My party? Since when was the Socialist Party in power? Or for that matter, anything more than a bunch of FBI agents reporting on each other's activities?
I'm basing it on a slippery slope that we're already quite far down. As shown above, we've lost a lot of civil liberties in the last 4 years, and a lot more before that (no, the neo-liberal Clinton didn't help matters with his "right to work" which is really "right to get fired" and "free trade" that is really "sell to America on credit and we'll be your friend"). The next step is obvious to me, why isn't it obvious to you?
Hitler was elected, but Stalin was not (neither was Lenin; ever heard of October Revolution in 1917?).
Lenin's constitution called for regular elections. Stalin just kept the other parties off the ballot- and killed anybody trying to form a 2nd party. Thus, once again, with all of the right wing FUD going on, do you really trust Bush not to fullfill his "joke" about wanting to be dictator?
January 2001 was when the bubble peaked and the real collapse started to happen. Just about 3 months after CLINTON signed the H-1b visa increase. Gee- the early adopters all got thrown out of work, I wonder why the bubble collapsed? Of course, Bush could have seen this and signed an executive order throwing all of the H-1b visa holders out of the country, but he didn't because he couldn't give a rip if a bunch of nerds are going homeless.
Actually, there's another legal document that describes this: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution when it comes to abortion violates Articles 2 & 3 (and the current trade agreements of the Administrations of Bush, Clinton, and Bush violate Articles 20-25).
Many people make fun of Nixon, but his Sunshine Policy with regard to China has really helped China and the world. Can you imagine China as closed and belligerent as North Korea ?
Yes- because I've dealt with Chinese businesmen. Of course, I find all businesspeople to be closed and belligerent- so that shuldn't be surprising.
And the other thing is competition is good for everyone.
Everyone excpe the guy who used to be on top- who is now homeless due to competition.
Re:Of course the candidates are in favor!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
But you have the right to 'not become homeless', 'hope' and 'finding a job immediatly'?.Liberty is the basic foundation. Regardless of the ultilarian argument or those of the social justic crowd, you are either with indiviual liberty and self responsibility or you are not. In the later case I just wonder why you tipptoeing around banning the stock market. Why not just come straight out with you plans to rebuild society and eliminate all that is individual.
The stock market isn't about individualism- it's about letting chaos destroy liberty. I'm certainly with liberty and self-responsibility; I'm against letting you have control over my liberty just because you have money. Money destroys liberty, as does the concept of private property, that is, property reserved to the use of a single individual. Why should YOU be allowed to destroy the liberty of others for your own selfish gain?
If this is case, your right to live is also a myth.
It doesn't follow- but you're absolutely correct- it is a myth. Governments have this myth called rights that is used to keep people from having liberty.
Actually, it's the kind of thinking you're espousing that makes you a slave to religious interests. How can you even presume moral superiority to anyone while you advocate the use of WMD?
I'm not- we're all equal. But serious actions demand serious consequences- and historically, only two consequences have EVER worked against terrorists. Nuanced thinking doesn't.
But whatever; thankfully, it's not likely that anyone in charge of any significant WMD will ever give the key to someone named "Marxist Hacker," even after you claim to have read a book about the ancient Romans slaughtering the Jews.
To be ignorant of history is to repeat the mistakes of history- and believe me, I'm not necessarily going to use an old internet nickname in my campaign.
And by the way, I am not advocating "nuanced thinking" with respect to bin Laden. That's directed at the other billion or so people you propose to murder.
If you had bothered to understand Arabic culture at all, you'd know that (1) terrorism can only be stopped with the destruction of the terrorists and (2) it's more like a million or so (Moderate Islam doesn't subscribe to the death cult- and doesn't live in Mecca).
I believe this is where well-armed private militias, like we had in the late 1700's and like the Constitution & its creators planned for us to have, would come out and say, "Waitaminute."
