America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

It's my personal take, that it wouldn't work on charitable basis. I could be wrong, but I really don't think it would work.

What do you mena by "work". Do you mean solve all of the world's hunger problems? Do you mean "work" as well as the government run forced "charity" system we have now "works"?

No, voluntary charity (which is redundant) wouldn't solve all of the problems that are out there - but that doesn't mean there's a better way to do it.

Government is doing these people a favor, lending a helping hand. If they are taking money from the government, then they shouldn't be able to waste their money on luxuries and pleasures, IMO.

So what do you propose? We have people audit the finances of those who sign up for the welfare program? Only people who don't smoke can join up and we're watching every penny you spend? That's a value judgement you're placing on other peoples tax dollars - that smoking is bad and should come after other things that aren't necessary (like an apartment in a good neighborhood for example).

The only way out of this is something like food stamps - where you know exactly what the money that the government hands out will be spent on. But the issue hasn't really gone away. They were going to buy food anyway, now they just have extra money to spend on smokes since the government is taking care of the food thing.

The only way to regulate they way you proposed above is to actually have someone sit down and make a judgement call (which the government shouldn't be doing) with every single purchase that this person makes - whether it's with their own money or money the government stole for them.

So here's the solution. You pick the charity that helps the people out that you want to help out. You decide whether your money is being spent well and you support the causes you believe in. This way nobody is forced to support a cause they don't believe in and nobody feels their money is being wasted. It's the only way thats fair. I don't care if it doesn't solve all of the problems that exist - it's the only right way to do it... and if you really really really care about the people who are left out, feel free to contribute accordinly.

 

[a6m5]

What do you mena by "work". Do you mean solve all of the world's hunger problems? Do you mean "work" as well as the government run forced "charity" system we have now "works"?

First of all, you really have trouble spelling "mean" today. Forced charity sounds really bad. I'm not proposing to solve world hunger with our tax $$$ at all, but I do think we have to take care of our own..... to a reasonable point.

No, voluntary charity (which is redundant) wouldn't solve all of the problems that are out there - but that doesn't mean there's a better way to do it.



So what do you propose? We have people audit the finances of those who sign up for the welfare program? Only people who don't smoke can join up and we're watching every penny you spend? That's a value judgement you're placing on other peoples tax dollars - that smoking is bad and should come after other things that aren't necessary (like an apartment in a good neighborhood for example).

The only way out of this is something like food stamps - where you know exactly what the money that the government hands out will be spent on. But the issue hasn't really gone away. They were going to buy food anyway, now they just have extra money to spend on smokes since the government is taking care of the food thing.

The only way to regulate they way you proposed above is to actually have someone sit down and make a judgement call (which the government shouldn't be doing) with every single purchase that this person makes - whether it's with their own money or money the government stole for them.

So here's the solution. You pick the charity that helps the people out that you want to help out. You decide whether your money is being spent well and you support the causes you believe in. This way nobody is forced to support a cause they don't believe in and nobody feels their money is being wasted. It's the only way thats fair. I don't care if it doesn't solve all of the problems that exist - it's the only right way to do it... and if you really really really care about the people who are left out, feel free to contribute accordinly.

Well, I whined a lot, but has no answers to the problems to be honest with you. Only thing I can think of is to educate the people who are going to receive welfare. Also, warn them that if they are caught with those "luxuries" we discussed, they'll lose the welfare. Warn them, even if you can't enforce it 99% of times. That's about all I got right now.

 

[Danoff]

Well, I whined a lot, but has no answers to the problems to be honest with you.

What about my suggestion? That private charity is the right way to do it.

 

[a6m5]

What about my suggestion? That private charity is the right way to do it.

Right way to do it, in your opinion. I disagree. By going to voluntary donation, fund on something like welfare will nearly dissapear, IMO.

 

[Joey D]

I think private charities are the way to go if we stay with the current system. However, if we were to reform welfare this is what I propose.

- People going on welfare must show need. (Obivious)
- If they have any more children then they currently have, there welfare status is dropped and children taken into protective custody. (No need to punish children)
- If they are caught buying alcohol or tobacco they would be dropped from the program.
- Finally the need to look for and get a job with in a year. When they get the job their welfare check will be adjusted accordingly with the amount of money they make.

