I want to expound on the topic of the parent poster.
Fundamentally, we are a democracy. However, the majority of the people believe that a republican form of government is the way to go. So they democratically formed a republic. The people gave away their rights so that they could have a republic. This way they feel they could stabilize the government, make it immune to whims, and also protect the minority. We believe that even if you are in the majority on most issues, there are always some issues that you are in the minority. Thus, by protecting the minority you are protecting yourself.
I will tell you that all the socialist and communist societies are also democracies. However, here the majority doesn't believe in forbearing their rights to protect the minority or in stability. They believe that the power belongs in their hands and they will do what it takes to keep their power.
The difference between the two is altruism versus selfishness. Altruists give of their time, talents, and opportunity to benefit those who need it. Selfish people abuse their time, talen, and opportunity to benefit themselves. America is generally altruist. Communist countries are generally selfish.
I know this is hard to believe if you are an outsider looking in. But I challenge you to look closely at the American psyche. Ask an American this questions: "If you had a million dollars, what would you do?" Most Americans I know would think a while, and then say one of these things:
(1) I would start a company, hire a bunch of people, and produce a good or service that would really help people. I would take the profits and expand the company by hiring more people and making more things that are useful. When I got enough, or when I get bored, I would leave and use the money for charity, retirement, etc...
(2) I would take the money and do research and find a cure for X or pioneer a new technology.
(3) I would take the money and live off the interest, using my time to serve in my community / help others out, etc.. Or donate the money to my favorite charity, or start my own charity.
This is the essence of altruism, and the soul of America. This is what was really powering the American revolution and what still burns in our hearts even today.
Strangely, from personal experience, countries with mandatory voting don't seem to just fall out randomly. Perhaps a culture of mandatory voting encourages at least a passing interest in the system?
Gotta love freedom too. If I don't want to vote on November 2, dammit, I don't want to vote. Who's to tell me what I have to do and when I have to do it?
I can see it now. US passes law: "All eligible voters must vote or be imprisoned."
Next election: "Voters depose entire government, and replaces it with opponents of mandatory voting law." Two weeks after the election: "Law repealed; go ahead and vote if you like, but we won't force you."
Hi, you must be new to this democracy thing. Apparently, you don't appreciate it as much as we Americans do, so I'm going to give you some answers to your puzzlements and quanderies. See, in America, we are the first democracy to function continuously for 200 years. Not even Greece or Rome could do that. So we know a few things about what works and what doesn't.
It puzzles me how somebody who won the vote of less than 25% of the population can claim to be democratically elected.
In a democracy, you have the right to vote for whoever you want, and the right not to vote. Abstention is also a vote (like NULL is a value). It just so happens that around 50% of the people in the US eligible to vote decide not to. They don't bother themselves with that burden. I wish they would educate themselves and get out and vote, but they'd rather do other things and thus give me twice as much voice as I would normally. I guess they trust me a lot.
If you want to change that you have two options: (1) Make it a law that you have to vote, or (2) Eliminate the non-voting half of the population. Neither of these options are satisfactory. And frankly, when they get re-engaged, it's usually for a good reason. (See, whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, it isn't going to make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. I mean, if Kerry gets elected, I'm not going to find myself in a gulag.)
Better yet - can claim a mandate as the leader of the "democratic free world". Hey, if the US president wants to be the leader of the democratic free world, let's open the election up to the rest of the free world...using a sensible electoral process.
Oh, you want to join the US? Here's how to do it. Have your government or the people pass a resolution to join the US. If the congress accepts, you will become a territory and we will appoint a governor for your state, who will control the police, the military, the finances, and the elections. (Governor = mini King, accountable to congress.) Next step is to set up a form of government satisfactory to our constitution. This means you need to adopt a constitution with three seperate branches of government with checks and balances. When enough time has passed, and you've proven that this whole thing isn't beyond your country's capability, you submit to the federal government that you want to become a state. Upon acceptance, all citizens of the state become eligible voters, and you get 2 senators and at least 1 representative.
That's how it's done. We're accepting applications right now, so go ahead and get your nation to apply. I heard Jordan offered once, but it was the king that wanted it and not the people, so we politely declined. Besides, it takes a while to go from a king to a democracy - at least 2 or 3 generations.
BTW - now that Iraq has been "liberated", shouldn't they also be allowed to participate in the election of the "leader of the democratic free world"?
No, you're confusing two things. We conquered Iraq, but we turned it over to Allawi. You remember, June 28, 2004? Yeah, there were headlines all over the papers about it. Iraq is no longer our territory. We no longer appoint governors to run Iraq. We have an ambassador there. We are invited guests there now. If Allawi says leave, we have two options: Reconquer Iraq and try again, or leave.
I am sure that if Iraq wanted to become the 51st state, that we would be happy to oblige. I wouldn't mind have the United States of the Middle East. But they don't want it, so we won't impose.
BTW, we're looking forward to the US of Europe - you call it the EU over there, but we know what you are doing. (Hint: Limited federal governments are better than strong federal governments. Don't ask me how I know this.) It'll be great only having to send one ambassador to Europe to tell you how degenerate you are for not supporting us in the Iraq war.
If the US presidential candidates don't want to open the ballots to the rest of the world, they should s
I consider myself skilled enough to be valuable to employers, and yet, I was laid off and it took me quite some time to find a new job.
Sorry about that. People get hit by busses and stuff too, so I'd be glad it was just your job that you lost. Seriously.
The market is saturated with skilled people who all are applyying for the same jobs.
Options you have: (1) Get even more skilled than them (2) Market your skills better. (An employee is really exchanging his time and expertise with the employer for money.) (3) Switch markets. Farmers who grow wheat will switch to growing something else if the wheat market gets saturated.
When a company finally does decide to hire, it is usually based on word of mouth, or nepitism.
I noticed that too. So I am getting out of my house and meeting people I wouldn't normally meet. I have made business cards that I hand out to everyone I meet. I advertise for my friends and they advertise for me. (Oh, you need a salesman? I know this guy...)
About nepotism, my suggestion is to marry well. Get your siblings and cousins to marry well as well. Then go to the reunions and rub shoulders.
I eventually did find a job but because the unemployment was running out and I have a mortgage, I had to settle for a lesser paying position. Should I have held out for a better position? I could have, at the risk of ruining my credit or even losing my house. I think I chose correctly.
Okay, set yourself up for success this next time. Get out of debt. Put aside extra cash for emergencies. Start looking for your next job right now. That way, you will be able to hold out for that better job. I accepted a lower-paying job as well, but I did it to pay the bills while I looked for a better job. Now I have a better job, and I am looking for an even better position, and setting myself up to take advantage of opportunities.
My point is that sometimes you aren't "captain" but are instead, ruled by necessity.
That is true. Sometimes you break a leg, or you get a disease, or your wife leaves you, or you get hit by a bus. But you know what? You can't do much about that so you don't spend time worrying about it. If it is likely to happen, you prepare for it. Truly tragic circumstances are usually met with support from your family, friends, and community. Example: A friend of mine had a baby born premature, and racked up tens of thousands of dollars of bills, even with insurance. We are holding an auction to pay his bills.