I hope so- but most of those militias are bought and paid for by the corporations. Where do you think they get their funding? Guns cost money these days- they ain't cheap. I would hope that there are enough guns out there- but what, exactly, is there in the handgun range that can stop a tank if the government chooses to put down an insurgency?
Well, since you're pretty clearly a devoted Marxist, and I'm a pretty devoted capitalist, we're just going to have to continue to disagree on this one. I would suggest to you that the violent protests againts the WTO and the bs some of your fellow travellers pulled in New York at the RNC (such as intentionally making themselves smell like explosive devices to mess up the dogs) are not winning you many sympathizers among the main stream public. Your methods cause most ordinary Americans to not bother listening to your arguments.
They never have anyway- ordinary Americans are such sheeple that they shop at Wal*Mart (giving the Stalinists in China money- how stupid is that?) and letting corporations control their lives. There's no democracy left, so why shouldn't we start killing those in charge?
In the first place, the Declaration of Independence is just that - a declation of independence. It has no standing whatever in law. It is not the Constitution.
Agreed- it's a mere declaration of the principles of the revolution. I personally think it's time for those principles again- because we've gotten so far away from them.
In the second place, even if it did, the Declaration merely states we have a pre-existing (unalienable) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it state that these rights are dependent on the government, and it certainly doesn't guaruntee that it's the government's responsibility to make a single soul happy, let alone "maximize the happiness of most people". It simply states that we all have the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't state that happiness is birthright, nor that the government's job is to provide it.
The problem is that the corporations (which have become the real government, the Consititution is effectively a sham document at this point, our so-called democracy nothing more than a puppet of the corporations) are actively denying people the right to the persuit of happiness. In fact, if you've ever read "The Sleeper Awakes" by H.G.Wells, you'll see that corporations BY THEIR VERY NATURE deny happiness to their customers and the people who work for them. The reason for this is simple and goes right back to the Bible- it's the mortal sin of greed, of course, brought to supremacy and worshiped as a god.
Maybe you should try reading those venerable documents before arguing their contents.
Maybe you shouldn't assume automatically that I haven't. What I'm saying is that at this point, we've lost the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to persue happiness almost completely- therefore it's time for a revolution (Thomas Jefferson said we should have one every 20 years or so; I'd say we're long overdue.)
Wait a minute, didn't you mean take $1000 less from the wealthy. The government doesn't "give" tax cuts. It's a matter of "taking" less. Saying that the government gave you a $1000 tax cut is like saying that after a theif robbed you at gunpoint, he gave you back $20.
Not necessarily- there are lots of other ways than tax breaks that the government can give money to the wealthy. Just a few: sweetheart contracts with the military, privatisation of water supplies, cheap access to natural resources, etc.
? I don't get it- Kerry's not an H-1b. And primarily, as I've told others repeatedly, I'm a HACKER first- I hack economic systems. Marxism as written doesn't work- so it needs to be hacked. Do you know what an H-1b is? It's a person who wants to come over here, take a job away from an American, live it up here on our rules without ever actually becoming a citizen and taking on our responsibilities.
I find that I prefer rule of God over rule of Gold, but YMMV.
Either way, agreed, it was bad for democracy- but which was worse- few people allowed to vote or nobody's vote counting because all the major policy decisions are made for the profit of a few corporations (not even individual citizens- citizens have become second class to the artificial people).
At this point, I say kill the corporations and start over, and this time let no man be master over another.
That a lack of taxes is a good thing? Save money now- pay double later is simply NOT a good idea.
Re:Of course the candidates are in favor!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
withdrawing from a contract (in the predetermined or default way, agreed upon before hand) is hardly aggression. Its liberty. You actually call for enslaving people to provide work. Good that it doesn't work that way.
Sure- liberty. The liberty to suddenly become homeless. The liberty to lose all hope. The liberty to be told by society that you're a worthless good for nothing for two or three years while you're searching for the next job. Loads of LIBERTY there- liberty is no good without basic life support.
By what authority are you requesting this ban? It's none of your business. It's the property of other people. Its equal to me banning you from using your toothbrush. Do you believe this would be my call to make as well?
