How can you have a free and fair market with a small and limited government?
Because the DoJ/SEC or their equivalent would be far more free of corruption and political influence. "Small and limited" government does not mean ineffective government. The US functioned quite well for ~200 years with a government a fraction of the size of the current government. It took down Al Capone, defeated Germany (twice) and Japan, sent the first men to the moon, built a national rail and highway system...well, you get the idea.
The US government at it's current size, scope, and cost will not last. US debt now exceeds GDP. To see our future all we need do is look at Greece. Unless major changes are made and soon, that's the fate of the US within a few short years...except nobody will be trying to bail out the US, as the EU and IMF are attempting with Greece.
The US government at it's current size, scope, and cost is unsustainable. What kind of "free and fair market" would or could exist with a collapsed economy and government?
Government is like fire, and should be treated very much the same, and for nearly identical reasons. Both are extremely useful, but at the same time extremely destructive, dangerous, swift-spreading, and hard to control, particularly the larger either grows.
I've always said exactly the same thing about the free market. Extremely useful, but destructive, hard to control, becoming more difficult to control when it becomes large enough that the corporations can essentially buy the government. In my opinion the only system that has a hope of working out in the long term is one in which the free market is strongly regulated by the government.
You're looking at it from the wrong end.
The problem isn't the free market, although I will go so far as saying that basic regulations insuring an even and honest marketplace are essential. The influence wielded by large corporations and the uber-wealthy are but one of the many vectors through which corruption can occur.
The one common factor with all forms of government corruption and destruction of citizen freedom is the government itself. Once a government gets large enough that it has power over enough things to be a target for corruption and large enough to mostly hide it, regulations are ineffective because the government is too corrupt to evenly enforce them, and we see the kind of selective enforcement and political favoritism we see happening in the US currently.
The key is to keep central governments as small and weak as possible. It's impossible for some corporation to unjustly obtain taxpayer money if there is no government function that gives out loans, "stimulus", or grants to private corporations and/or individuals in the first place. The same applies with taxes and tax codes. When you have byzantine and nearly incomprehensible tax regulations and a huge bureaucracy to enforce those codes, there's prime opportunity for mischief, and for it to go undetected. Smaller government with fewer departments and less bureaucracy results in a system in which it's easier to detect and weed-out corruption and government overstepping of it's powers.
If citizens can resist the impulse to forsake personal responsibility and have a bloated and corrupt government solve all their woes and provide "bread and circuses", and instead keep the government's size and scope limited, it is orders of magnitude easier to keep it honest. With an honest, small, and limited central government overseeing a free and fair market, it doesn't matter how rich some corporations or individuals become.
All roads to corruption and loss of citizen's freedoms start from a too large, too powerful government. That's been proven true repeatedly throughout history. We're watching it occur yet again in real-time in the US.
Let's assume they're telling the truth, that it is to fight terrorism and not free speech. Let's also ignore the issue that terrorism is a blanket term for crimes committed to incite fear as opposed to simply being crimes.
The Internet is vast. There is so much information out there that any preventative measures seems utterly impossible. I mean, seriously, I can understand the information could be useful after the fact, but how do they know where to focus before the fact? Do they have a supercomputer to actively monitor every little thing on the Internet? How do they decide what is a red flag and what isn't? Won't those attempting to commit criminal acts just use code? Without knowing who is doing what, how do they know what code for which to look?
I think it'd be a better idea to look at the socio-economic problems leading to people willing to commit crimes (fear-incited or not) in the first place.
All your points are logical and right on target. Excellent summation.
However, none of those things are important or relevant to politicians. Only the possibility to increase their (and therefor the government's) power, and remove power (and wealth, which could be argued is the same thing in many ways) from regular citizens.
The problem that citizens of Western countries are facing, as they all seem to be headed in the same general direction of reducing citizen's privacy & freedom, is a common one...that of government that's gotten too large, powerful, and centralized...and therefor more corrupt and tyrannical.
Government is like fire, and should be treated very much the same, and for nearly identical reasons. Both are extremely useful, but at the same time extremely destructive, dangerous, swift-spreading, and hard to control, particularly the larger either grows. Both governments and fire, once either has grown to a certain size, becomes impossible for the ones who started it to control and morphs from a useful force for good and champion for freedom and the Rule of Law, to a force for tyranny, evil, and the capricious rule of men.
This could revive a long dormant industry. (barrage balloons)
Too easy for zoning and the FAA to make illegal.
I was thinking more along the lines of laser gun sighting systems that automatically compute proper sighting "lead" (the amount of distance one must aim ahead of a moving target for the round to meet the target as it travels) that could be fitted to most shotguns or rifles.
Center the target, activate the electronic sight, and an aiming "pip" will appear in the sight picture at the proper distance ahead of the direction of the target's travel, indicating where to fire. If you've ever played a combat flight-sim game (or the space-combat portion of Halo3), you'll understand what I mean.