Everybody in life is either captain or passenger. It's a matter of perception, nothing more. One thing: If you decide to be a passenger, your complaints are meaningless, because you aren't in control of the ship.
I won't argue about terrorism, but I would ask you to apply common sense and take a good look at the other side of the argument. It's easy to believe only one side without thinking about it yourself.
In America, we have no list of citizens. We can't send mail to everyone. We have no idea who they are, where they live, or even if they are alive or dead. It's one of those freedoms that we have.
The census is a count, but it is only a really good estimation. A long time ago, people just reported numbers, not names or addresses.
Apparently, you didn't get the new version of the NewSpeak dictionary.
Fascism - The idea that protecting civil liberties (the right for Bush and his supporters to assemble at the hotel of his choosing) from people who would take them (those who would physically block Bush's right to assemble at the hotel, and attack the police) is a good thing. Also, the idea that having terrorists who are known to be terrorists freely roam the country without survelliance is a bad thing.
Tolerance - A crowd of young protestors show their tolerance by throwing rocks and pushing police officers and preventing others from peacably assembling. Reporters show their tolerance by reporting the incident casting the protestors as innocent angels and the police as brownshirts. Others can show their tolerance by burning swastikas into Bush supporter's lawns with grass killer or by burning campaign signs. Shooting at campaign offices is also a good way to show tolerance. Forcibly entering a private office and assaulting its inhabitants is also a good way to show tolerance, as long as it is a Bush-Cheney office. However, freeing 40 million Muslims from tyrannical rule is not tolerance. Appointing a record number of minorities to key cabinet positions is not tolerance. And most of all, implimenting an act (NCLB) that forces and funds schools to make changes so that minorities succeed is also not showing tolerance.
Brownshirt - A brownshirt is any campaign volunteer for a political party, as long as that party's name begins with an "R" and ends with "epublican". If they are peaceful, cooperative, and kind, that just means that they are one of the top echelon of brownshirts, and will probably kill you in your sleep or take your social security check away.
Vote Fraud - Acts committed by people who try to inform others who is and is not allowed to vote and who try to purge the voter roles of duplicates, illegal immigrants, people who have moved, and felons. Also, any vote for Bush is a fraud, but any vote for Kerry is not, by definition.
Evil - By definition, evil is President Bush and his party. Everything else is inherently good. Ex. "Invading Iraq to depose a tyrant and set up a democracy is evil, but bombing Serbia for the same reasons is good."
Drudge Report is right as often as Dan Rather, maybe even moreso. He broke the story on Monica Lewinski, when Dan wouldn't. He also broke the story on Juanita Broderick, a woman who was raped by Bill Clinton. He breaks a lot of stories that the major news outlets won't touch.
Casual readers are encouraged to consider the bias of Drudge.com by reading DrudgeReport.com and checking up on his stories. I have spent the time to follow a lot of his stories to excruciating details, and I have yet to find one that didn't pan out.
The flight 800 thing? How do you deny the testimony of witnesses that say they saw a missile strike the jet? How is reporting that NOT news?
* Democrats claim Bush will reinstate the draft. Despite two bills introduced by Democrats, Bush absolutely claims that no draft will be done, even going as far as to explain that the draft would be contrary for their plans for better trained, more mobile army.
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who actively lynched blacks in the South for voting, who instituted poll taxes and reading requirements. Republicans are the ones who fought them and instituted federal rules on who is and is not allowed to vote, and prosecuted the lynchings by the Democrat Ku Klux Klan. (Yes, that's right, most KKK members were democrats!)
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who managed the counties where the voters were reportedly disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 election scandal. The butterfly ballot was approved by democrat election officials. This claim was unsubstantiated because it didn't happen, yet they continue to insinuate it.
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who want illegal aliens and non-citizens to vote. They impose the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for motor voters, where even the forms cannot state the requirements for voting.
* It is Democrats, not Republicans, who have told the elderly that if Bush is elected, their social security check would disappear. Newsflash: They are still getting their social security checks.
* When someone comes along and says, "Maybe we should purge the rolls of inactive or moved voters, or at least verify people's identity before they vote" it is Democrats, not Republicans, who scream bloody murder and say we are trying to disenfranchise voters.
I'll get modded down, and I know it, but those who browse at -1 will get to see the truth.
For one, we are not really one nation, but a collection of 50 independent nations. The federal government has no jurisdiction on election processes, except for a few amendments to the constitution.
What would be the most fair system? It's quite simple.
(1) You register by presenting to an official documents that prove that you are a citizen of the United States. This means a passport, a birth certificate, or naturalization papers. These are photocopied and archived.
(2) You are issued a voter passport with a voter id, name, physical description, and address on it. You are told that when you move, you must immediately notify the voter registration office and obtain a new card.
(3) When you vote, you present your credentials to the precinct voting officials. That means you show your passport, they verify with photo id that you are who you say you are, and then they stamp your voting passport with a stamp saying that you were issued a ballot and that the ballot number is XYZ.
(4) You fill in the blanks for every office. This way, butterfly ballots, fill-in-the-blanks, punchcards, etc, are not an issue. It says, "President of the United States", with a line next to it. You write "John Kerry" or whomever you wish.
(5) You deposit the ballot into a box that is kept under constant watch by the members of the precincts. Anybody is allowed to watch the voting procedure. No doors are closed at any time in the process.
(6) The precinct collects all the ballots and counts the votes for each office. The votes are counted by matching names to people. If someone misspells the name, or uses a shorter name ("Kerry" instead of "John Kerry"), then it is acceptable, given the human judgment of the precinct committee.
Again, this is an open process and anyone can watch. The precinct committee votes to approve the results of the election, and by unanimous vote, it is approved and sent to the district office. The district tallies the votes from the precinct, and by a unanimous vote of the district committee, then sends the results to the county office. The county office tallies the votes of the districts, and by unanimous votes, forwards the results to the state office. The state office tallies the results and the committee votes to approve the results. The results are certified by the Secretary of State of the state and recorded. Each precinct, district, county office also keep records.
(7) The ballots are kept for ten years in a secure location. At the request of anyone, the precinct must make the ballots available for inspection. You can go to the precinct and demand to view the ballots and see whether or not you and your friends ballots were counted properly. They have the ballot numbers they used in their passports, as do you.
Note that this won't allow for absentee ballots. It won't allow online voting. You have to show up in person and prove that you have the right to vote before you are allowed to vote. This is the only secure way that is auditable and can be verified.
Is this a lot of work? Yes, but it is terribly important. I'm not too happy with all the voter fraud going on, and I don't like the thought that maybe absentee ballots are being used for fraud or that non-citizens are voting.
If the people don't care enough to monitor their own elections, then they don't deserve fair elections. People have to set priorities in their lives, and have to realize that a bad president can do far more damage than missing a few days of work.
The military has always been on the cutting edge. The game in the military is to have as much energy at your fingertips in a stable condition that is easy to use.
This is what commercial applications want as well, but without nearly the need of concentrated energy and with higher safety tolerances. (IE, we don't want a nuclear reaction to go critical in commercial applications.)