Private property is a myth. It's only allowed by the state to provide for the welfare of the people. As soon as private property stops providing for the welfare of the people, it becomes an evil instead of a good. Constitutionally- Private Property comes under the heading of providing for the common welfare. Is the Stock Market providing for the common welfare? Is giving people such incredibly unstable employment that they can't count on having a job long enough to pay off a mortgage providing for the common welfare?
Er, Stalin was "hard left", if anything. Mostly he was a monster.
In Russia, the CP was always considered the hard right wing. Mainly because, when it comes right down to it, hard right and hard left are more about styles of ruling than they are about economic systems. No self-respecting liberal would be for the Siberian Gulags, we like freedom of speech far too much. And liberals, being for liberty, rarely turn into monsters. There was much more in common with fascism than with Apostolic Communism in Stalin's rule.
Actually, the idea of reinstating the draft was supposedly first entered as a measure to reduce the willingness of the public to go to war, for which it'd certainly work. The downside, of course, is that you might actually have to go.
Yeah, but in the short term it just might be our way out of the Iraq mess- if ever a war needed more soldiers on the ground, it's that one. I estimate we need between 5 and 10 times the number of troops we currently have- if we're going to win. And no- I don't believe in June 2004's "Mission Accomplished" any more than I believed in May 2003's "Mission Accomplished".
Since neoconservatives are dominated by extreme social conservatives, I don't see how the end result of their dictatorship could be a utopia for most people, just a utopia for the ones in power.
Well, actually, so are most utopias when you think about it. There's always people who want something the system isn't prepared to provide, no matter what the system is.
Only for the rich, if the rich are favored, somebody has to make up the difference. Since, historically, the Republicans like to "borrow and spend", I expect them to slightly increase the proportion of the burden carried by the middle class, and to pass the remaining costs onto future generations.
The system most favored that I've heard is the national sales tax- which would fall hardest upon the poor as a percentage of income.
Thats not favored by neoconservatives, its the classical, intellectual conservatives of the last generation which always sought small government no matter what. Now, the neos have things they need to the government to do, like paying for the increased "internal security" we are told we now "need", the new wars we'll be involved in, and their own pork-barrel projects, for starters.
Well, that will end up in smaller government- once they're done outsourcing all of that to their buddies in the private sector.
Which produces a short term benefit, but several long term negatives, including massive deficits, stagnant quality of living for those not in the top 10% or 15% of the richest in the country, an accelerating gap in the incomes between the rich and the poor.
Yep- which is the whole point of a neocon utopia, right? Provides more labor for cheaper that way.
Sure, bust the unions and crack a few heads, its a proven winner at ending labor disputes.
Yep- that's correct. Seems to be where we're heading, isn't it?
:-) If you can't tell, I'm on your side trying to play devil's advocate.
Heh. You're not a "mere civilian;" the principle of civilian control of the military is deeply enshrined in the American tradition.
Well, it was at one time anyway, these days it seems one has to be a corporation to be in actual control. Citizens are second class to the corporations.:-) But back on topic:
(And no, I don't believe that all civilians are automatically ignorant of the military; what set my teeth on edge was the combination of stereotypical conservative chickenhawk ignorance and then questioning my service because I disagreed with him -- again, utterly stereotypical chickenhawk behavior.) The vast majority of military personnel and veterans are perfectly happy to respect civilians, as long as they get the same respect in return...
I want to respect the military more, personally. I've got some strongly held views from strategy games and reading history- the best defense to me isn't a good offense, it's a sound perimeter, for instance (on the let the enemy come to me, and be ready for whatever he can throw at me).
Anyway, all that being said: I'd say the priorities are good ones, but out of order. Specifically -- look, no one (well, okay, hardly anyone) joins the military expecting to die, but the risk is always there, and everyone knows it. A suicidal soldier who wants to die for his country is more a risk than an asset; but a soldier who is not willing to take the risk of death to accomplish the mission isn't much use either. And if it comes to one troop's life vs. the country, or even the mission at hand right now... well, that's not a choice at all, and everyone knows it.