Once law enforcement starts using drones on a large scale, methods *will* be found to take them out/bring them down. Once THAT happens, then you'll start seeing manned police aircraft/helicopters being shot down, with the accompanying loss of life both of the aircraft pilot/passengers and also innocent bystanders on the ground that are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's simply not possible to stop it, or even slow it down that much.
Sure you can. You underestimate the lengths they will go to.
All they have to do, is to do away with the user-controlled general-purpose computer, the open internet, and any individual rights you were under the illusion of having.
They're already well on the way to accomplishing all of those goals, while many cheer them on.
The heck? I didn't even bother reading either article, because they're both pointless.
So, you're commenting without tolerating hearing opposing views or accepting any facts that might contradict your views?
Wanna see my "shocked" face?.
And since when has any part of the US "lived under 'Progressive' rule" for the last 30 years? Seriously! Detroit went under during the Bush administration.
Apparently, you're not aware of the fact that Detroit has had the Progressive-controlled Democratic Party backed by labor unions in overwhelming and uninterrupted majority control of the major city and county political positions since the 1960s. There hasn't been a Republican Mayor since 1962!
And, this in a state that has mostly leaned Democrat over the last ~50 years. Detroit has been in serious trouble for decades, long before Reagan or either of the Bush's were POTUS.
GWB was a Republican Progressive, as are many in the Republican Party. I despised much of what he did as POTUS. The last non-Progressive Republican POTUS was Reagan.
"The Utopian schemes of re-distribution of the wealth...are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown." - Samuel Adams
Regarding TFS, this is but another cost and penalty inflicted upon the innocent majority by a too-large & powerful central government intent on punishing those suffering from a disease and those (in the case of marijuana) people for which the "good" drugs don't help, that dare to use an effective, safe, natural, but arbitrarily labeled "illegal", alternative. It keeps the money flowing to the politicians at both ends. From Big Pharma, *and* from those for whom higher prices on "illegal" drugs means more non-taxed profits. The hypocrisy by the government is so thick it's palpable. The larger and more powerful a central government is, the more corrupt it is and the less freedom the citizens have.
What is it with right wing neo cons and their bizarre character assassination schemes? It reminds me of the whole anti-AGW obsession with Al Gore.
Seriously, you are so brainwashed and yet you don't even know it. I just don't get how it happens. What deficiency in the mental process is required? I only see it happen among white people, especially Americans. Is it genetic? I honestly don't know.
What, exactly, in that Salon piece disproves anything reported by that TDC story? The Salon piece was a bunch of overly-dramatic outrage and hand-waving. But, I guess that's what typically passes for Truth(tm) among Progressives. The facts don't matter, as long as the "proper" ideological and political viewpoints and opions are adhered to and promoted.
The tactics and methods used by MM in their attempts at the intimidation and silencing of opposing viewpoints are deplorable & disgusting. They define the phrase "extreme partisanship". The news that the guy in charge is a moonbat can come as no surprise to anyone paying any attention at all.
But, for Leftist organizations like MM, the ends justify the means, and the needs of the many (determined by Big Gov. Inc.and George Soros's money) outweigh the needs (and the right to voice opposition) of the few (citizens wishing to keep their freedoms). This, also, is not news to anyone paying attention and with the ability to engage in critical thinking, free of partisan blinders.
If you want to see what the USA will look like under Progressive rule, look no further than Detroit after 5 decades of Progressive and Big Labor rule. There's your "Progressive Utopia" for you. I know. I live in the state and I'm old enough to have watched it happen. I won't allow the same thing to happen to the rest of the nation without one hell of a fight.
No... I think it's more like people were unable to maintain their stupor with drugs, so they formed the Tea Party.
I think you misspelled "Media Matters".
From recent news reports, it sounds like Brock is a paranoid psychotic with delusions of grandeur and persecution. Besides, it's not possible to *be* a Liberal/Progressive without having a serious break with reality and a lack of critical-thinking ability to start with.
I need to look into the numbers further, but yea government cuts should be part of the solution. The analysis should also include capital gain and corporate taxes.
It's a matter of scales of magnitude when you compare the amounts of money in the deficit and the debt, compared to what could realistically be received in total tax revenues. There's simply no way to reduce the deficit by any meaningful amount/time, never mind paying down the principle on the national debt, without massive reductions in government spending coupled with massive economic growth.
You won't get the kind of growth necessary by raising taxes. Tax rates must be formulated with the Laffer curve in mind, the point at which increasing the tax rate further does not result in more revenue but instead decreases the type of economic activity being taxed. If you want less of something, tax and regulate it. Taxes on corporations and the rich never get paid by them, the costs get passed down and are ultimately paid by individuals & families. All taxes are ultimately paid by individuals and families, whether they're paid directly or included in the cost of goods and services.
That means the US would *still* be borrowing money and adding to the national debt.
There's simply no way to escape the fact that it's impossible to balance the US budget and stabilize or reduce the national debt by taxation. Reducing the amount of money government takes out of the system and simplifying and reducing government regulation & bureaucratic red tape, so that the economy can grow and produce enough wealth, in order for low and reasonable taxes along with reasonable regulation that does not stifle the generation of wealth to produce sufficient revenues to eventually eliminate the yearly deficit and start reducing the national debt, is the only way (other than a catastrophic collapse) the US can come out of this crisis.