The problem of world hunger is not one of production - it is a problem of efficient distribution. Eastern Washington can grow enough wheat to feed the world. One year of food production in the United States alone could flod the world food market. They don't do this because they can't move the wheat into the people's mouths.
One of the reasons why we can walk into any supermarket in America and find foods from around the world at cutthroat low prices is because we pay the middleman to move the product from the farms in Bolivia to the store shelves, and then we are willing to pay some more to cover the costs of sweeping up the mess in aisle 4. We are willing to pay slightly more if that food arrives undamaged and fresh. This encourages the shippers and farmers to work together to time the harvest and transport.
In socialist countries, middle men are not allowed to profit from moving food from point A to point B in a timely manner. Hence, in Soviet Russia, the crops would rot in the fields and never reach the store shelves in Moscow. Today, there is an incentive to build and maintain country roads, to build and maintain shipping fleets, and to coordinate with farmers and markets to move food efficiently. In China, there was no encouragement to grow more than enough food, because they could not sell the extra to a middleman. Now that China has switched to a free market system, people are building roads and rail lines on their own accord so that they can make more money shipping food across the country faster.
Look at the countries that are really suffering from starvation. They generally fall into one of the several categories described below.
* They are in a state of war. No economic activity occurs because looting and destruction is common. No one buys or sells anything because their rights to it are always under question. If you have a spot of land, there is no encouragement to plant crops. The soldiers will come and burn it or take it from you. If you have tools to move food across the country, there is no incentive to do so; travelling is dangerous, and your food is regularly siezed.
* Their farmers are being persecuted with insane taxes, over regulation, or even, in some countries in Africa, land seizure. Farmers didn't get all the land they owned because they were evil; they got it because they could outproduce their neighbors and the land became more valuable to them than their neighbors, and they were willing to pay more for the land and thus bought the land from them. When these efficient farmers are put out of their position, and less efficient farmers replace them, the food production drops, in some cases, significantly.
* People who know how to move food around quickly and efficiently and thus have done it for a profit are persecuted, taxed, or murdered. Without these people (what we may call "the rich") the knowledge of how to move stuff around disappears, and so stuff doesn't get moved around very well.
Adam Smith and the invisible hand theory (see Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith) say that when we allow people to freely barter for goods and services, that goods and services will be distributed in the most efficient manner possible. They set prices naturally and those prices signal inefficiencies, shortages, or surpluses. When we try to set prices or regulate, only bad things happen.
Something nags me throughout this whole discussion: Of what effect does the economy, the president, and any other external factor have on whether or not you have a job?
There are two ways to view the world: I am a captain of my fate, or I am a robot with its fate predetermined by people I don't even know (God, the President, or some secret Jewish conspiracy).
I know which philosophy I adhere to. That's why when the dot com bubble burst, and I found myself on the streets with a new child and without cash, I went to find a job and eventually found a well-paying one, albeit not in the industry. Now I am back working at a major dot com and I am enjoying life.
I can't imagine what drives people to make themselves slaves to someone else's will. How does the president create or destroy job? Has he ever interviewed for you? Has he hired you? Does he write secret messages to your potential employer "Hey, don't hire this guy. We don't want the economy to grow right now." Of course not.
And the economy dictating your lifestyle? That's silly. I think of the economy as the weather. Sure, I won't sow wheat in the fall, but then again, I wouldn't sow in the summer either. The economy has its cycles, and rather than wake up every morning and look out the window to see which way the economic winds are blowing, how about you learn a bit on the subject and figure out which way the winds will blow tomorrow so you are ready for it? It really isn't that complicated of a subject. All you need to understand is what Adam Smith wrote down in the "Wealth of Nations" and then how to identify the conditions he described in today's environment.
I totally support Bush. But if Kerry gets elected, or even Nader, or even Stalin for instance, it won't effect my fate. I am a captain of my fate. I don't let others dictate which way I go.
I think that is a major difference between Bush and Kerry supporters. I am hiring Bush for a job. He is going to go take care of the terrorist problem so that I don't have to worry about that so much. Kerry supporters are looking to Kerry as a savior. Kerry is supposed to correct all of life's ills and prescribes a panacea to the old, sick, young, and uneducated. They want to put Kerry in charge, but I want to hire Bush to do a job. That's a big difference in perspective.
I am a physicist. Talking with the professors and faculty at the University I attended, I picked up these critical opinions.
1. Nuclear power is the way to go. It is cheap, affordable, and the waste really isn't that bad. Besides, we are developing ways to handle the waste properly. Managed properly (meaning, freeing the scientists to continue R&D) will mean we won't need coal plants and gas plants and electrical cars may become a reality.
Bush scored spot on. "I am going to begin building a new nuclear facility in 2 years, using new knowledge and technology. We are going to store the waste safely, while researching ways to handle the waste."
Kerry scored poorly. "I am going to make new rules and regulations." That's the last thing scientists want - more red tape.
2. The environment. Physicists don't drink the kool-aid on global warming. If you can prove that global warming is happening, then that is one thing. Trying to prove it is a bad thing is something else. The whole Krakatoa argument Reagan gave is irrefutable.
Bush was spot on. "We're looking at alternative energy sources, but we're being reasonable. We are funding real research to determine what effects global warming has and how to prepare or prevent it."
Kerry was way off, suggesting action without thought. He parroted the Kool-aid line.
3. Energy. If there's one thing Physicists love to talk about it is energy. No one understands what energy is better than physicists. Energy is the end-all idol they worship, if they worship any idol at all. How do we exploit the energy out there? How do we get more and more of it delivered to the masses? If it were up to physicists, we would be doubling our energy production every ten years. There are so many useful things you can do if only you had enough energy! Even time travel is possible with enough energy!
Bush laid it out. "I want to expand research, and explore bringing new sources of energy to market."
Kerry was dull and boring. "We need to abandon oil, we need to mandate new energy."
If there's one class of people that understand the intelligence of the masses, it is the physicists. They know that human ingenuity trumps all, that no problem is impossible to solve. They want less government, not more. They want the money, and they want it pretty much unfettered by restrictions or guidelines. Bush is willing to shovel the money they need into their labs. Kerry just wants to put up red tape.
The problem is, the so-called "chickenhawks" are more than willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their children (if they volunteer). I can't think of anything more honorable than for my three year old son to grow up and become a Marine, even as an enlisted soldier. I would support the heck out of him and his buddies if they got sent to somewhere dangerous. If he lost his life defending our country and whatever country he was fighting in, I'll be sad, but I'll know that he gave his life in serving others.
That's something you forget about us "chickenhawks". A lot of us are Christians, and we know that God was willing to lay down the life of his own Son to save others, so we have to do the same with our children, let them walk the walk that we can't walk due to our age.
Except, and this is the truth, prostitution is a very serious crime in the military penal system. if you get caught, you serve time. I know you've seen the movies of Korea and Vietnam, but the truth is it wasn't as large scale as they allege. Nowadays, they are much stricter. It simply doesn't happen, and when it does, soldiers rat on each other. They get congratulations from their sergeants and lietenants when they do.