There's a reason I put it in the order I did. I'm more of a technologist- and to me the first order is protection of the country and the citizenry. I can't do that with dead soldiers- I can't do that with soldiers that are going to take unneccessary risk. Getting killed to get 20 of our guys back home safely while succeeding at the mission- that's an acceptable loss ratio. But to me, a soldier's first duty should always be to his buddies on the line- and if the policy is unwinnable, then fall back, we can always create more policy, new policies. We can't create new soldiers as easily.
So the priorities are: country, then policy, then personal survival. The key phrase in the oath of enlistment is, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic." All the rest of it, about obeying orders and such, is a description of the means, not the end.
To me, I'd accept that- as long as survival of other troops is considered part of the defense of country. Sure- the risk is there. The risk is there crossing the street in front of the bus.
An example, drawn from current events- I consider Iraq to be a mistake. In the incredibly odd and strange case the enough people are fed up with Iraq 4 years from now (and we WILL be there, 4 years from now, I have no doubt at all) here's my basic exit strategy at this point: 1. Get MORE troops on the ground, not just for fresh troops, but also so that perimeters are manned better. 2. Slowly expand the perimeters, while putting in more troops, in cunjunction with the provisional government (which I also have no doubt will still be provisional 4 years from now). 3. Keep increasing the number of troops in Iraq until we effectively double the population. 4. Solidify the border. 5. Provide every Iraqi family a new buddy- an American soldier whose only orders are to protect that family (note, this will require co-operation of the people and a change to the Iraqi Provisional Government Constitution, which is modeled on ours and forbids taking of space in private homes for soldiers). 6. When we are sure there are no more insurgents, pack up and go home.
What do you, as a professional soldier, think of such a strategy? Is it going to lead to more death or less, as a percentage of the total force?
Um, I'm upset at the way things seem to be headed, too, but logically, the poster doesn't have to "prove" the status quo or the allegation that things will continue much as they have. It behooves those who fear a radical change in our political system (i.e., suspended elections) to offer up evidence for this. Not all positions have equal claim to validity, and the burden of proof does not fall indiscriminately the same.
That's a pretty ridiculous statement given what has been going on in our society (radical change of our political system) over the past 40 years. Was once a time when this government was a democratic representative republic instead of a group of bought & paid for politicians winning the respect of their corporate puppet masters. The status quo trend has been towards less freedom and less control for the people for a LONG time now- suspended elections are merely the next segment in the completely forseeable trend.
Re:Of course the candidates are in favor!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
hostile takeover is just one of many phrases the media has coined to 'millitarize' the business world. While it is competetive it is seldom destructable or even invasive.
Tell that to the millions who lose their jobs in such mergers every year.
If you trade stocks (ownership titles to x percent of the company) a 'hostile takeover' could happend at anytime.
Exactly right- which is one of the myriad reasons why the stock market needs to be banned as an anti-democratic institution.
The term itself is grossly missleading. If the managment can't control the trading of it's stock through contractual obligation of the shareholder why should they have any say in who sells how many stocks to whom?
Which is why going public is always the wrong choice.
If a hostile takeover is possible the management doesn't own a company, the shareholders do. No property, or life nor limb has been harmed by physical force. This is why the term 'attacked' is not applicable.
Tell it to the workers who become homeless in the merger. They were attacked, and they should be able to have retribution against the shareholders. Violent if necessary.
Um... the voting public, maybe? The recall-functions in California & other states, and calls for impeachment. If 51% are right and 49% are left, and the lefties speak logically, many on the right will listen and join in when necessary.
Only usefull if the election is held- and there's no need if you've nullified the Constitution to actually hold an election, just appoint representatives from each state like George Washington did when they got rid of the first confederacy. Who do you think would be allowed to vote?
