you in jail for threatening people, harming people, or doing all kinds of bad stuff with your free speech!
I think this is a very significant find. The sun is the single most dominant factor in environmental conditions.
While we know that there are ways to deflect or absorb sunlight in the earth, this only deals with a fraction of the sun's energy. For instance, putting more water in the atmosphere will "reflect" the sun's light, but even if we saturated the atmosphere with water to reflect excess incoming sunlight, we wouldn't be able to do enough should the sun increase its radiation. Conversely, if we used greenhouse gasse to trap the sun's heat, if the sun drops in output, there will be less to trap, and the "warmest" blanket of greenhouse gasses will not be enough to keep the earth warm.
What does this mean? It means that the weather is something beyond our control and our understanding. Until we can control the output of the sun, we can't expect to control the weather on earth.
There are five ways to interpret a non-vote.
(0) He hasn't made up their mind or doesn't have a strong feeling on the issue and allows others to decide for him. This is the meaning of a non-vote by definition, and the reason why non-votes are allowed.
(1) He would've voted with the party, but doesn't want to say so.
This assumption is valid because the non-vote could be interpreted as missing data. You can assume that he would do what he normally does, it's just that that event wasn't measured. This is the most valid assumption when he is out windboarding or snowsurfing.
(2) He would've voted with the majority but doesn't want to say so.
By not voting, he is actually helping the majority. To get a majority, you need 50% (rounded down) + 1 votes among all who voted. When you don't vote, you decrease the number of votes needed for a majority. If he voted in the negative, he would've increased the number needed for a majority.
(3) Would've voted with the minority but doesn't want to say so.
In this case, he knows he is going to lose, so he doesn't want to come out looking like he is one of the losers.
(4) He wanted to vote one way or the other but other priorities prevented him from doing so.
Now, let's assume four possible motives for the above:
(A) John Kerry wanted to vote, but doesn't vote because he supports a controversial issue but doesn't want to look like he supports it. This would lead to the conclusion (2) above.
(B) John Kerry doesn't have an opinion on the issue at hands, and allows others to make the decision for him. This may be true for some issues, but I am sure that as a senator, he was contacted by several people for every vote, and if he didn't care about the issue, he would at least know who did. As a senator who represents his state, he had an obligation to make a decision for his state. By not voting, he threw away half of his state's power.
(C) John Kerry really wanted to vote, but other priorities took him elsewhere. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this one. If he actually thinks there is something more important than the work in the senate, I'd like to know what that is. I'll give a pass for a senator missing a few votes due to illness or they're travelling for some important cause, but too miss so many votes in this way is not acceptable.
(D) John Kerry can't make up his mind, so he doesn't vote. Is it possible that John Kerry has a hard time making up his mind? Is he really wishy-washy and indecisive? I believe he is. Others would say he is not. All you have to do is look at his record and see how inconsisten it is.
We are in the process of "negotiating" with the terrorists right now. All they seem to understand is bloodshed. Osama came to the table with his "offer" of destroying the twin towers. His demands were simple: Submit to Allah and enslave your wives and children in the Koran. We responded with a "counter-offer" of bring democracy to the middle east and destroying the Muslim fanatic religionists. Our demands are simple: Die.
They're trying to bring more "negotiators" to the table, but our military has been careful to "limit" the number of people allowed to "debate". We have also been certain that all the "meetings" have been held overseas, in particular in a country that has been helping prepare "diplomats" for years - Iraq.
I especially like the part where the people in Fallujah decided it was time to have a "debate" between the Jordanian terrorist - err - "diplomat" al-Zarqawi and the Iraqi nationalists. The Marines are now preparing to bring their own "negotiators" to the "table" in this debate as well, at the invitation of the nationals.