I think one guy summed it up best over there. He said something like, "When I'm pinned down, I want to make sure that my buddy's only thought is on my life and how to get me out safely. If he is thinking about something else, or distracted in any way, that puts my life in danger. That's why we keep them out of the bars and away from the whores. If he gets the itch or his wang starts to feel the effects, then I might lose my life. It's my duty to protect him and his duty to protect me."
They are also very strict about looting and other seemingly harmless activities. Soldiers aren't allowed to take anything except ammo and weapons from the dead in Iraq.
I know this for a fact. One of my friends is pounding sand in Fallujah.
But then, I'm not sure I trust Bush not to start a nuclear war in the next 4 years.
Which is why we need Bush in office. If you, a sensible American, is worried Bush might launch a few tactical nuclear warheads to make his point, how much sleep do you think Kim Jong Il and the mullahs of Iran are getting?
It's like Reagan. After more than one peace talk, the Russians came away thinking the end of the world was imminent, that all hope was lost for peace, and that the only way out was to surrender. You talk to the Russians in power at the time, and they literally thought that they were going to wake up with Marines in their bedrooms and American jets buzzing Moscow. They thought we had super weapons int he sky that could blow away their missiles on the launch pads. America was a monstrosity that was able to outproduce and outgun the Soviets on every scale. Our technology was so advanced it seemed like aliens from a futuristic society had been feeding the American scientists information.
Even thought Carter had basically the same technology and the same military, he couldn't inspire that blind fear and gnawing doubt in the enemies. He couldn't do it because he didn't have it where it counts.
We need the kind of president right now that can make a threat and have it mean something. Ask yourself: Remember the scene from Dirty Harry? he fires five or six shots and kills four of the robbers with his.45. Then he cocks the gun and points it at the last robber.
"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire five or all six? Do you feel lucky punk? DO YOU?"
Now picture Bush saying this to Kim Jong Il. Except he has B-52s loaded with neutron bombs. And a vast fleet of aircraft carriers and battleships and endless hordes of infantry. "I know what you're thinking. Can we prosecute a war in two seperate countries and still maintain the balance of power in Asia? Do you feel lucky punk? DO YOU?"
Now envision Kerry. I'm sorry, I can't see Kerry saying to Kim Jong Il, "Mr. Kim, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" It's just not him.
That's what we need in the White House - someone with some real cajones.
On Germany, where are the dangers? Why do we need to keep masses of tanks and airplanes and infantry in the middle of one of the most peaceful areas of the world? Why not bring those people home, or better yet, prepare them for action in places where they are really needed.
On Korea, South Korea has 20 times the economy of North Korea. Wars aren't fought with lives nowadays. Wars are all about who can outspend and outproduce their opponent. That means that South Korea can bring to bear on North Korea an army 20 times the strength of North Korea without help. Of course, South Korea has very strong allies in the region, despite the US. And the US is keeping the hardware there to make sure that an artillery strike on Seoul isn't an option. (Hint: If Seoul gets bombarded, Pyongyang sees mushroom clouds. That's why we keep several B-52 bombers and submarines in the area.)
Moving the infantry, artillery, and tanks and aircraft out of that area is a smart move. Most of it needs to be retired and retrofitted anyway.
The US has proven to be a far more mobile force than previously imagined. We don't need to mass troops in a stalemate position. We need to bring them back from the frontlines so that they can deploy to the most active areas instantaneously, and still have the reserves to fill in the holes that naturally arise.
The last thing Bush wants is for Kerry to get shot before the elections; the same goes for Kerry towards Bush. Why is that? It is because if that were to happen, we would have a civil war on our hands, with extremists from both sides of the aisle shooting at each other.
These four candidates (Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards) are protected by the US Military. They are the single most important target to defend.
It is critical to our union that the presidential candidates be elected by the people, not appointed by natural disasters or conspiracies.
There is a better option. Do it the old fashioned way. "Here is a blank piece of paper. Please put your selections on this paper with the name of the candidate and the name of the office for which you are electing him."
No information is given to the voter about which candidates are running for which offices. The offices open are not even disclosed. The voter is required to know something about the available offices before they can even vote.
That is the most fair system I have seen. It ensures that only people who are paying attention are allowed to vote, and people who don't won't even know that there is an election.
This also means the voter knows something about how to write - legibly.
The Iraqis are NOT pissed off at us. That is a lie spread by the Democrats and by certain reporters. You can go right now and visit Iraq and ask them for yourself. You are free to roam over 80% of the country without worrying about violence. It is only a few pockets, and these people are being incited to revolt by radical Islamists (Zarqawi, Muqti) and by Saddam loyalists.
Allawi's speech was the truth. The Iraqis are eternally grateful for us saving them. When the transfer of power occured two days ahead of schedule, I read reports from Iraqis about their friends who had switched from hating America to celebrating America and shouting "God bless America!" in their native tongue!
I'm going to argue here. If I were an Iraqi, and Americans invaded my country, promising to allow free elections, and promising to leave when the country stabilized, I would be stupid to fight it. They have demonstrated that for the past 100 years that they have never conquered a nation except to free it.
Look at what America has already done in Iraq! Those who fight against her are demonstrating
Iraqis now have a constitution. This is something that they didn't have before. This constitution was written by the representatives of the people, not by the US.
Iraqis now have an interim leader - Allawi. Allawi was not chosen by the US. He was chosen by the council. Or did you forget that as well?
The next step is free elections to choose the replacement for Allawi and to form the legislative bodies. After that step what more can the Iraqis hope for?
Already the US is taking a back seat to what Allawi wants. Reports from the frontline (and I hear reports from the soldiers themselves) is that the Americans tag along the Iraqi National Guardsmen as advisors and to give morale support. Most of the work is being done by the Iraqis. When you get bodycounts, you are seeing the share fall from American dead to Iraqi dead, because the Iraqis are seeing more action than the US. Unfortunately, too often the media counts the Iraqi military dead as civilian dead, which is wrong.
Go ahead and believe the lies you are being spoonfed. Or you can get off your butt and go look for the truth. You can start by talking with soldiers back from the conflict and ask them the truth.
There is a huge difference. If Muslims came to invade our country, they wouldn't be "imposing" a democracy. They would be imposing a dictatorship and some sadistic brutal religious law.
We went into Iraq in the same way that we went into Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. We went as liberators. We were hailed as liberators. We left the government in the hands of the people when they were ready to accept it. When the problem was solved we left.
Except of course in Vietnam, where John Kerry's lies about out troops behavior split the American opinion of the war and aided and comforted the enemy we were fighting. Yes, this entire rumor that American troops are responsible for vicious crimes of humanity originated from Kerry. His testimony was all lies. If it was not, why has he not been punished for his crimes?
Slashdot Mirror
Except they weren't democracies. They were republics. A ruling class of people ruled the country, and commoners didn't appoint them.
How does a cereal eat characters? I guess I got to get the book. But 5 pages sounds about right to describe a character-eating cereal.
I want to expound on the topic of the parent poster.