Just look to Greece. We can either bite the bullet now, or wait until everything collapses and there is violence on the streets. Other countries won't "bail out" the US as they have with Greece.
Abbot is much more in thrall of modern US conservative political tactics than John Howard was. He often repeats the Fox talking points like they were his own. And the "No" strategy is straight out of the Republican playbook.
"No" is the only possible answer when faced with something that violates your basic principles. If one has basic principles & beliefs that one lives by, one does not deal them away just to be seen as "bipartisan".
If any non-Americans are confused about Progressives/Democrats accusing the Conservatives/Republicans of being the "party of 'no'" and being unwilling to compromise, here's how these things typically go:
Dem/Prog - "Let me put this in your mouth."
Con/Rep - "Hell no!"
Dem/Prog - "C'mon, let me!"
Con/Rep - "No, I said!"
Dem/Prog - "OK, just let me put the tip in your mouth."
Con/Rep - "Hell no! Get away from me!"
Dem/Prog - "See! Those guys won't compromise at all! They're the 'party of no'! They want to stop everything! They want to keep the government from working! They're terrorists!!!"
Keep that in mind the next time you hear US Liberal/Progressive/Democrats whining about how the opposition won't compromise.
This could be a good replacement for pack animals.
Except that a pack animal is far more intelligent, can help keep you warm when it's very cold, warn you of unseen danger or bad/unstable footing (by getting "spooked"), help you find water, can be self-fueling to a greater or lesser extent (grazing), and, when food supplies run dangerously low, aren't too bad with some salt and garlic!
These machines have a long, long ways to go yet to beat a good pack animal IMHO.
We've been trying that in the UK for years with the fixed speeding cameras. Everytime they get burnt out, they get replaced. In fact, several police authorities actually like it when a camera gets firebombed, as they replace the insides of the camera leaving the outside all burnt up to make people think it doesn't work.
This means you need to get their attention. That's when you move from torching cameras to torching politician's homes. Then the politicians themselves if that doesn't work. Nothing like the torched body of a politician hanging from a speed trap camera to get a point across to other politicians when they're doing their best to ignore the citizen's wishes.
It's interesting how such an expensive system is thwarted with petroleum distillates and other natural minerals:
Only if you make a Molotov cocktail with them and throw it at the ANPR-equipped police vehicle. Which actually isn't a bad idea if you can avoid getting caught. After a number of patrol cars get torched, they might reconsider how badly they want ANPR systems. Same with these ViPR backscatter-scanner-equipped trucks. After they lose a dozen or so scan-trucks costing hundreds of thousands each, they may rethink that as well. It's to the point now that making it cost them too much in destroyed equipment is probably the only way this "enhanced domestic civilian surveillance" trend is going to stop. It's been proven over and over that politicians/legislators sure aren't interested in stopping it's growth or even making any serious attempts to put oversight against abuses in place no matter what they say in front of a TV camera.
Who gets to fix all that and who actually handles the oil and money are being fought about bitterly in both Iraqi politics and worldwide governmental and oil business circles.
So you're saying that I'm correct. The US isn't "stealing" Iraq's oil. Iraq's government is shopping deals. That isn't what happens when one nation invades another to "steal" resources by force.
So, did you have a point other than reinforcing mine? I ask because sometimes it's hard to tell when somebody is agreeing with you, or is actually trying to make a counter-argument, but just making a poor job of it.
The entire reason the US went to the region is to steal oil and make it easier to control the area.
Where is all this Iraqi (or any other ME country's) oil the US supposedly invaded for and "stole"? The US is now out of Iraq and the US still hasn't gotten squat for oil from the place for all their trouble. Where is all this "control" the US supposedly has of the area? I certainly don't see countries in that area under any sort of US "control". Just the opposite, in fact.
In every single discussion of the US/Middle East, I always see these idiots (yes, you're idiots...own it!) parroting the same lame-assed old "US invaded fer to stealz alla dey're OILZ!! herp-derp!!!" bullshit. Yet, nobody can point to any oil the US has actually stolen. Hell, the US is having trouble even convincing Iraq to sell them any oil at all, even at full price!
It must be such a wonderfully-freeing experience to not have to bother being accurate, factual, or truthful in any way, shape, or form.
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer, too
That scares the hell out of me.
Well, since the US was founded based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values, and the founders themselves stated that the Constitution was insufficient to govern any but a basically religious and moral people...
I suggest either immigration from the US or a tranquilizer prescription.
Look, it's simple. That old piece of paper (the Constitution) says "freedom OF religion" which is entirely different from "freedom FROM religion", which is what's been the functional interpretation by Progressive courts and politicians over the last 60 years or so. That hasn't worked out so well for US society and culture. Have you watched some of the Burger King beat-downs and similar Jerry Springer behavior on YouTube lately?