So negotiations are going quite well. We have "convinced" several hundred top al-Qaeda members, as well as the entire Hussein regime, to submit to our demands (die!) while they have only been successful in holding "conferences" at a train station in Spain and a few other places around the world. None of the "meetings" have occured in the US, thankfully, except for a minor incident at the LA Airport. We are actively seeking the "approval" of our plan by members of the Al Qaeda network who remain and other "diplomats", including Yassar Arafat.
Recently, debate has been intensifying with North Korea as well. Historically, North Korea has been a major supplier of the tools that the "diplomats" have been using to "debate". We have brought five nations to the table to meet with North Korea. Hopefully, dimplomacy will not explode there as well, but should that happen, we are ready. Our demands on North Korea have been simple: Stop giving "diplomats" their equipment, and don't try to develop more "persuasive" equipment. We also have a demand on the table for the leadership in NK to step down and free their people. Their demands have been pretty much to stop debating and go home so that they can continue to "debate" their South Korean brothers.
Iran is an interesting issue. Unfortunately, John Kerry, a master debater (he did very well in Vietnam, apparently) has proposed that we give Iran the nuclear materials they need - like Clinton gave the North Koreans. But Bush has been firm in his resolve on this issue. He is encouraging multiple parties to get involved in the debate, including our new partner, Iraq. Hopefully, this will be a relatively calm "debate", but if push comes to shove, there are many people in Iran who would like to "debate" their government about democracy, namely, the lack thereof. We would be more than willing to provide air support for these debates. Israel has already threatened to debate the nuclear issue with Iran at one of Iran's nuclear facility.
Yeah, they've had the explosives for over 19 months. Interesting that this article comes out now and not 19 months ago?
Anyway, non-news.
I guess for me it comes down to whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq in the first place. Would these firefights and "terrorist" killings be taking place if we weren't there? At least from an Iraqi citizen's point of view, we are responsible for creating the conditions in which these things are taking place.
Reverse the roles. Iraq has sent a superior military and occupied the US. How do you respond? Do you start killing your own children, blaming it on the invasion forces? Of course not. That is absurd.
But that is what the terrorists are doing. The terrorists, as the people and Fallujah have found out, are foreigners. It's like Mexicans and Canadians coming down to America to help fight Iraq that has invaded by killing our children and blowing us up.
And would the terrorists be fighting us if we didn't provoke them? Yes. I cite as precedence 9/11. I also encourage you to go read about the Barbary "pirates" (who weren't pirates but actually religious fanatics. Which religion? Islam, the religion of peace.) What did the US do back then to provoke them? Nothing. We don't provoke terrorism. They just have it out for us because we are the great Satan. Nothing we do - save convert to Islam and chain up our women and put half our population back into slavery - will satisfy them.
People seem to have forgotten what military victory is. The basic definition is having removed your enemy's desire to fight. (Whether that comes at the cost of your desire to fight is irrelevant.) You can seize all the land you want, but you won't really own it until the enemy stops trying to take it back.
What that means a long time ago was killing all the enemy's soldiers or sending them packing home out of fear. That doesn't work for today's military. First, killing a lot of men will not help in the reconstruction process. We learned from WWI that winning the war is not enough - we need to set up a stable government that will reduce the desire to fight in the future. Second, if we go through and kill a lot of people, that also means we have to kill their leaders as well, which could be very powerful allies in the future.
So what is a modern military victory? It is bankrupting the enemy. When the enemy cannot pay their soldiers, cannot buy spare parts, and cannot continute taxation against its population, and the population is starving, it is a simple matter of riding into town with food and water and promising the world while you set up a new government.
How does this work with terrorism? Simple. Terrorists need recruits. They get these recruits through brainwashing via the media and via the madras (Islam schools). All we have to do is go in and shut down the broadcasting stations and the madras and replace them with some more worthwhile activity - universities and schools. If the people latch onto the new infrastructure, they will distance themselves from the terrorists that try to recruit them. It's really easy to convince a boy who has a starving family that the only way to salvation is through murder. But convincing a wealthy happy family with all their basic needs met that the boy should go out and give up his promising future to murder some people is a lot more difficult.