Fundamentally, we are a democracy. However, the majority of the people believe that a republican form of government is the way to go. So they democratically formed a republic. The people gave away their rights so that they could have a republic. This way they feel they could stabilize the government, make it immune to whims, and also protect the minority. We believe that even if you are in the majority on most issues, there are always some issues that you are in the minority. Thus, by protecting the minority you are protecting yourself.
I will tell you that all the socialist and communist societies are also democracies. However, here the majority doesn't believe in forbearing their rights to protect the minority or in stability. They believe that the power belongs in their hands and they will do what it takes to keep their power.
The difference between the two is altruism versus selfishness. Altruists give of their time, talents, and opportunity to benefit those who need it. Selfish people abuse their time, talen, and opportunity to benefit themselves. America is generally altruist. Communist countries are generally selfish.
I know this is hard to believe if you are an outsider looking in. But I challenge you to look closely at the American psyche. Ask an American this questions: "If you had a million dollars, what would you do?" Most Americans I know would think a while, and then say one of these things:
(1) I would start a company, hire a bunch of people, and produce a good or service that would really help people. I would take the profits and expand the company by hiring more people and making more things that are useful. When I got enough, or when I get bored, I would leave and use the money for charity, retirement, etc...
(2) I would take the money and do research and find a cure for X or pioneer a new technology.
(3) I would take the money and live off the interest, using my time to serve in my community / help others out, etc.. Or donate the money to my favorite charity, or start my own charity.
This is the essence of altruism, and the soul of America. This is what was really powering the American revolution and what still burns in our hearts even today.
Strangely, from personal experience, countries with mandatory voting don't seem to just fall out randomly. Perhaps a culture of mandatory voting encourages at least a passing interest in the system?
Gotta love freedom too. If I don't want to vote on November 2, dammit, I don't want to vote. Who's to tell me what I have to do and when I have to do it?
I can see it now. US passes law: "All eligible voters must vote or be imprisoned."
Next election: "Voters depose entire government, and replaces it with opponents of mandatory voting law." Two weeks after the election: "Law repealed; go ahead and vote if you like, but we won't force you."
Freedom. Yeah, we still have it.
Hi, you must be new to this democracy thing. Apparently, you don't appreciate it as much as we Americans do, so I'm going to give you some answers to your puzzlements and quanderies. See, in America, we are the first democracy to function continuously for 200 years. Not even Greece or Rome could do that. So we know a few things about what works and what doesn't.
It puzzles me how somebody who won the vote of less than 25% of the population can claim to be democratically elected.
In a democracy, you have the right to vote for whoever you want, and the right not to vote. Abstention is also a vote (like NULL is a value). It just so happens that around 50% of the people in the US eligible to vote decide not to. They don't bother themselves with that burden. I wish they would educate themselves and get out and vote, but they'd rather do other things and thus give me twice as much voice as I would normally. I guess they trust me a lot.
If you want to change that you have two options: (1) Make it a law that you have to vote, or (2) Eliminate the non-voting half of the population. Neither of these options are satisfactory. And frankly, when they get re-engaged, it's usually for a good reason. (See, whether Bush or Kerry gets elected, it isn't going to make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things. I mean, if Kerry gets elected, I'm not going to find myself in a gulag.)
Better yet - can claim a mandate as the leader of the "democratic free world". Hey, if the US president wants to be the leader of the democratic free world, let's open the election up to the rest of the free world...using a sensible electoral process.
Oh, you want to join the US? Here's how to do it. Have your government or the people pass a resolution to join the US. If the congress accepts, you will become a territory and we will appoint a governor for your state, who will control the police, the military, the finances, and the elections. (Governor = mini King, accountable to congress.) Next step is to set up a form of government satisfactory to our constitution. This means you need to adopt a constitution with three seperate branches of government with checks and balances. When enough time has passed, and you've proven that this whole thing isn't beyond your country's capability, you submit to the federal government that you want to become a state. Upon acceptance, all citizens of the state become eligible voters, and you get 2 senators and at least 1 representative.
That's how it's done. We're accepting applications right now, so go ahead and get your nation to apply. I heard Jordan offered once, but it was the king that wanted it and not the people, so we politely declined. Besides, it takes a while to go from a king to a democracy - at least 2 or 3 generations.
BTW - now that Iraq has been "liberated", shouldn't they also be allowed to participate in the election of the "leader of the democratic free world"?
No, you're confusing two things. We conquered Iraq, but we turned it over to Allawi. You remember, June 28, 2004? Yeah, there were headlines all over the papers about it. Iraq is no longer our territory. We no longer appoint governors to run Iraq. We have an ambassador there. We are invited guests there now. If Allawi says leave, we have two options: Reconquer Iraq and try again, or leave.
I am sure that if Iraq wanted to become the 51st state, that we would be happy to oblige. I wouldn't mind have the United States of the Middle East. But they don't want it, so we won't impose.
BTW, we're looking forward to the US of Europe - you call it the EU over there, but we know what you are doing. (Hint: Limited federal governments are better than strong federal governments. Don't ask me how I know this.) It'll be great only having to send one ambassador to Europe to tell you how degenerate you are for not supporting us in the Iraq war.
If the US presidential candidates don't want to open the ballots to the rest of the world, they should s
I consider myself skilled enough to be valuable to employers, and yet, I was laid off and it took me quite some time to find a new job.
Sorry about that. People get hit by busses and stuff too, so I'd be glad it was just your job that you lost. Seriously.
The market is saturated with skilled people who all are applyying for the same jobs.
Options you have:
(1) Get even more skilled than them
(2) Market your skills better. (An employee is really exchanging his time and expertise with the employer for money.)
(3) Switch markets. Farmers who grow wheat will switch to growing something else if the wheat market gets saturated.
When a company finally does decide to hire, it is usually based on word of mouth, or nepitism.
I noticed that too. So I am getting out of my house and meeting people I wouldn't normally meet. I have made business cards that I hand out to everyone I meet. I advertise for my friends and they advertise for me. (Oh, you need a salesman? I know this guy...)
About nepotism, my suggestion is to marry well. Get your siblings and cousins to marry well as well. Then go to the reunions and rub shoulders.
I eventually did find a job but because the unemployment was running out and I have a mortgage, I had to settle for a lesser paying position. Should I have held out for a better position? I could have, at the risk of ruining my credit or even losing my house. I think I chose correctly.
Okay, set yourself up for success this next time. Get out of debt. Put aside extra cash for emergencies. Start looking for your next job right now. That way, you will be able to hold out for that better job. I accepted a lower-paying job as well, but I did it to pay the bills while I looked for a better job. Now I have a better job, and I am looking for an even better position, and setting myself up to take advantage of opportunities.
My point is that sometimes you aren't "captain" but are instead, ruled by necessity.
That is true. Sometimes you break a leg, or you get a disease, or your wife leaves you, or you get hit by a bus. But you know what? You can't do much about that so you don't spend time worrying about it. If it is likely to happen, you prepare for it. Truly tragic circumstances are usually met with support from your family, friends, and community. Example: A friend of mine had a baby born premature, and racked up tens of thousands of dollars of bills, even with insurance. We are holding an auction to pay his bills.