The TEA Party does not advocate for theocracy. Nobody seriously believes that shit. That's just propaganda from the TEA Party's opposition. Anyone who seriously believes that crap has much larger and more specific personal mental problems than general political ones.
Plus, more and more people are becoming eligible either from economic hardship or reductions in restrictions for qualification to participate.
Just look at the numbers:
More Than 46.2 Million Americans Received SNAP/Food Stamps in October 2011
vs
Participation in the Food Stamp Program jumped in May 2001 from the previous month to 17,243,978 persons, according to FRACâ(TM)s analysis of preliminary data from USDA
A larger and larger percentage of Americans are becoming dependent on the government for their food. That's not a good thing. If you control a population's food supply, you control them.
Couple controlling the food supply with controlling access to healthcare and what lifestyles & behaviors are acceptable because healthcare costs are forced to be shared by the government, and the government then has total control of the population and everything they do. In order for such a system to function, government must have total control of individual lifestyles and behaviors.
- born in the USSR, and I believe education is very important and that what government does is not education but propaganda and both of those views are completely consistent and correct.
Bravo, sir!
It's a testament to the very indoctrination system US "education" and the mainstream media has become that it takes someone from outside that system, someone that has actually suffered under the type of government system that is slowly being erected in the US, to recognize what is happening right in front of everyone.
Nearly every single person that I've met that's from the former USSR or a former Soviet "satellite" or "client" State hold similar views to yours on where the US government is headed. They're very concerned at the general blindness of the people to what's occurring. I just wish more native born citizens had as clear an understanding of freedom and how easy it is to lose, how hard to get back once lost, as well as the ability and willingness to recognize and actually do something about a threat to that freedom when it slaps them in the face.
At this point, I'm not at all confident that a major upheaval/collapse/civil war, nation-destroying-level event in the US in the very near future is avoidable. Those in power will deliberately provoke violence and chaos using Marxist tactics like the current class-warfare propaganda rhetoric, and use the resulting cries for restoration of order from everyone stuck in the middle as pretext to then seize total power.
Game over for freedom. From there on, the world will be divided up between the Sino-Russian and the USA-Western blocs, with maybe one or two less-major players. None of which will have much in the way of individual rights or freedoms as we think of them for their people. Reagan was right, that the USA is the world's last and final bastion of freedom, and once it falls, there will be no place anyone can go to be free left.
Governments are evil by definition [slashdot.org] and the real terrorists are in government and people need protection from government, which is what Constitution is supposed to be in at least in US.
It's this kind of terroristic thinking that endangers the whole of modern society! Governments are there to help and are always good and right, or they wouldn't be in charge.
What's this "Constitution" thing you speak of? A task force must be assembled to destroy any and all copies of such inflammatory, anti-government terrorist propaganda, and hunt down the authors and kill them with a drone strike! Terrorists, all of them! Particularly this one guy who signed it, Thomas Jefferson. That guy advocates that people have a right to keep GUNS!!!1ONE!! Not only that, but he even advocates using those guns against the GOVERNMENT!!!
Such obvious terrorists and their violent philosophies must be erased from the public's consciousness for the good of a safe and predictable society (for us, your glorious leaders, not you).
>E. Holder >J. Napolitano
In other news, powdered wigs, parchment, and quill pens are now contraband items under the new BATFE regulations governing terrorist tools and implements of mass destruction.
How do you go from a judge ruling that Kaleidescape had made good faith efforts to ensure their products were compliant, and were in fact compliant, to what came out today if money didn't change hands somewhere?
Who needs money when you have incriminating photos?
Or credit card records of their payments to "The Happy Bottom" transsexual escort service.:D
Who'd have thought someone would write a browser add-on for intentionally self-censoring one's information?
Or that people who would probably otherwise describe themselves as "open minded" would seriously consider using such a thing, and think it a grand idea?
I suppose some people are more comfortable only seeing information that confirms their own views. That's fine and their right. I just wish such people would refrain from participating in the political process. It distorts the results for the rest of us that actually participate in finding the best solutions for the society regardless of what party or ideological side came up with the best solution, and not policies dictated by some blind ideological dogma that can't and doesn't tolerate differing views.
That's just fanaticism, and we've suffered enough fanatics lately.
Listen yourself! What he was actually saying that the experience of constant change, of constant danger was for some strange reason making this experience the happiest time of his life, because he as a 14 year old never assumed someone was out to get him.
What you fail to note is what Soros was actually doing during this time. He changed his name and went to work with the Nazis confiscating land from Jews. That he considered this time during which he helped Nazis confiscate land from Jews "the happiest time of his life" is downright chilling and should set off major alarm bells in any rational human.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you have a free and fair market with a small and limited government?
Because the DoJ/SEC or their equivalent would be far more free of corruption and political influence. "Small and limited" government does not mean ineffective government. The US functioned quite well for ~200 years with a government a fraction of the size of the current government. It took down Al Capone, defeated Germany (twice) and Japan, sent the first men to the moon, built a national rail and highway system...well, you get the idea.