But I still think welfare is a joke, but with some improvements I think I would hate it less.

 

[Danoff]

Right way to do it, in your opinion. I disagree. By going to voluntary donation, fund on something like welfare will nearly dissapear, IMO.

...and that's bad?

- People going on welfare must show need. (Obivious)
- If they have any more children then they currently have, there welfare status is dropped and children taken into protective custody. (No need to punish children)
- If they are caught buying alcohol or tobacco they would be dropped from the program.
- Finally the need to look for and get a job with in a year. When they get the job their welfare check will be adjusted accordingly with the amount of money they make.

Making it more complicated will only result in even more people getting paid for welfare oversight and more government intervention - which is the problem so far, not the solution. It means more of your forced "charity" will get sent to the people administering the program rather than the people that "need" it.

Why must we use the government for this? You could find a charity that meets your personal criteria and give them as much as you want right now. You'd have more money to do so if the government didn't waste what it takes from you. Government is bad at doing things (eg: DMV), why make it perform charity when there are lots of private organizations ready to do it better? The answer is because you can take money from people who wouldn't otherwise give it if you get the government to do it - because government is force. But of course, that's theft.

 

[a6m5]

...and that's bad?

The "fund" dissapearing, yes. Look, I'm annoyed by the people on welfare, especially the homeless. But sometimes, people go through hardships and could use little help, especially the ones who has kids. Just because you and I never needed any help doesn't mean there's no need for welfare in our society at all.

 

[inkyturbo]

While we're on the topic of political parties in the United States. I think we need more Black Republicans.

Here I am!

 

[inkyturbo]

Quote:MrktMkr1986
If I can get your definition of neo-imperialism, I would be more than happy to give you supporting evidence.


You brought it up, you supply the definition and the evidence.


Quote:MrktMkr1986
A security crisis? Most definitely! From Iraq? Not even close. 15 out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were "confirmed" (quoted for a reason, do NOT take literally) to be from Saudi Arabia. Why are we not at war with the Saudis? Perhaps because we already have access to their rich natural resources, in my opinion.


They originated in Saudi Arabia, they were members of Al Qaeda, which we went after and destroyed. Why would we attack Saudi Arabia? Did they orchestrate the attack? Why would we attack Afghanistan? Did that country’s government orchestrate the attack? No, Al Qaeda orchestrated the attack and we went after them directly.

Don’t confuse the two issues. Iraq and September 11th are completely separate things. You won’t see me claim that Iraq orchestrated September 11th.


Quote:MrktMkr1986
I am aware of organizations such as the BBC. When I said that I was referring to the fact that most American news agencies are corporate owned.


You’re the one with the NYSE as your avatar, you should understand the free market better than this. You should understand why it is ok that American news agencies are corporate owned – in fact, you should understand why that is better than any alternative.


Quote:MrktMkr1986
It is a known fact that the US shut out several countries from the reconstructive efforts of the war


Rightly so. Why is that a bad thing?


Quote:MrktMkr1986
Do you really believe the United States is going to fight a war so that other countries will benefit, and without any form of incentive?



Quote:MrktMkr1986
However, I think it is possible that under the guise of altruism, the US (by strategically eliminating foreign contracts) knows it has something to gain by being in Iraq.



Quote:MrktMkr1986
Why do you think Bush would want freedom and democracy in Iraq? Because he wants the Iraqi people to be happy and prosperous? Maybe. However, to do something like this without any form of incentive is just plain stupid.

That would be stupid. What incentive do you think we had then? Oil, right? You think we spent billions of dollars to go into Iraq and get oil when we create 50% of our own oil anyway right? A stretch? Let’s think about this for a second… what other incentive could Bush have had? Perhaps he thought that a free Iraq would deter terrorism and help to prevent another September 11th???? Does it even occur to you to take him at is word? He’s not a smart guy, I can guarantee you that there isn’t a whole lot of scheming going on in his head. He’s doing what he’s doing for exactly the reasons he gives the press.


Quote:MrktMkr1986
I don't believe American society is what they hate. It's American foreign policy, in my opinion.