Slashdot Mirror
My party? Since when was the Socialist Party in power? Or for that matter, anything more than a bunch of FBI agents reporting on each other's activities?
I'm basing it on a slippery slope that we're already quite far down. As shown above, we've lost a lot of civil liberties in the last 4 years, and a lot more before that (no, the neo-liberal Clinton didn't help matters with his "right to work" which is really "right to get fired" and "free trade" that is really "sell to America on credit and we'll be your friend"). The next step is obvious to me, why isn't it obvious to you?
Hitler was elected, but Stalin was not (neither was Lenin; ever heard of October Revolution in 1917?).
Lenin's constitution called for regular elections. Stalin just kept the other parties off the ballot- and killed anybody trying to form a 2nd party. Thus, once again, with all of the right wing FUD going on, do you really trust Bush not to fullfill his "joke" about wanting to be dictator?
January 2001 was when the bubble peaked and the real collapse started to happen. Just about 3 months after CLINTON signed the H-1b visa increase. Gee- the early adopters all got thrown out of work, I wonder why the bubble collapsed? Of course, Bush could have seen this and signed an executive order throwing all of the H-1b visa holders out of the country, but he didn't because he couldn't give a rip if a bunch of nerds are going homeless.
Actually, there's another legal document that describes this: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution when it comes to abortion violates Articles 2 & 3 (and the current trade agreements of the Administrations of Bush, Clinton, and Bush violate Articles 20-25).
Many people make fun of Nixon, but his Sunshine Policy with regard to China has really helped China and the world. Can you imagine China as closed and belligerent as North Korea ?
Yes- because I've dealt with Chinese businesmen. Of course, I find all businesspeople to be closed and belligerent- so that shuldn't be surprising.
And the other thing is competition is good for everyone.
Everyone excpe the guy who used to be on top- who is now homeless due to competition.
But you have the right to 'not become homeless', 'hope' and 'finding a job immediatly'?.Liberty is the basic foundation. Regardless of the ultilarian argument or those of the social justic crowd, you are either with indiviual liberty and self responsibility or you are not. In the later case I just wonder why you tipptoeing around banning the stock market. Why not just come straight out with you plans to rebuild society and eliminate all that is individual.
The stock market isn't about individualism- it's about letting chaos destroy liberty. I'm certainly with liberty and self-responsibility; I'm against letting you have control over my liberty just because you have money. Money destroys liberty, as does the concept of private property, that is, property reserved to the use of a single individual. Why should YOU be allowed to destroy the liberty of others for your own selfish gain?
If this is case, your right to live is also a myth.
It doesn't follow- but you're absolutely correct- it is a myth. Governments have this myth called rights that is used to keep people from having liberty.
Actually, it's the kind of thinking you're espousing that makes you a slave to religious interests. How can you even presume moral superiority to anyone while you advocate the use of WMD?
I'm not- we're all equal. But serious actions demand serious consequences- and historically, only two consequences have EVER worked against terrorists. Nuanced thinking doesn't.
But whatever; thankfully, it's not likely that anyone in charge of any significant WMD will ever give the key to someone named "Marxist Hacker," even after you claim to have read a book about the ancient Romans slaughtering the Jews.
To be ignorant of history is to repeat the mistakes of history- and believe me, I'm not necessarily going to use an old internet nickname in my campaign.
And by the way, I am not advocating "nuanced thinking" with respect to bin Laden. That's directed at the other billion or so people you propose to murder.
If you had bothered to understand Arabic culture at all, you'd know that (1) terrorism can only be stopped with the destruction of the terrorists and (2) it's more like a million or so (Moderate Islam doesn't subscribe to the death cult- and doesn't live in Mecca).
I believe this is where well-armed private militias, like we had in the late 1700's and like the Constitution & its creators planned for us to have, would come out and say, "Waitaminute."
I hope so- but most of those militias are bought and paid for by the corporations. Where do you think they get their funding? Guns cost money these days- they ain't cheap. I would hope that there are enough guns out there- but what, exactly, is there in the handgun range that can stop a tank if the government chooses to put down an insurgency?