The US government at it's current size, scope, and cost will not last. US debt now exceeds GDP. To see our future all we need do is look at Greece. Unless major changes are made and soon, that's the fate of the US within a few short years...except nobody will be trying to bail out the US, as the EU and IMF are attempting with Greece.
The US government at it's current size, scope, and cost is unsustainable. What kind of "free and fair market" would or could exist with a collapsed economy and government?
Strat
You're looking at it from the wrong end.
The problem isn't the free market, although I will go so far as saying that basic regulations insuring an even and honest marketplace are essential. The influence wielded by large corporations and the uber-wealthy are but one of the many vectors through which corruption can occur.
The one common factor with all forms of government corruption and destruction of citizen freedom is the government itself. Once a government gets large enough that it has power over enough things to be a target for corruption and large enough to mostly hide it, regulations are ineffective because the government is too corrupt to evenly enforce them, and we see the kind of selective enforcement and political favoritism we see happening in the US currently.
The key is to keep central governments as small and weak as possible. It's impossible for some corporation to unjustly obtain taxpayer money if there is no government function that gives out loans, "stimulus", or grants to private corporations and/or individuals in the first place. The same applies with taxes and tax codes. When you have byzantine and nearly incomprehensible tax regulations and a huge bureaucracy to enforce those codes, there's prime opportunity for mischief, and for it to go undetected. Smaller government with fewer departments and less bureaucracy results in a system in which it's easier to detect and weed-out corruption and government overstepping of it's powers.
If citizens can resist the impulse to forsake personal responsibility and have a bloated and corrupt government solve all their woes and provide "bread and circuses", and instead keep the government's size and scope limited, it is orders of magnitude easier to keep it honest. With an honest, small, and limited central government overseeing a free and fair market, it doesn't matter how rich some corporations or individuals become.
All roads to corruption and loss of citizen's freedoms start from a too large, too powerful government. That's been proven true repeatedly throughout history. We're watching it occur yet again in real-time in the US.
Strat
American here.
Let's assume they're telling the truth, that it is to fight terrorism and not free speech.
Let's also ignore the issue that terrorism is a blanket term for crimes committed to incite fear as opposed to simply being crimes.
The Internet is vast. There is so much information out there that any preventative measures seems utterly impossible. I mean, seriously, I can understand the information could be useful after the fact, but how do they know where to focus before the fact? Do they have a supercomputer to actively monitor every little thing on the Internet? How do they decide what is a red flag and what isn't? Won't those attempting to commit criminal acts just use code? Without knowing who is doing what, how do they know what code for which to look?
I think it'd be a better idea to look at the socio-economic problems leading to people willing to commit crimes (fear-incited or not) in the first place.
All your points are logical and right on target. Excellent summation.
However, none of those things are important or relevant to politicians. Only the possibility to increase their (and therefor the government's) power, and remove power (and wealth, which could be argued is the same thing in many ways) from regular citizens.
The problem that citizens of Western countries are facing, as they all seem to be headed in the same general direction of reducing citizen's privacy & freedom, is a common one...that of government that's gotten too large, powerful, and centralized...and therefor more corrupt and tyrannical.
Government is like fire, and should be treated very much the same, and for nearly identical reasons. Both are extremely useful, but at the same time extremely destructive, dangerous, swift-spreading, and hard to control, particularly the larger either grows. Both governments and fire, once either has grown to a certain size, becomes impossible for the ones who started it to control and morphs from a useful force for good and champion for freedom and the Rule of Law, to a force for tyranny, evil, and the capricious rule of men.
Strat
This could revive a long dormant industry. (barrage balloons)
Too easy for zoning and the FAA to make illegal.
I was thinking more along the lines of laser gun sighting systems that automatically compute proper sighting "lead" (the amount of distance one must aim ahead of a moving target for the round to meet the target as it travels) that could be fitted to most shotguns or rifles.
Center the target, activate the electronic sight, and an aiming "pip" will appear in the sight picture at the proper distance ahead of the direction of the target's travel, indicating where to fire. If you've ever played a combat flight-sim game (or the space-combat portion of Halo3), you'll understand what I mean.
Once law enforcement starts using drones on a large scale, methods *will* be found to take them out/bring them down. Once THAT happens, then you'll start seeing manned police aircraft/helicopters being shot down, with the accompanying loss of life both of the aircraft pilot/passengers and also innocent bystanders on the ground that are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Strat
It's simply not possible to stop it, or even slow it down that much.
Sure you can. You underestimate the lengths they will go to.
All they have to do, is to do away with the user-controlled general-purpose computer, the open internet, and any individual rights you were under the illusion of having.
They're already well on the way to accomplishing all of those goals, while many cheer them on.
Strat
The heck? I didn't even bother reading either article, because they're both pointless.
So, you're commenting without tolerating hearing opposing views or accepting any facts that might contradict your views?
Wanna see my "shocked" face?.