Combine that with the effects of democracy. When something is not right in the society, they will hold a vote. And that will be that. There will never be a majority that distances it from the government - it will always embrace it. People will be encouraged to work together and to cooperate with their enemies (thus leading to the two-party system, incidentally) to get what they want. Rather than blow people up, they will form coalitions. Terrorists will lose.
Bottom line: bankrupt the terrorist economy. Get rid of their supply of "ammo" - young Islam boys - and provide them with a more effective means of expressing themselves.
Yes, they would be. We wouldn't be fighting in downtown Baghdad, but we would be fighting in downtown New York. Remember 9/11?
By fighting in Iraq, and keeping the borders porous, we are attracting terrorists to Iraq like flies to honey. The more of them that show up in Iraq, the more easily we can kill them without putting American lives in danger.
Interesting statistic: The number of terrorist attacks in the world has gone down significantly since 2003. Reason? Hint: When terrorists attack US military forces, it doesn't count as a terrorist attack but a military action.
After all, our boys are wearing body armor and have guns and ammo and tanks and they are expecting an IED or a suicide bomber. People in Manhattan don't have body armor or guns and ammo and tanks, and aren't expecting a terrorist attack. They are expecting the 6:30 train.
Let's allow history to be our guide. What occupying force has done such a stand-up job as the current ones in Iraq?
When Babylon invaded a country, they sent the inhabitants to different parts of their kingdom. This would force them to integrate into the society.
When Romans invaded a country, they were more intelligent. They would set up a king and give him pretty much whatever he wanted. The occasional slaughter was a small price to pay for stability.
When the Allied forces occupied the Axis territories, they didn't do so well. Looting, rape, and civil disorder was the norm for several *years*. It took nearly a decade for the societies to resemble something other than a dictatorship.
We are really on the cutting edge of human history as we try to manage a dissimilar society and bring democracy where the fundamental concept of human freedom is foreign. We are trying to bring 1500 years of human innovation to a culture that is still set back in the middle ages. Who has ever done this successfully? Oh that's right, we have.
The problem with the IBC numbers is that they don't distinguish between combatant and civilian numbers. It's impossible to do so. We found out quickly that one of the terrorist tactics is to go through after a conflict and take the weapons, making it look like America just slaughtered a bunch of civilians; the Americans swear on the Bible that they were being fired at, but the weapons and such are gone.
Then there is the problem of getting a count of the dead. When Americans do their business in a serious conflict, all that is left is giblets. How do you count bodies when there are no bodies left?
Add to that the fact that terrorists are killing more civilians than Americans, and you see another problem. Are we supposed to be held responsible for people that the terrorists kill? If we get in a firefight, and they start shooting children, are we responsible for the children's death? Of course not. That is absurd.
Will there ever be an accurate count? Unfortunately, no. While I admire IBC's ambition, I doubt their method's accuracy.
Yep. Bush is faith based. As are most Americans.
See, we have this strange faith in democracy. If we spread democracy to the Middle East, it will break up the madras and the religion of "peace" that is preached in the name of Islam. You know, the version wher 10 year old boys are taught that Allah wants them to strap explosives to their chests and blow themselves up in pizza parlors filled with young Jews?
We also believe that idealism - the idea that we should strive for perfection, rather than consign ourselves to imperfection - drives more people to achieve more than otherwise. Set expectations higher than they can possibly achieve, and they will achieve it. What do you think the Olympics and all sports are about?
We also believe in determiniation. That's why we know that even though bombs are going off in Baghdad, that as long as we keep our eye on the goal of democracy and peace, eventually we will get there. Eventually, we will bring peace to the Middle East because we are more determined than the terrorists.
We also believe in human ingenuity. That's why when we see global warming or oil shortages or any kind of incredible problem on the horizon, we don't worry about it too much. Someone somewhere is going to come up with a solution that will lead mankind through the next century. That is, as long as people are free to do as they wish and don't have to report to some bureacrat in DC.