That’s an interesting opinion considering the remarks that the terrorists have made about American society and how our society violates their religious beliefs. What foreign policy of ours was it that caused September 11th? How exactly is it our fault that we were attacked? Why was it our fault that thousands of innocent people at work were blown to bits or forced to jump from dozens of stories up rather than be burned alive by the terrorists.

Explain to me how September 11th is America’s fault please.


Quote:MrktMkr1986
Bring them our way of life = US foreign policy


Perhaps you could add, “… in the middle east”.


Quote:MrktMkr1986
No country can legitimately be invaded unless they attack us directly. Iraq did not specifically attack us -- therefore we have/had no right attacking them. It's as simple as that.


I disagree. I think we can legitimately invade if they violate the terms of the first Gulf war cease fire.

Imagine for a moment that you go to war with someone for legitimate reasons (they attack an ally). You kick their ass, but you don’t feel like making them the 51st state. So you set terms, "you can have your country back if you do x, y and z". Then they proceed not to do x, y, and z. – You now have a legitimate claim to go to war.

Now don’t confuse the legitimately of the war for the motives – those are two separate things in this case (not in all cases).


Quote:MrktMkr1986
Wrong! There only one justification for making another country a 51st state. Neo-imperialism. Who cares about oppression!? Here's a list of the world's most repressive regimes. After you read the list, you tell me what Iraq has that all these other countries don't have.

*Burma
*China
*Cuba
*Equatorial Guinea
*Iraq
*Laos
*Libya
*North Korea
*Saudi Arabia
*Somalia
*Sudan
*Syria
*Tibet
*Turkmenistan
*Uzbekistan
*Vietnam


I already explained that. I explained why Iraq was a perfect place to practice some nation building – I don’t feel like going back through it.


Quote:MrktMkr1986
Why the hell did Bush try to stop the 9/11: Commission when the idea was first initiated? It was only after enormous political pressure did he finally agree to allow it. He wouldn't even testify in front of the commission!


Why don’t we stick to the subject and leave politics out of it. Are you claiming that he had something to hide? What was it?


Quote:MrktMkr1986
Including me. They have their elections -- our job is finished. Or is it?


Not by a long shot. These elections are only the start of developing an Iraqi constitution and getting them on the road to stability, there is still a long way to go.


Quote:MrktMkr1986
Which is most definitely not going to happen.


(context: the new Iraqi government will not ask the US to leave)

Why not? Is it perhaps because there is still a long way to go before Iraq is a stable place that can govern itself?


Quote:MrktMkr1986
However, I think you are missing the point as to why we need Iraq to be a major power in the Middle East.


Why do you think it needs to be a major power in the Middle East? I already gave my answer, which is that a free and powerful Iraq will deter terrorism.


Quote:
MrktMkr, you bring up many good points.


You just think they’re good because you agree with them

Many great points, danoff. And yes, because I agree with them.

 

[inkyturbo]

And to all you that so vehemently(sp?) defend the war and Bush.....Why don't you sign up and go risk your life? would you? honestly? Some are too quick to defend war.

Yes, yes I would. I was in Air Force JROTC all through high school, and I was informed there that I couldn't go in because of asthma. Not all of us make decisions without considering what would happen if it happened personally to us

 

[ledhed]

Inky ...dont you think you could have put that all in one post ?

 

[inkyturbo]

Inky ...dont you think you could have put that all in one post ?

Yeah maybe I should have, but I was reading through the thread and wanted to get down my thoughts before I forgot them.

I agree with danoff- though I am a registered Republican, Republican's views on social issues aren't that great.

Libertarianism to me sounds close to anarchy, and there will never be a utopia as long as we are Homo Sapiens.

 

[Solid Fro]

Yes, yes I would. I was in Air Force JROTC all through high school, and I was informed there that I couldn't go in because of asthma. Not all of us make decisions without considering what would happen if it happened personally to us

I wish my high school had that. My school never had cool stuff like a Republican debate club.

To those who say things like: "If you support the war so much, then go over there and fight", I would say go sign up for Al Qaeda (if they don't chop off your head first), if you hate the war so much.