And since when has any part of the US "lived under 'Progressive' rule" for the last 30 years? Seriously! Detroit went under during the Bush administration.
Apparently, you're not aware of the fact that Detroit has had the Progressive-controlled Democratic Party backed by labor unions in overwhelming and uninterrupted majority control of the major city and county political positions since the 1960s. There hasn't been a Republican Mayor since 1962!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Detroit
And, this in a state that has mostly leaned Democrat over the last ~50 years. Detroit has been in serious trouble for decades, long before Reagan or either of the Bush's were POTUS.
GWB was a Republican Progressive, as are many in the Republican Party. I despised much of what he did as POTUS. The last non-Progressive Republican POTUS was Reagan.
"The Utopian schemes of re-distribution of the wealth...are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown." - Samuel Adams
Regarding TFS, this is but another cost and penalty inflicted upon the innocent majority by a too-large & powerful central government intent on punishing those suffering from a disease and those (in the case of marijuana) people for which the "good" drugs don't help, that dare to use an effective, safe, natural, but arbitrarily labeled "illegal", alternative. It keeps the money flowing to the politicians at both ends. From Big Pharma, *and* from those for whom higher prices on "illegal" drugs means more non-taxed profits. The hypocrisy by the government is so thick it's palpable. The larger and more powerful a central government is, the more corrupt it is and the less freedom the citizens have.
Strat
Dude, it took literally 5 seconds of googling to find a refutation piece: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/16/the_right_is_attacking_media_matters_because_it_matters/singleton/
What is it with right wing neo cons and their bizarre character assassination schemes? It reminds me of the whole anti-AGW obsession with Al Gore.
Seriously, you are so brainwashed and yet you don't even know it. I just don't get how it happens. What deficiency in the mental process is required? I only see it happen among white people, especially Americans. Is it genetic? I honestly don't know.
What, exactly, in that Salon piece disproves anything reported by that TDC story? The Salon piece was a bunch of overly-dramatic outrage and hand-waving. But, I guess that's what typically passes for Truth(tm) among Progressives. The facts don't matter, as long as the "proper" ideological and political viewpoints and opions are adhered to and promoted.
The tactics and methods used by MM in their attempts at the intimidation and silencing of opposing viewpoints are deplorable & disgusting. They define the phrase "extreme partisanship". The news that the guy in charge is a moonbat can come as no surprise to anyone paying any attention at all.
But, for Leftist organizations like MM, the ends justify the means, and the needs of the many (determined by Big Gov. Inc.and George Soros's money) outweigh the needs (and the right to voice opposition) of the few (citizens wishing to keep their freedoms). This, also, is not news to anyone paying attention and with the ability to engage in critical thinking, free of partisan blinders.
If you want to see what the USA will look like under Progressive rule, look no further than Detroit after 5 decades of Progressive and Big Labor rule. There's your "Progressive Utopia" for you. I know. I live in the state and I'm old enough to have watched it happen. I won't allow the same thing to happen to the rest of the nation without one hell of a fight.
Strat
No... I think it's more like people were unable to maintain their stupor with drugs, so they formed the Tea Party.
I think you misspelled "Media Matters".
From recent news reports, it sounds like Brock is a paranoid psychotic with delusions of grandeur and persecution. Besides, it's not possible to *be* a Liberal/Progressive without having a serious break with reality and a lack of critical-thinking ability to start with.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/
Strat
I need to look into the numbers further, but yea government cuts should be part of the solution. The analysis should also include capital gain and corporate taxes.
It's a matter of scales of magnitude when you compare the amounts of money in the deficit and the debt, compared to what could realistically be received in total tax revenues. There's simply no way to reduce the deficit by any meaningful amount/time, never mind paying down the principle on the national debt, without massive reductions in government spending coupled with massive economic growth.
You won't get the kind of growth necessary by raising taxes. Tax rates must be formulated with the Laffer curve in mind, the point at which increasing the tax rate further does not result in more revenue but instead decreases the type of economic activity being taxed. If you want less of something, tax and regulate it. Taxes on corporations and the rich never get paid by them, the costs get passed down and are ultimately paid by individuals & families. All taxes are ultimately paid by individuals and families, whether they're paid directly or included in the cost of goods and services.
Strat
My idea would be to raise taxes on the wealthy and quickly pay off the debt.
You must have a very different definition of the word "quick" than I and most other people do.
You could tax all those making over $500K/yr at 100% and it still leaves a deficit of around $800bn-$850bn using these numbers:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab3.xls
That means the US would *still* be borrowing money and adding to the national debt.
There's simply no way to escape the fact that it's impossible to balance the US budget and stabilize or reduce the national debt by taxation. Reducing the amount of money government takes out of the system and simplifying and reducing government regulation & bureaucratic red tape, so that the economy can grow and produce enough wealth, in order for low and reasonable taxes along with reasonable regulation that does not stifle the generation of wealth to produce sufficient revenues to eventually eliminate the yearly deficit and start reducing the national debt, is the only way (other than a catastrophic collapse) the US can come out of this crisis.