Everybody in life is either captain or passenger. It's a matter of perception, nothing more. One thing: If you decide to be a passenger, your complaints are meaningless, because you aren't in control of the ship.
I won't argue about terrorism, but I would ask you to apply common sense and take a good look at the other side of the argument. It's easy to believe only one side without thinking about it yourself.
In America, we have no list of citizens. We can't send mail to everyone. We have no idea who they are, where they live, or even if they are alive or dead. It's one of those freedoms that we have.
The census is a count, but it is only a really good estimation. A long time ago, people just reported numbers, not names or addresses.
Apparently, you didn't get the new version of the NewSpeak dictionary.
Fascism - The idea that protecting civil liberties (the right for Bush and his supporters to assemble at the hotel of his choosing) from people who would take them (those who would physically block Bush's right to assemble at the hotel, and attack the police) is a good thing. Also, the idea that having terrorists who are known to be terrorists freely roam the country without survelliance is a bad thing.
Tolerance - A crowd of young protestors show their tolerance by throwing rocks and pushing police officers and preventing others from peacably assembling. Reporters show their tolerance by reporting the incident casting the protestors as innocent angels and the police as brownshirts. Others can show their tolerance by burning swastikas into Bush supporter's lawns with grass killer or by burning campaign signs. Shooting at campaign offices is also a good way to show tolerance. Forcibly entering a private office and assaulting its inhabitants is also a good way to show tolerance, as long as it is a Bush-Cheney office. However, freeing 40 million Muslims from tyrannical rule is not tolerance. Appointing a record number of minorities to key cabinet positions is not tolerance. And most of all, implimenting an act (NCLB) that forces and funds schools to make changes so that minorities succeed is also not showing tolerance.
Brownshirt - A brownshirt is any campaign volunteer for a political party, as long as that party's name begins with an "R" and ends with "epublican". If they are peaceful, cooperative, and kind, that just means that they are one of the top echelon of brownshirts, and will probably kill you in your sleep or take your social security check away.
Vote Fraud - Acts committed by people who try to inform others who is and is not allowed to vote and who try to purge the voter roles of duplicates, illegal immigrants, people who have moved, and felons. Also, any vote for Bush is a fraud, but any vote for Kerry is not, by definition.
Evil - By definition, evil is President Bush and his party. Everything else is inherently good.
Ex. "Invading Iraq to depose a tyrant and set up a democracy is evil, but bombing Serbia for the same reasons is good."
Drudge Report is right as often as Dan Rather, maybe even moreso. He broke the story on Monica Lewinski, when Dan wouldn't. He also broke the story on Juanita Broderick, a woman who was raped by Bill Clinton. He breaks a lot of stories that the major news outlets won't touch.
Casual readers are encouraged to consider the bias of Drudge.com by reading DrudgeReport.com and checking up on his stories. I have spent the time to follow a lot of his stories to excruciating details, and I have yet to find one that didn't pan out.
The flight 800 thing? How do you deny the testimony of witnesses that say they saw a missile strike the jet? How is reporting that NOT news?
* Democrats claim Bush will reinstate the draft. Despite two bills introduced by Democrats, Bush absolutely claims that no draft will be done, even going as far as to explain that the draft would be contrary for their plans for better trained, more mobile army.
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who actively lynched blacks in the South for voting, who instituted poll taxes and reading requirements. Republicans are the ones who fought them and instituted federal rules on who is and is not allowed to vote, and prosecuted the lynchings by the Democrat Ku Klux Klan. (Yes, that's right, most KKK members were democrats!)
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who managed the counties where the voters were reportedly disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 election scandal. The butterfly ballot was approved by democrat election officials. This claim was unsubstantiated because it didn't happen, yet they continue to insinuate it.
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who want illegal aliens and non-citizens to vote. They impose the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for motor voters, where even the forms cannot state the requirements for voting.
* It is Democrats, not Republicans, who have told the elderly that if Bush is elected, their social security check would disappear. Newsflash: They are still getting their social security checks.
* When someone comes along and says, "Maybe we should purge the rolls of inactive or moved voters, or at least verify people's identity before they vote" it is Democrats, not Republicans, who scream bloody murder and say we are trying to disenfranchise voters.
I'll get modded down, and I know it, but those who browse at -1 will get to see the truth.
For one, we are not really one nation, but a collection of 50 independent nations. The federal government has no jurisdiction on election processes, except for a few amendments to the constitution.
What would be the most fair system? It's quite simple.
(1) You register by presenting to an official documents that prove that you are a citizen of the United States. This means a passport, a birth certificate, or naturalization papers. These are photocopied and archived.
(2) You are issued a voter passport with a voter id, name, physical description, and address on it. You are told that when you move, you must immediately notify the voter registration office and obtain a new card.
(3) When you vote, you present your credentials to the precinct voting officials. That means you show your passport, they verify with photo id that you are who you say you are, and then they stamp your voting passport with a stamp saying that you were issued a ballot and that the ballot number is XYZ.
(4) You fill in the blanks for every office. This way, butterfly ballots, fill-in-the-blanks, punchcards, etc, are not an issue. It says, "President of the United States", with a line next to it. You write "John Kerry" or whomever you wish.
(5) You deposit the ballot into a box that is kept under constant watch by the members of the precincts. Anybody is allowed to watch the voting procedure. No doors are closed at any time in the process.
(6) The precinct collects all the ballots and counts the votes for each office. The votes are counted by matching names to people. If someone misspells the name, or uses a shorter name ("Kerry" instead of "John Kerry"), then it is acceptable, given the human judgment of the precinct committee.
Again, this is an open process and anyone can watch. The precinct committee votes to approve the results of the election, and by unanimous vote, it is approved and sent to the district office. The district tallies the votes from the precinct, and by a unanimous vote of the district committee, then sends the results to the county office. The county office tallies the votes of the districts, and by unanimous votes, forwards the results to the state office. The state office tallies the results and the committee votes to approve the results. The results are certified by the Secretary of State of the state and recorded. Each precinct, district, county office also keep records.
(7) The ballots are kept for ten years in a secure location. At the request of anyone, the precinct must make the ballots available for inspection. You can go to the precinct and demand to view the ballots and see whether or not you and your friends ballots were counted properly. They have the ballot numbers they used in their passports, as do you.
Note that this won't allow for absentee ballots. It won't allow online voting. You have to show up in person and prove that you have the right to vote before you are allowed to vote. This is the only secure way that is auditable and can be verified.
Is this a lot of work? Yes, but it is terribly important. I'm not too happy with all the voter fraud going on, and I don't like the thought that maybe absentee ballots are being used for fraud or that non-citizens are voting.
If the people don't care enough to monitor their own elections, then they don't deserve fair elections. People have to set priorities in their lives, and have to realize that a bad president can do far more damage than missing a few days of work.
The military has always been on the cutting edge. The game in the military is to have as much energy at your fingertips in a stable condition that is easy to use.
