Guiliani: Democrats party of losers

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Jul 31, 2007.

  1. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    "Up-to-date S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems to defend Moscow's air space"

    http://english.pravda.ru/russia/19-08-2004/6604-missile-0

    I am from Russia.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    We did not. And waht we did give up did not go back to normal - the draft, for example, was still with us long after WWII. The Pentagon became a permanent fixture. The McCarthy era kicked in. The various intelligence agencies did not go away, and started spying on Americans. The CIA developed its own foreign policy and interests. etc.

    And there will be no afterwards. Terrorism is a tactic and a crime - it will not go away in our lives. What you give up in some sort of magical ritual to protect yourself from terrorism, you will never get back - the new way will be your way of life.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Yeah, my life has changed so much since 9/11...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    I am 1.5 miles from WTC. go figure.
     
  8. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    I was being factitious. I can't think of one thing (other than longer lines at airports) that has changed for me...
     
  9. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Look at the civil war. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus. Or WW2 when we rounded up all the Japanese. And the draft? That's long gone. The other things you mentioned were needed to fight the cold war.

    And while terrorism is a tactic that will always be around, Islamofascism is not.

    And frankly, I haven't noted many changes either. What changes there have been are no big deal.

    I don't mind at all if the government monitors international calls. I'd be pissed off if they didn't. The increased wait at airports is annoying, especially since I doubt it is making any difference anyway. The passengers will prevent any future hijacking.

    But monitoring of international electronic communications really can help and should be done. Fuck that FISA bullshit. So long as the info gained isn't used for anything but counterterrorism, go for it.
     
  10. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    And do you honestly trust that?
    With a Federal Government as large, unweildy and secretive as ours, who is going to guarantee that?
    When someone with the right amount of power deems something "for our own good", who's to know and question?
    With the powers of the Executive Branch spreading constantly, what happens to the checks and balances?
     
  11. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    They generally get checked and balanced. Most of the things that people on this web site constantly whine about, so far as the Bush administration is concerned, have been or are being challenged in court or investigated by Congress. The rest have been outed by the Media, which is slowly but surely forcing Bush to reassess some of his policies...
     
  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    I don't trust the government either. But they need this power to fight terrorism. Show me a case of it being abused, and I'll back impeachment or prison for whoever did it.
     
  13. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,023
    [madanthonywayne;

    Maybe we libertarians should call this, "Government-Controlled healthcare" or "Health control". Maybe this will wake up people who favor having the government control which doctors they can see, which medicines they are allowed to purchase, etc etc.

    Corporations are only better because they are more decentralized. I'm a libertarian as in, I support maximization of liberty, and choice. I don't think freedom should be completely unlimited, but more that we should be free to do whatever we want as long as we aren't harming anyone else, or society as a whole.

    Corporate power is political power. I don't think you understand the nature of todays multi-national mega corporations. If you are a libertarian, you might be against the government being too centralized and having too much power but you also have to be concerned about corporate mergers centralizing corporate power in the same way.

    Corporations can control the government. Everyone knows we have a government of puppets by now.

    I'm not an anti-government libertarian, I'm simply a pro liberty, left-libertarian. Government is not the problem, or the solution, it's just an entity, and it must be managed like other entities, and the only way to manage government is through corporations, because thats how the current system is set up.

    Corporations can merge and become more powerful than the government. OPEC is a perfect example of this, as OPEC is powerful enough to control the foreign policy, and many members in congress.

    I don't know what Clinton would have done under a Democratic congress, but I'm sure it would have been no worse than what Bush has done with a Republican congress.

    Politicians are not a trustworthy bunch generally. They have corporate masters. What you don't seem to understand is, the politician is a puppet of the corporate forces that control him or her, and set the policies. So you cannot blame Clinton for passing NAFTA, he had no choice. He had to pass NAFTA or it would have been the end of the Democratic party. Clinton was good for the Democratic party, and for the middle class, but not so good for organized labor, and the working class, but then again Republicans do the same sorta thing, both Republicans and Democrats are very much corporate servants.

    I disagree. I think the war is no longer worth the costs and expense. If we could not secure 12 trillion worth of Iraqs oil in 5 years+ years of war, it's reaching the point where it's costing trillions to fight it, thousands of lives, and at the same time costing us civil liberties at home. We are at a point now, where we can either fight a never ending war with the middle east that will balloon into a world war that can last a generation, or we can pull out. I say we pull out because it's more cost efficient to pull out now and forget about fighting for oil in the middle east.

    But of course, certain business interests would disagree with that.

    I'm not a Bush libertarian and I'm not a Bush Republican. I'm loyal to America, not Bush.

    Who do Republicans have worth voting for right now?

    Guiliani is a good man, and he's trustworthy on defense. You are also right, that there is no freedom without security, but I don't think this war as it's taking shape now, is about security. If it's about security, why are we in Iraq? Why haven't we caught Bin Laden by now? We cannot increase our security while we declare war on the entire middle east! We need to use diplomacy, and I think Democrats are better at diplomacy than Republicans.

    I agree, economic freedom is essential to liberty, and I don't support tax increases on the masses. I do think we need some taxes, but I think the taxes should be based on behaviors of individuals. If an individual is responsible, and a model citizen, they should not have to pay high taxes, but if an individual actually harms society, then they should pay high taxes.

    A pollution tax is something I agree with because it's a national security concern. Pollution is bad for society, and for everyone in it, and the government should be focused on national security. We should solve the healthcare problem, because thats also a security issue. We should solve crime because thats also a national security issue.

    I do not think we should have an income tax. If we need to tax people more, we should individualize it so people who are irresponsible pay higher taxes. If you want to smoke, sure, cigs can be taxed, I'm libertarian but I'm not someone who thinks we should have no taxes at all, I just think we should have a better tax system that actually rewards people for staying out of trouble and being a good citizen instead of punishing everyone with oppressive taxes, like the property tax, or the income tax.

    Idea's like the negative income tax, or using grants to reward good behavior and taxes to punish bad behavior are the sorta ideas I support. I support taxes as a way of creating a better society and a better citizen, I don't see taxes as something that should be used to just punish every man and woman for no reason.

    Here is an example of how Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, taxing their own base, and weakening their political party.

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bet-founder-blasts-class-war-on-tax-2007-07-31.html

    So we can see from that example, that just taxing wildly and recklessly, is stupid. You should not tax people who are trying to get rich so they can make others in your base rich, that will only doom the Democratic party itself into being the party of the poor, and only reinforce the idea that Republicans are the party of the rich.

    Why would anyone successful choose to be a part of a party, that wants to punish success, even when that success is helping the community and helping the Democratic party? I think it's utterly stupid to tax by class. I think it's better to tax by behavior, because not all rich people are bad people, some rich people are actually trying to help the community, or create jobs for Americans, or just make a life for themselves.

    Now, you have other rich people who are polluting the environment, and holding back progress. If Democrats were wise, they'd stop taxing their base, which is also rich people, and start taxing the people who actually do harm to society. Democrats just don't have an acceptable tax policy, and I'd prefer they adopt a tax policy that were more libertarian, that taxed for a purpose other than to just increase revenues for the government.

    If Democrats want to tax corporate mergers, I'd support that, if Democrats want to tax corporations convicted of criminal activity, I'd support that, but if Democrats just want to tax everyone beyond a certain income, won't that make people who are beyond that income support the Republicans?

    I'm not rich, I'm actually poor, but I know there are rich people who should not be taxed into poverty. It's just not a good strategy politically.
     
  14. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,137
    He should have asked Democrats to volunteer to adorn the outsides of the towers as human shields.

    Yeah, I know...
     

Share This Page