Well, since you're pretty clearly a devoted Marxist, and I'm a pretty devoted capitalist, we're just going to have to continue to disagree on this one. I would suggest to you that the violent protests againts the WTO and the bs some of your fellow travellers pulled in New York at the RNC (such as intentionally making themselves smell like explosive devices to mess up the dogs) are not winning you many sympathizers among the main stream public. Your methods cause most ordinary Americans to not bother listening to your arguments.
They never have anyway- ordinary Americans are such sheeple that they shop at Wal*Mart (giving the Stalinists in China money- how stupid is that?) and letting corporations control their lives. There's no democracy left, so why shouldn't we start killing those in charge?
In the first place, the Declaration of Independence is just that - a declation of independence. It has no standing whatever in law. It is not the Constitution.
Agreed- it's a mere declaration of the principles of the revolution. I personally think it's time for those principles again- because we've gotten so far away from them.
In the second place, even if it did, the Declaration merely states we have a pre-existing (unalienable) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it state that these rights are dependent on the government, and it certainly doesn't guaruntee that it's the government's responsibility to make a single soul happy, let alone "maximize the happiness of most people". It simply states that we all have the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't state that happiness is birthright, nor that the government's job is to provide it.
The problem is that the corporations (which have become the real government, the Consititution is effectively a sham document at this point, our so-called democracy nothing more than a puppet of the corporations) are actively denying people the right to the persuit of happiness. In fact, if you've ever read "The Sleeper Awakes" by H.G.Wells, you'll see that corporations BY THEIR VERY NATURE deny happiness to their customers and the people who work for them. The reason for this is simple and goes right back to the Bible- it's the mortal sin of greed, of course, brought to supremacy and worshiped as a god.
Maybe you should try reading those venerable documents before arguing their contents.
Maybe you shouldn't assume automatically that I haven't. What I'm saying is that at this point, we've lost the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to persue happiness almost completely- therefore it's time for a revolution (Thomas Jefferson said we should have one every 20 years or so; I'd say we're long overdue.)
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people,
Who said that it was? It sure isn't my goal!
Then you don't believe in the Declaration of Independance and the basic principles of Constitutional Government?
Wait a minute, didn't you mean take $1000 less from the wealthy. The government doesn't "give" tax cuts. It's a matter of "taking" less. Saying that the government gave you a $1000 tax cut is like saying that after a theif robbed you at gunpoint, he gave you back $20.
Not necessarily- there are lots of other ways than tax breaks that the government can give money to the wealthy. Just a few: sweetheart contracts with the military, privatisation of water supplies, cheap access to natural resources, etc.
? I don't get it- Kerry's not an H-1b. And primarily, as I've told others repeatedly, I'm a HACKER first- I hack economic systems. Marxism as written doesn't work- so it needs to be hacked. Do you know what an H-1b is? It's a person who wants to come over here, take a job away from an American, live it up here on our rules without ever actually becoming a citizen and taking on our responsibilities.
I'm wishing we hadn't if they aren't. 600,000 would be about right now, for starters.
I find that I prefer rule of God over rule of Gold, but YMMV.
Either way, agreed, it was bad for democracy- but which was worse- few people allowed to vote or nobody's vote counting because all the major policy decisions are made for the profit of a few corporations (not even individual citizens- citizens have become second class to the artificial people).
At this point, I say kill the corporations and start over, and this time let no man be master over another.
That a lack of taxes is a good thing? Save money now- pay double later is simply NOT a good idea.
withdrawing from a contract (in the predetermined or default way, agreed upon before hand) is hardly aggression. Its liberty. You actually call for enslaving people to provide work. Good that it doesn't work that way.
Sure- liberty. The liberty to suddenly become homeless. The liberty to lose all hope. The liberty to be told by society that you're a worthless good for nothing for two or three years while you're searching for the next job. Loads of LIBERTY there- liberty is no good without basic life support.