This is what commercial applications want as well, but without nearly the need of concentrated energy and with higher safety tolerances. (IE, we don't want a nuclear reaction to go critical in commercial applications.)
The problem of world hunger is not one of production - it is a problem of efficient distribution. Eastern Washington can grow enough wheat to feed the world. One year of food production in the United States alone could flod the world food market. They don't do this because they can't move the wheat into the people's mouths.
One of the reasons why we can walk into any supermarket in America and find foods from around the world at cutthroat low prices is because we pay the middleman to move the product from the farms in Bolivia to the store shelves, and then we are willing to pay some more to cover the costs of sweeping up the mess in aisle 4. We are willing to pay slightly more if that food arrives undamaged and fresh. This encourages the shippers and farmers to work together to time the harvest and transport.
In socialist countries, middle men are not allowed to profit from moving food from point A to point B in a timely manner. Hence, in Soviet Russia, the crops would rot in the fields and never reach the store shelves in Moscow. Today, there is an incentive to build and maintain country roads, to build and maintain shipping fleets, and to coordinate with farmers and markets to move food efficiently. In China, there was no encouragement to grow more than enough food, because they could not sell the extra to a middleman. Now that China has switched to a free market system, people are building roads and rail lines on their own accord so that they can make more money shipping food across the country faster.
Look at the countries that are really suffering from starvation. They generally fall into one of the several categories described below.
* They are in a state of war. No economic activity occurs because looting and destruction is common. No one buys or sells anything because their rights to it are always under question. If you have a spot of land, there is no encouragement to plant crops. The soldiers will come and burn it or take it from you. If you have tools to move food across the country, there is no incentive to do so; travelling is dangerous, and your food is regularly siezed.
* Their farmers are being persecuted with insane taxes, over regulation, or even, in some countries in Africa, land seizure. Farmers didn't get all the land they owned because they were evil; they got it because they could outproduce their neighbors and the land became more valuable to them than their neighbors, and they were willing to pay more for the land and thus bought the land from them. When these efficient farmers are put out of their position, and less efficient farmers replace them, the food production drops, in some cases, significantly.
* People who know how to move food around quickly and efficiently and thus have done it for a profit are persecuted, taxed, or murdered. Without these people (what we may call "the rich") the knowledge of how to move stuff around disappears, and so stuff doesn't get moved around very well.
Adam Smith and the invisible hand theory (see Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith) say that when we allow people to freely barter for goods and services, that goods and services will be distributed in the most efficient manner possible. They set prices naturally and those prices signal inefficiencies, shortages, or surpluses. When we try to set prices or regulate, only bad things happen.
Something nags me throughout this whole discussion: Of what effect does the economy, the president, and any other external factor have on whether or not you have a job?
There are two ways to view the world: I am a captain of my fate, or I am a robot with its fate predetermined by people I don't even know (God, the President, or some secret Jewish conspiracy).
I know which philosophy I adhere to. That's why when the dot com bubble burst, and I found myself on the streets with a new child and without cash, I went to find a job and eventually found a well-paying one, albeit not in the industry. Now I am back working at a major dot com and I am enjoying life.
I can't imagine what drives people to make themselves slaves to someone else's will. How does the president create or destroy job? Has he ever interviewed for you? Has he hired you? Does he write secret messages to your potential employer "Hey, don't hire this guy. We don't want the economy to grow right now." Of course not.
And the economy dictating your lifestyle? That's silly. I think of the economy as the weather. Sure, I won't sow wheat in the fall, but then again, I wouldn't sow in the summer either. The economy has its cycles, and rather than wake up every morning and look out the window to see which way the economic winds are blowing, how about you learn a bit on the subject and figure out which way the winds will blow tomorrow so you are ready for it? It really isn't that complicated of a subject. All you need to understand is what Adam Smith wrote down in the "Wealth of Nations" and then how to identify the conditions he described in today's environment.
I totally support Bush. But if Kerry gets elected, or even Nader, or even Stalin for instance, it won't effect my fate. I am a captain of my fate. I don't let others dictate which way I go.
I think that is a major difference between Bush and Kerry supporters. I am hiring Bush for a job. He is going to go take care of the terrorist problem so that I don't have to worry about that so much. Kerry supporters are looking to Kerry as a savior. Kerry is supposed to correct all of life's ills and prescribes a panacea to the old, sick, young, and uneducated. They want to put Kerry in charge, but I want to hire Bush to do a job. That's a big difference in perspective.
I am a physicist. Talking with the professors and faculty at the University I attended, I picked up these critical opinions.
1. Nuclear power is the way to go. It is cheap, affordable, and the waste really isn't that bad. Besides, we are developing ways to handle the waste properly. Managed properly (meaning, freeing the scientists to continue R&D) will mean we won't need coal plants and gas plants and electrical cars may become a reality.
Bush scored spot on. "I am going to begin building a new nuclear facility in 2 years, using new knowledge and technology. We are going to store the waste safely, while researching ways to handle the waste."
Kerry scored poorly. "I am going to make new rules and regulations." That's the last thing scientists want - more red tape.
2. The environment. Physicists don't drink the kool-aid on global warming. If you can prove that global warming is happening, then that is one thing. Trying to prove it is a bad thing is something else. The whole Krakatoa argument Reagan gave is irrefutable.
Bush was spot on. "We're looking at alternative energy sources, but we're being reasonable. We are funding real research to determine what effects global warming has and how to prepare or prevent it."
Kerry was way off, suggesting action without thought. He parroted the Kool-aid line.
3. Energy. If there's one thing Physicists love to talk about it is energy. No one understands what energy is better than physicists. Energy is the end-all idol they worship, if they worship any idol at all. How do we exploit the energy out there? How do we get more and more of it delivered to the masses? If it were up to physicists, we would be doubling our energy production every ten years. There are so many useful things you can do if only you had enough energy! Even time travel is possible with enough energy!
Bush laid it out. "I want to expand research, and explore bringing new sources of energy to market."
Kerry was dull and boring. "We need to abandon oil, we need to mandate new energy."
If there's one class of people that understand the intelligence of the masses, it is the physicists. They know that human ingenuity trumps all, that no problem is impossible to solve. They want less government, not more. They want the money, and they want it pretty much unfettered by restrictions or guidelines. Bush is willing to shovel the money they need into their labs. Kerry just wants to put up red tape.
The problem is, the so-called "chickenhawks" are more than willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of their children (if they volunteer). I can't think of anything more honorable than for my three year old son to grow up and become a Marine, even as an enlisted soldier. I would support the heck out of him and his buddies if they got sent to somewhere dangerous. If he lost his life defending our country and whatever country he was fighting in, I'll be sad, but I'll know that he gave his life in serving others.
That's something you forget about us "chickenhawks". A lot of us are Christians, and we know that God was willing to lay down the life of his own Son to save others, so we have to do the same with our children, let them walk the walk that we can't walk due to our age.
Except, and this is the truth, prostitution is a very serious crime in the military penal system. if you get caught, you serve time. I know you've seen the movies of Korea and Vietnam, but the truth is it wasn't as large scale as they allege. Nowadays, they are much stricter. It simply doesn't happen, and when it does, soldiers rat on each other. They get congratulations from their sergeants and lietenants when they do.