We also believe in freedom. We believe that people are happiest when they are free. We fight for our freedom, antagonizing anyone who challenges. There is nothing more sacred to a republican than freedom. We are willing to kill to protect it, unlike other people. We will also fight to lower taxes, reduce regulations, and to help people start their small businesses or own their own piece of land. We fight for the right to freely speak, to bear arms, to worship God however they like.
We have a lot of things we have faith in. What do you believe in?
Funny, the parent post got modded as funny, but it is absolutely true. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations are bastions of liberal ideology. Go read about them. While Ford and Rockefeller were extremely conservative, their foundations are not.
Yeah, I remember this one. It turns out, they were wrong on a lot of the questions and the Fox news watchers were right. I can't seem to find the questions and the "correct" answers at the moment... they seem to have cleverly hidden them.
Here's the one that sticks out like a sore thumb: "48% incorrectly believe that evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda have been found, [and] 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq."
If there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, why did a federal judge (appointed by Clinton) award $100,000,000 to plaintiffs payable by Saddam?
If there is no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why was there an IED with sarin gas in it found, along with other warheads with various chemicals? Isn't sarin a WMD?
Anyway, it's just a liberal hit piece against conservatives, trying to pass it off as research. They label truth as "misperception".
I believe that women are for more intelligent than men.
First, I'll lead you with this idea: Einstein was really not that smart. In fact, it was his lack of intelligence but careful attention to details that made him a phenomenal physicist. Too often, a smart person will overlook interesting results because they don't seem correct. (How long before someone realized that the other answer to the square root is the positron?) Einstein was simple enough to examine the results closely, despite their odd initial appearance. He was simple enough to write it down in a clear manner. He was simple enough to believe in pure logic.
Now on to the questions: Are women smart? Yes. Very much so. Human relations are the one area that women truly shine. They are able to identify emotion and character with a simple glance. I still have problems identifying the emotional state of someone, even under careful examination. (Humm, you are grimacing, your eyes are squinting, and your fists are clenched... so you must be happy to see me?)
Human relations are also one area that is so complicated that scientists don't even know where to begin. At least we understand that no human language can be described with a formal language.
The intelligence of women really shows in the natural instincts of a woman to mother a child. I tend to drive the children to strict obedience because it simplifies life tremendously if people do what they say. My wife is perfectly happy to live in this limbo of uncertainty, where every word and every action is part of a dialog with the child.
Let's compare something I am really good at with her. I think I am pretty smart with programming and such, but my wife is quite frankly *bored* with the topic, as it is not interesting enough compared to the art of dealing with children and friends and neighbors. Yes, that is true. One of the reasons why I like programming so much is because it is one of the simplest things in this world that is actually useful.
Another example. In financial matters, we tend to be equally weak. That is because, in my mind, it is too simple for a woman to understand, and just a bit more complicated than men can understand. I see how she handles our account - she has a running total of all of our accounts in her head, and can predict what we will have in our accounts 6 months out, pretty much for each week. I can't do that. I have to sit down and write it all out and then look at the numbers and then draw up a budget to figure it all out. It takes me hours to come to the conclusions that she has made 6 months ago. Unfortunately, she isn't careful with her math and sometimes makes poor decisions - like paying off the lower interest debt first - but that is only because she trusts her natural intelligence and allows her mind to carry her to conclusions without understanding the "why".
You didn't hear that Bush said he might replace Ashcroft if he gets elected?
This is from Reuter's...
"Big cabinet changes likely if Bush wins"
Perhaps time and money would better be spent addressing those reasons instead of bribing people to overlook them.