By what authority are you requesting this ban? It's none of your business. It's the property of other people. Its equal to me banning you from using your toothbrush. Do you believe this would be my call to make as well?
Private property is a myth. It's only allowed by the state to provide for the welfare of the people. As soon as private property stops providing for the welfare of the people, it becomes an evil instead of a good. Constitutionally- Private Property comes under the heading of providing for the common welfare. Is the Stock Market providing for the common welfare? Is giving people such incredibly unstable employment that they can't count on having a job long enough to pay off a mortgage providing for the common welfare?
Er, Stalin was "hard left", if anything. Mostly he was a monster.
In Russia, the CP was always considered the hard right wing. Mainly because, when it comes right down to it, hard right and hard left are more about styles of ruling than they are about economic systems. No self-respecting liberal would be for the Siberian Gulags, we like freedom of speech far too much. And liberals, being for liberty, rarely turn into monsters. There was much more in common with fascism than with Apostolic Communism in Stalin's rule.
Actually, the idea of reinstating the draft was supposedly first entered as a measure to reduce the willingness of the public to go to war, for which it'd certainly work. The downside, of course, is that you might actually have to go.
Yeah, but in the short term it just might be our way out of the Iraq mess- if ever a war needed more soldiers on the ground, it's that one. I estimate we need between 5 and 10 times the number of troops we currently have- if we're going to win. And no- I don't believe in June 2004's "Mission Accomplished" any more than I believed in May 2003's "Mission Accomplished".
Since neoconservatives are dominated by extreme social conservatives, I don't see how the end result of their dictatorship could be a utopia for most people, just a utopia for the ones in power.
Well, actually, so are most utopias when you think about it. There's always people who want something the system isn't prepared to provide, no matter what the system is.
Only for the rich, if the rich are favored, somebody has to make up the difference. Since, historically, the Republicans like to "borrow and spend", I expect them to slightly increase the proportion of the burden carried by the middle class, and to pass the remaining costs onto future generations.
The system most favored that I've heard is the national sales tax- which would fall hardest upon the poor as a percentage of income.
Thats not favored by neoconservatives, its the classical, intellectual conservatives of the last generation which always sought small government no matter what. Now, the neos have things they need to the government to do, like paying for the increased "internal security" we are told we now "need", the new wars we'll be involved in, and their own pork-barrel projects, for starters.
Well, that will end up in smaller government- once they're done outsourcing all of that to their buddies in the private sector.
Which produces a short term benefit, but several long term negatives, including massive deficits, stagnant quality of living for those not in the top 10% or 15% of the richest in the country, an accelerating gap in the incomes between the rich and the poor.
Yep- which is the whole point of a neocon utopia, right? Provides more labor for cheaper that way.
Sure, bust the unions and crack a few heads, its a proven winner at ending labor disputes.
Yep- that's correct. Seems to be where we're heading, isn't it?
:-) If you can't tell, I'm on your side trying to play devil's advocate.
Heh. You're not a "mere civilian;" the principle of civilian control of the military is deeply enshrined in the American tradition.
:-) But back on topic:
...
... well, that's not a choice at all, and everyone knows it.
Well, it was at one time anyway, these days it seems one has to be a corporation to be in actual control. Citizens are second class to the corporations.
(And no, I don't believe that all civilians are automatically ignorant of the military; what set my teeth on edge was the combination of stereotypical conservative chickenhawk ignorance and then questioning my service because I disagreed with him -- again, utterly stereotypical chickenhawk behavior.) The vast majority of military personnel and veterans are perfectly happy to respect civilians, as long as they get the same respect in return
I want to respect the military more, personally. I've got some strongly held views from strategy games and reading history- the best defense to me isn't a good offense, it's a sound perimeter, for instance (on the let the enemy come to me, and be ready for whatever he can throw at me).