I think one guy summed it up best over there. He said something like, "When I'm pinned down, I want to make sure that my buddy's only thought is on my life and how to get me out safely. If he is thinking about something else, or distracted in any way, that puts my life in danger. That's why we keep them out of the bars and away from the whores. If he gets the itch or his wang starts to feel the effects, then I might lose my life. It's my duty to protect him and his duty to protect me."
They are also very strict about looting and other seemingly harmless activities. Soldiers aren't allowed to take anything except ammo and weapons from the dead in Iraq.
I know this for a fact. One of my friends is pounding sand in Fallujah.
But then, I'm not sure I trust Bush not to start a nuclear war in the next 4 years.
.45. Then he cocks the gun and points it at the last robber.
Which is why we need Bush in office. If you, a sensible American, is worried Bush might launch a few tactical nuclear warheads to make his point, how much sleep do you think Kim Jong Il and the mullahs of Iran are getting?
It's like Reagan. After more than one peace talk, the Russians came away thinking the end of the world was imminent, that all hope was lost for peace, and that the only way out was to surrender. You talk to the Russians in power at the time, and they literally thought that they were going to wake up with Marines in their bedrooms and American jets buzzing Moscow. They thought we had super weapons int he sky that could blow away their missiles on the launch pads. America was a monstrosity that was able to outproduce and outgun the Soviets on every scale. Our technology was so advanced it seemed like aliens from a futuristic society had been feeding the American scientists information.
Even thought Carter had basically the same technology and the same military, he couldn't inspire that blind fear and gnawing doubt in the enemies. He couldn't do it because he didn't have it where it counts.
We need the kind of president right now that can make a threat and have it mean something. Ask yourself: Remember the scene from Dirty Harry? he fires five or six shots and kills four of the robbers with his
"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire five or all six? Do you feel lucky punk? DO YOU?"
Now picture Bush saying this to Kim Jong Il. Except he has B-52s loaded with neutron bombs. And a vast fleet of aircraft carriers and battleships and endless hordes of infantry. "I know what you're thinking. Can we prosecute a war in two seperate countries and still maintain the balance of power in Asia? Do you feel lucky punk? DO YOU?"
Now envision Kerry. I'm sorry, I can't see Kerry saying to Kim Jong Il, "Mr. Kim, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" It's just not him.
That's what we need in the White House - someone with some real cajones.
On Germany, where are the dangers? Why do we need to keep masses of tanks and airplanes and infantry in the middle of one of the most peaceful areas of the world? Why not bring those people home, or better yet, prepare them for action in places where they are really needed.
On Korea, South Korea has 20 times the economy of North Korea. Wars aren't fought with lives nowadays. Wars are all about who can outspend and outproduce their opponent. That means that South Korea can bring to bear on North Korea an army 20 times the strength of North Korea without help. Of course, South Korea has very strong allies in the region, despite the US. And the US is keeping the hardware there to make sure that an artillery strike on Seoul isn't an option. (Hint: If Seoul gets bombarded, Pyongyang sees mushroom clouds. That's why we keep several B-52 bombers and submarines in the area.)
Moving the infantry, artillery, and tanks and aircraft out of that area is a smart move. Most of it needs to be retired and retrofitted anyway.
The US has proven to be a far more mobile force than previously imagined. We don't need to mass troops in a stalemate position. We need to bring them back from the frontlines so that they can deploy to the most active areas instantaneously, and still have the reserves to fill in the holes that naturally arise.
What if I could prove to you that Iraq had storehouses of yellowcake?
3 66 32
5 /p osts
i cl e_id=3739
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/118910
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?art
Reports are that Iraq had enough yellowcake to build 100 nuclear warheads. There is no known peaceful use for yellowcake.
The last thing Bush wants is for Kerry to get shot before the elections; the same goes for Kerry towards Bush. Why is that? It is because if that were to happen, we would have a civil war on our hands, with extremists from both sides of the aisle shooting at each other.
These four candidates (Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards) are protected by the US Military. They are the single most important target to defend.
It is critical to our union that the presidential candidates be elected by the people, not appointed by natural disasters or conspiracies.
There is a better option. Do it the old fashioned way. "Here is a blank piece of paper. Please put your selections on this paper with the name of the candidate and the name of the office for which you are electing him."
No information is given to the voter about which candidates are running for which offices. The offices open are not even disclosed. The voter is required to know something about the available offices before they can even vote.
That is the most fair system I have seen. It ensures that only people who are paying attention are allowed to vote, and people who don't won't even know that there is an election.
This also means the voter knows something about how to write - legibly.
The Iraqis are NOT pissed off at us. That is a lie spread by the Democrats and by certain reporters. You can go right now and visit Iraq and ask them for yourself. You are free to roam over 80% of the country without worrying about violence. It is only a few pockets, and these people are being incited to revolt by radical Islamists (Zarqawi, Muqti) and by Saddam loyalists.
Allawi's speech was the truth. The Iraqis are eternally grateful for us saving them. When the transfer of power occured two days ahead of schedule, I read reports from Iraqis about their friends who had switched from hating America to celebrating America and shouting "God bless America!" in their native tongue!
I'm going to argue here. If I were an Iraqi, and Americans invaded my country, promising to allow free elections, and promising to leave when the country stabilized, I would be stupid to fight it. They have demonstrated that for the past 100 years that they have never conquered a nation except to free it.
Look at what America has already done in Iraq! Those who fight against her are demonstrating
Iraqis now have a constitution. This is something that they didn't have before. This constitution was written by the representatives of the people, not by the US.
Iraqis now have an interim leader - Allawi. Allawi was not chosen by the US. He was chosen by the council. Or did you forget that as well?
The next step is free elections to choose the replacement for Allawi and to form the legislative bodies. After that step what more can the Iraqis hope for?
Already the US is taking a back seat to what Allawi wants. Reports from the frontline (and I hear reports from the soldiers themselves) is that the Americans tag along the Iraqi National Guardsmen as advisors and to give morale support. Most of the work is being done by the Iraqis. When you get bodycounts, you are seeing the share fall from American dead to Iraqi dead, because the Iraqis are seeing more action than the US. Unfortunately, too often the media counts the Iraqi military dead as civilian dead, which is wrong.
Go ahead and believe the lies you are being spoonfed. Or you can get off your butt and go look for the truth. You can start by talking with soldiers back from the conflict and ask them the truth.
There is a huge difference. If Muslims came to invade our country, they wouldn't be "imposing" a democracy. They would be imposing a dictatorship and some sadistic brutal religious law.
We went into Iraq in the same way that we went into Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. We went as liberators. We were hailed as liberators. We left the government in the hands of the people when they were ready to accept it. When the problem was solved we left.
Except of course in Vietnam, where John Kerry's lies about out troops behavior split the American opinion of the war and aided and comforted the enemy we were fighting. Yes, this entire rumor that American troops are responsible for vicious crimes of humanity originated from Kerry. His testimony was all lies. If it was not, why has he not been punished for his crimes?