Just look to Greece. We can either bite the bullet now, or wait until everything collapses and there is violence on the streets. Other countries won't "bail out" the US as they have with Greece.
Strat
Abbot is much more in thrall of modern US conservative political tactics than John Howard was. He often repeats the Fox talking points like they were his own. And the "No" strategy is straight out of the Republican playbook.
"No" is the only possible answer when faced with something that violates your basic principles. If one has basic principles & beliefs that one lives by, one does not deal them away just to be seen as "bipartisan".
If any non-Americans are confused about Progressives/Democrats accusing the Conservatives/Republicans of being the "party of 'no'" and being unwilling to compromise, here's how these things typically go:
Dem/Prog - "Let me put this in your mouth."
Con/Rep - "Hell no!"
Dem/Prog - "C'mon, let me!"
Con/Rep - "No, I said!"
Dem/Prog - "OK, just let me put the tip in your mouth."
Con/Rep - "Hell no! Get away from me!"
Dem/Prog - "See! Those guys won't compromise at all! They're the 'party of no'! They want to stop everything! They want to keep the government from working! They're terrorists!!!"
Keep that in mind the next time you hear US Liberal/Progressive/Democrats whining about how the opposition won't compromise.
Strat
This could be a good replacement for pack animals.
Except that a pack animal is far more intelligent, can help keep you warm when it's very cold, warn you of unseen danger or bad/unstable footing (by getting "spooked"), help you find water, can be self-fueling to a greater or lesser extent (grazing), and, when food supplies run dangerously low, aren't too bad with some salt and garlic!
These machines have a long, long ways to go yet to beat a good pack animal IMHO.
Strat
You must be thinking of the flying saucer ride you took last summer. Different airlines.
Are you sure?
The truth is out there...
Just sayin'
Strat
We've been trying that in the UK for years with the fixed speeding cameras. Everytime they get burnt out, they get replaced. In fact, several police authorities actually like it when a camera gets firebombed, as they replace the insides of the camera leaving the outside all burnt up to make people think it doesn't work.
This means you need to get their attention. That's when you move from torching cameras to torching politician's homes. Then the politicians themselves if that doesn't work. Nothing like the torched body of a politician hanging from a speed trap camera to get a point across to other politicians when they're doing their best to ignore the citizen's wishes.
Strat
It's interesting how such an expensive system is thwarted with petroleum distillates and other natural minerals:
Only if you make a Molotov cocktail with them and throw it at the ANPR-equipped police vehicle. Which actually isn't a bad idea if you can avoid getting caught. After a number of patrol cars get torched, they might reconsider how badly they want ANPR systems. Same with these ViPR backscatter-scanner-equipped trucks. After they lose a dozen or so scan-trucks costing hundreds of thousands each, they may rethink that as well. It's to the point now that making it cost them too much in destroyed equipment is probably the only way this "enhanced domestic civilian surveillance" trend is going to stop. It's been proven over and over that politicians/legislators sure aren't interested in stopping it's growth or even making any serious attempts to put oversight against abuses in place no matter what they say in front of a TV camera.
Strat
Who gets to fix all that and who actually handles the oil and money are being fought about bitterly in both Iraqi politics and worldwide governmental and oil business circles.
So you're saying that I'm correct. The US isn't "stealing" Iraq's oil. Iraq's government is shopping deals. That isn't what happens when one nation invades another to "steal" resources by force.
So, did you have a point other than reinforcing mine? I ask because sometimes it's hard to tell when somebody is agreeing with you, or is actually trying to make a counter-argument, but just making a poor job of it.
Strat
The entire reason the US went to the region is to steal oil and make it easier to control the area.
Where is all this Iraqi (or any other ME country's) oil the US supposedly invaded for and "stole"? The US is now out of Iraq and the US still hasn't gotten squat for oil from the place for all their trouble. Where is all this "control" the US supposedly has of the area? I certainly don't see countries in that area under any sort of US "control". Just the opposite, in fact.
In every single discussion of the US/Middle East, I always see these idiots (yes, you're idiots...own it!) parroting the same lame-assed old "US invaded fer to stealz alla dey're OILZ!! herp-derp!!!" bullshit. Yet, nobody can point to any oil the US has actually stolen. Hell, the US is having trouble even convincing Iraq to sell them any oil at all, even at full price!
It must be such a wonderfully-freeing experience to not have to bother being accurate, factual, or truthful in any way, shape, or form.
Strat
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer, too
That scares the hell out of me.
Well, since the US was founded based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values, and the founders themselves stated that the Constitution was insufficient to govern any but a basically religious and moral people...
I suggest either immigration from the US or a tranquilizer prescription.
Look, it's simple. That old piece of paper (the Constitution) says "freedom OF religion" which is entirely different from "freedom FROM religion", which is what's been the functional interpretation by Progressive courts and politicians over the last 60 years or so. That hasn't worked out so well for US society and culture. Have you watched some of the Burger King beat-downs and similar Jerry Springer behavior on YouTube lately?