Anyway, all that being said: I'd say the priorities are good ones, but out of order. Specifically -- look, no one (well, okay, hardly anyone) joins the military expecting to die, but the risk is always there, and everyone knows it. A suicidal soldier who wants to die for his country is more a risk than an asset; but a soldier who is not willing to take the risk of death to accomplish the mission isn't much use either. And if it comes to one troop's life vs. the country, or even the mission at hand right now
There's a reason I put it in the order I did. I'm more of a technologist- and to me the first order is protection of the country and the citizenry. I can't do that with dead soldiers- I can't do that with soldiers that are going to take unneccessary risk. Getting killed to get 20 of our guys back home safely while succeeding at the mission- that's an acceptable loss ratio. But to me, a soldier's first duty should always be to his buddies on the line- and if the policy is unwinnable, then fall back, we can always create more policy, new policies. We can't create new soldiers as easily.
So the priorities are: country, then policy, then personal survival. The key phrase in the oath of enlistment is, "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic." All the rest of it, about obeying orders and such, is a description of the means, not the end.
To me, I'd accept that- as long as survival of other troops is considered part of the defense of country. Sure- the risk is there. The risk is there crossing the street in front of the bus.
An example, drawn from current events- I consider Iraq to be a mistake. In the incredibly odd and strange case the enough people are fed up with Iraq 4 years from now (and we WILL be there, 4 years from now, I have no doubt at all) here's my basic exit strategy at this point:
1. Get MORE troops on the ground, not just for fresh troops, but also so that perimeters are manned better.
2. Slowly expand the perimeters, while putting in more troops, in cunjunction with the provisional government (which I also have no doubt will still be provisional 4 years from now).
3. Keep increasing the number of troops in Iraq until we effectively double the population.
4. Solidify the border.
5. Provide every Iraqi family a new buddy- an American soldier whose only orders are to protect that family (note, this will require co-operation of the people and a change to the Iraqi Provisional Government Constitution, which is modeled on ours and forbids taking of space in private homes for soldiers).
6. When we are sure there are no more insurgents, pack up and go home.
What do you, as a professional soldier, think of such a strategy? Is it going to lead to more death or less, as a percentage of the total force?
Um, I'm upset at the way things seem to be headed, too, but logically, the poster doesn't have to "prove" the status quo or the allegation that things will continue much as they have. It behooves those who fear a radical change in our political system (i.e., suspended elections) to offer up evidence for this. Not all positions have equal claim to validity, and the burden of proof does not fall indiscriminately the same.
That's a pretty ridiculous statement given what has been going on in our society (radical change of our political system) over the past 40 years. Was once a time when this government was a democratic representative republic instead of a group of bought & paid for politicians winning the respect of their corporate puppet masters. The status quo trend has been towards less freedom and less control for the people for a LONG time now- suspended elections are merely the next segment in the completely forseeable trend.
hostile takeover is just one of many phrases the media has coined to 'millitarize' the business world. While it is competetive it is seldom destructable or even invasive.
Tell that to the millions who lose their jobs in such mergers every year.
If you trade stocks (ownership titles to x percent of the company) a 'hostile takeover' could happend at anytime.
Exactly right- which is one of the myriad reasons why the stock market needs to be banned as an anti-democratic institution.
The term itself is grossly missleading. If the managment can't control the trading of it's stock through contractual obligation of the shareholder why should they have any say in who sells how many stocks to whom?
Which is why going public is always the wrong choice.
If a hostile takeover is possible the management doesn't own a company, the shareholders do. No property, or life nor limb has been harmed by physical force. This is why the term 'attacked' is not applicable.
Tell it to the workers who become homeless in the merger. They were attacked, and they should be able to have retribution against the shareholders. Violent if necessary.
Um ... the voting public, maybe? The recall-functions in California & other states, and calls for impeachment. If 51% are right and 49% are left, and the lefties speak logically, many on the right will listen and join in when necessary.
Only usefull if the election is held- and there's no need if you've nullified the Constitution to actually hold an election, just appoint representatives from each state like George Washington did when they got rid of the first confederacy. Who do you think would be allowed to vote?