Sounds like a great idea. Let's have a class in school that is mandatory for all 8th graders called "civics". Here, we teach them about our country's history from Charlemagne, to English history, and then to American history. We'll teach them how many people fought and dies so that we can be free from a king. And we'll show them how to vote. We'll bring in representatives from the republican, democratic, libertarian, and every other party that wants to come and have them talk about their party. We'll teach the children about government, from the local school board to the supreme court. We'll have them learn about important national figures. We'll have them memorize the constitution of the united states and the constitution of their state.
And then after all this education, we'll get them involved in the community. We'll show them how to be responsible and democratically aware. We'll show them how to form a coalition, how to organize, how to advertise, and how to manage and govern.
No, you don't understand the philosophy of libertarians and conservative republicans with regard to government income.
We believe that limited government is the best form of government. Government is a necessary evil because it has certain benefits like law and order. However, government has a violent tendency to exceed its role and to exert its power for evil. Thus, limited government is the only tolerable government.
All this spending that the government does is unjustified, and in some cases, specifically outlawed in the constitution. The federal government doesn't need to spend nearly as much as they do. Consider what it has to do: run some courts, pay some legislators and officers, and do this foreign relations thing by sending ambassadors and diplomats to foreign countries. Raising an army is not part of the federal government - that's for the individual states to do. The president only commands troops in times of war, as declared by congress. Until that time, the states control them.
The Federal Government could probably do everything with a couple hundred million dollars, not the couple of hundred BILLION dollars budget it has now. A couple hundred million dollars equates to about a buck a citizen in the US.
We believe that the federal government should only collect taxes from specific sources, namely a per-capita tax charged to the individual states, or a tariff on imported goods. The per-capita tax, if it were levied today, would amount to thousands of dollars per person, which is unbearable. But with limited government, it would be in the range of a few bucks. The tariffs are useful as a negotiating tool. Since the purpose of federal government is to handle all the foreign relations stuff, it could be a handy tool to them. (In particular, tariffs are levied with unfriendly countries, and will build up the coffers before a war with said country.)
We believe that governments shouldn't incur debts, enslaving the next generation, but build wealth. They should have extra money that they either loan out or deposit in a bank account and earn interest on. This way, eventually the government could function in times of peace *without* taxes! Maybe with a big enough reserve, we could survive a war without incuring any debt.
Consider that if you put your cash into any decent fund, it will return about 10%. If you stick it in the stock market, say, the Dow Jones index, historically, you will get a 20% return over time. If the government had a reserve of only a billion dollars, that would bring in about $300,000,000 to $600,000,000 of revenue without collecting taxes or tariffs. That should be more than enough to run the federal government - tax free.
We believe that states are free to tax however they like, provided it is in accordance to the state constitution. In my state of Washington, that's property taxes. What has happened recently under democrat rule is that we have been nickled and dimed to death. First we had a state sales tax. Now that tax is up to about 9% in most areas, and they're talking about raising it another "penny", or a billion dollars. There are other unconstitutional or extra-constitutional taxes that our state burdens us with, but thanks to Tim Eyman, we are able to tell the government that we don't want the spending and we don't want the taxes. We want to be free.
We believe that fines are appropriate, provided that they are used as a means of extracting damages or punishment of the offender. I believe that jail time or perhaps physical punishment or humiliation is more appropriate than a fine. So you were caught speeding? You'll spend tomorrow in the stockades with a sign "I can't obey simple laws like the speed limit" around your neck. Fines are something that favor the rich. Jailtime, humiliation, and physical punishment favors no one, and all are equal under the law.
Fines shouldn't be used for the government. If they are collected, it should be destroyed, increasing the value of the dollar. Otherwise, it will encourage the
I haven't heard any conservative talk show hosts advocating violence or property destruction against their opponents. In fact, it's quite the opposite. When a caller calls in with a bad idea like vandalizing, the host corrects them quite quickly. "How would you feel if it happened to you? Do you think this is what should be the political environment?"
To retaliate against the vandalization and violence against the right by the left, hosts are encouraging their listeners to document it and to report it to police.