The TEA Party does not advocate for theocracy. Nobody seriously believes that shit. That's just propaganda from the TEA Party's opposition. Anyone who seriously believes that crap has much larger and more specific personal mental problems than general political ones.
Strat
Should you be mandated by the federal government to buy everyone food, too?
Where have you been?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program
You've been paying for that for ages now.
Plus, more and more people are becoming eligible either from economic hardship or reductions in restrictions for qualification to participate.
Just look at the numbers:
More Than 46.2 Million Americans Received SNAP/Food Stamps in October 2011
vs
Participation in the Food Stamp Program jumped in May 2001 from the previous month to 17,243,978 persons, according to FRACâ(TM)s analysis of preliminary data from USDA
http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/snapfood-stamp-monthly-participation-data/
A larger and larger percentage of Americans are becoming dependent on the government for their food. That's not a good thing. If you control a population's food supply, you control them.
Couple controlling the food supply with controlling access to healthcare and what lifestyles & behaviors are acceptable because healthcare costs are forced to be shared by the government, and the government then has total control of the population and everything they do. In order for such a system to function, government must have total control of individual lifestyles and behaviors.
Strat
- born in the USSR, and I believe education is very important and that what government does is not education but propaganda and both of those views are completely consistent and correct.
Bravo, sir!
It's a testament to the very indoctrination system US "education" and the mainstream media has become that it takes someone from outside that system, someone that has actually suffered under the type of government system that is slowly being erected in the US, to recognize what is happening right in front of everyone.
Nearly every single person that I've met that's from the former USSR or a former Soviet "satellite" or "client" State hold similar views to yours on where the US government is headed. They're very concerned at the general blindness of the people to what's occurring. I just wish more native born citizens had as clear an understanding of freedom and how easy it is to lose, how hard to get back once lost, as well as the ability and willingness to recognize and actually do something about a threat to that freedom when it slaps them in the face.
At this point, I'm not at all confident that a major upheaval/collapse/civil war, nation-destroying-level event in the US in the very near future is avoidable. Those in power will deliberately provoke violence and chaos using Marxist tactics like the current class-warfare propaganda rhetoric, and use the resulting cries for restoration of order from everyone stuck in the middle as pretext to then seize total power.
Game over for freedom. From there on, the world will be divided up between the Sino-Russian and the USA-Western blocs, with maybe one or two less-major players. None of which will have much in the way of individual rights or freedoms as we think of them for their people. Reagan was right, that the USA is the world's last and final bastion of freedom, and once it falls, there will be no place anyone can go to be free left.
Strat
Governments are evil by definition [slashdot.org] and the real terrorists are in government and people need protection from government, which is what Constitution is supposed to be in at least in US.
It's this kind of terroristic thinking that endangers the whole of modern society! Governments are there to help and are always good and right, or they wouldn't be in charge.
What's this "Constitution" thing you speak of? A task force must be assembled to destroy any and all copies of such inflammatory, anti-government terrorist propaganda, and hunt down the authors and kill them with a drone strike! Terrorists, all of them! Particularly this one guy who signed it, Thomas Jefferson. That guy advocates that people have a right to keep GUNS!!!1ONE!! Not only that, but he even advocates using those guns against the GOVERNMENT!!!
Such obvious terrorists and their violent philosophies must be erased from the public's consciousness for the good of a safe and predictable society (for us, your glorious leaders, not you).
>E. Holder
>J. Napolitano
In other news, powdered wigs, parchment, and quill pens are now contraband items under the new BATFE regulations governing terrorist tools and implements of mass destruction.
Strat
Or credit card records of their payments to "The Happy Bottom" transsexual escort service. :D
Strat
Well perhaps because in this case quite a few of use can't read the article. Don't be an enabler https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/murdoch-block/ [mozilla.org] cut off the air supply before their greed cuts off yours.
Amazing!
Who'd have thought someone would write a browser add-on for intentionally self-censoring one's information?
Or that people who would probably otherwise describe themselves as "open minded" would seriously consider using such a thing, and think it a grand idea?
I suppose some people are more comfortable only seeing information that confirms their own views. That's fine and their right. I just wish such people would refrain from participating in the political process. It distorts the results for the rest of us that actually participate in finding the best solutions for the society regardless of what party or ideological side came up with the best solution, and not policies dictated by some blind ideological dogma that can't and doesn't tolerate differing views.
That's just fanaticism, and we've suffered enough fanatics lately.
Strat
...uptime that would require international cooperation to bring down.
"Your terms are acceptable."
[NO CARRIER]
Strat
Listen yourself! What he was actually saying that the experience of constant change, of constant danger was for some strange reason making this experience the happiest time of his life, because he as a 14 year old never assumed someone was out to get him.
What you fail to note is what Soros was actually doing during this time. He changed his name and went to work with the Nazis confiscating land from Jews. That he considered this time during which he helped Nazis confiscate land from Jews "the happiest time of his life" is downright chilling and should set off major alarm bells in any rational human.
Strat