Besides medical reasons, most people have academic responsibilities, since they didn't plan for a military career. If I didn't have a degree in computer science getting in the way, I would join the Air Force in a heart beat. I would love to get in a F-15E Strike Eagle and drop a JDAM onto Osama's head.

 

[Danoff]

The "fund" dissapearing, yes. Look, I'm annoyed by the people on welfare, especially the homeless. But sometimes, people go through hardships and could use little help, especially the ones who has kids. Just because you and I never needed any help doesn't mean there's no need for welfare in our society at all.

Nobody is arguing that charity shouldn't exist. I'm just arguing that government charity shouldn't exist. I understand why people donate money - and why they will continue to do so freely.



*by the way, Inky - thanks for the words of support. Would you mind going back through that long post and clarifying who said what? It looks as it stands now like you're quoting me for everything. Thanks. *

 

[inkyturbo]

Nobody is arguing that charity shouldn't exist. I'm just arguing that government charity shouldn't exist. I understand why people donate money - and why they will continue to do so freely.



*by the way, Inky - thanks for the words of support. Would you mind going back through that long post and clarifying who said what? It looks as it stands now like you're quoting me for everything. Thanks. *

Done and done.

 

[Joey D]

Besides medical reasons, most people have academic responsibilities, since they didn't plan for a military career. If I didn't have a degree in computer science getting in the way, I would join the Air Force in a heart beat. I would love to get in a F-15E Strike Eagle and drop a JDAM onto Osama's head.

Yup I tried to join the Marine Corps a few times but I keep failing the medical portion of it. I wanted to go fight for my country, but I'm just not healthy enough (Back problems, knee problems, heart problems....damn I'm falling apart at the age of 20).

 

[Mopar]

I saw this on another board and I had to share. I have to say I agree with some of it.


WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?


My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed.


Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.
This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is time to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or maybe China. I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York .


A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there. They care.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America. Thank you and good night.

 

[livemusic]

lol

 

[Joey D]

I'll buy that speech, if some for president said they were going to do that I would vote for him/her no matter what party they were.

 

[Swift]

Half of that speech is quite good and very overdue. Half is a bit much. But I like the general theme. Take care of our own.

 

[McLaren]

Wow. Some good parts of the speech, and some good ones.

I think the issues about List 2 may be a little harsh though. That may actually cause more war.

 

[Solid Fro]

I think the whole spech sucks. Except for the France part, because France sucks too.

 

[PS]

I don't agree with pretty much all of that speach. But it doesn't surprise me that the above 3 are for it— look where they're from.

[edit]

Above Viper Zero that is.

[edit 2]
Food for thought.

http://members.cox.net/thatzenguy/terra2.swf

 

[McLaren]

I think the whole spech sucks. Except for the France part, because France sucks too.

Hey!
I'm right in France, or near it enough.

 

[Swift]

I don't agree with pretty much all of that speach. But it doesn't surprise me that the above 3 are for it— look where they're from.

[edit]

Above Viper Zero that is.

[edit 2]
Food for thought.

http://members.cox.net/thatzenguy/terra2.swf

Uh, so we're patriotic and that's a bad thing huh?

 

[PS]

That goes far beyond patriotic.

 

[TheCracker]

Can i apply to have the UK moved on to List 2 please.

 

[Swift]

That goes far beyond patriotic.

In some parts yes. But we have OUR OWN problems that we need to start addressing. Instead of trying to fix the entire planet.

 

[a6m5]

I love America. I love UK, Australia for sticking by U.S. However, I can't say I like the speech......... THEY FORGOT JAPAN! I'm just kidding. Seriously though, whoever wrote the speech doesn't seem to understand how the world works. By the U.S. cutting off relation with most of the world, how do you think, and how long do you think U.S. can continue to lead the great life it's gotten accustomed to? The speech is very black & white, and real world is more grayish.

 

[PS]

Not to mention Canada, US's leading import-exporter will cut off all trading and USA will get screwed over that way. And the fact that many other countries will also cut off trade, forcing the USA to provide themselves with everything, which as we all know, USA is only good at taking other people's things.*


*Denotes sarcasm.