Concerned For America's Future...
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Monday, July 16, 2007 15:07
VIEWED: 1390
PAGE 1 of 2
For those of you who don't know already, a few things about me: (Bear with me, there is a point here.)
1) I might believe in God. I haven't gone down nor turned away from that path yet.
a) I don't go to church.
b) I believe that Evolution could very well be the way God went about creating everything.
2) I don't believe that Government should interfear with Church business and vice versa.
a) Homosexuality and Homosexual marriages, and all of the government and work benefits that come with marriage, should be recognized legally and just as legitimately as a traditional marriage in this country.
b) Conversely, Government should never interfear with Church business and tell them who they have to cater to, particularly, should they desire not to have homosexuals in their congregations. (Same goes for Boyscouts or other organizations, so long as they don't promote or condone violence against homosexuality)
3) People should be responsible for their own actions without ever resorting to government bailouts.
a) If I can't afford lung surgery when I get cancer from smoking, I should be left to suffer and eventually die for the choices I've made. (I don't blame Big Tobacco for being addicted now, no matter how many "Truth" commercials you show me. There is Nobody to blame but myself.)
b)Likewise, I should not be forced into an Unconstitutional tax on cigarettes, simply because smokers are the only minority left to be BLATENTLY descriminated against everyday in this country.
4) I have no faith in our CURRENT Government, across the board. Not just the Administration.
a) I fear and loathe Republicans.
b) I fear and loathe Democrats.
c) I've hated and completely distrusted the current administration since we left Afghanistan to invade Iraq.
d) I've never bought a single reason they have given us for our kids dying over there and billions of dollars being pissed away, forcing the FED to print up more, causing my buying power to consistantly drop.
5) If something is popular, I tend to stay far away. Likewise, if something I'm into becomes popular, I tend to lose interest, or change my point of view quickly.
And finally... I've always been vocal about every one of these issues. If one were to check my history of posts, I am confident that anything relating to the issues above should all be congruent with the above personal facts.
Now, to the business at hand.....
I've been hating on Bush now for years, and had my due share of retaliation directed my way for it, in real life and in "virtual land" here. Suddenly though, hating on Bush has become more popular than American Idol virtually overnight. And this includes his croneys who have towed his line for years. That in itself makes me suspicious, but when coupled with some seemingly unrelated happenings, I am in fear of something possibly much greater than losing our rights to Our Government. (To think that such a thing was even possible.....)
It's not so much the sheeple changing their minds that bothers me, because it's not hard to change the sheeple's mind through corporate propoganda and media influence, but the very fact that the criminal Liberal media which has kept their mouth shut or at least curbed their hatred of Bush for the most part for years (when they haven't been outright kissing his ass), has unleashed that bloodlust and laid the smack down brutally now and it seems nearly everybody's hopped on the GWB Hate Train that I've been riding for years. I don't like being on the popular side, especially THIS popular of a side. Way too popular. Something seems very wrong to me about this. It reeks of pre-meditation and manipulation to me...
Fear not though.... I'm not suggesting that I'm about to join the GWB fan club now. 
Yesterday, I tried defending Christianity and even Republicanism on Digg in the forum of one of several front page articles saying things such as "Republicans Attack Science Again" by trying to seperate Bush from both.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like your list of points. I think most people agree with most of them.
As to Digg I don't go there but I've been on the internet since it was a baby and the one thing that never changes is that if you have a strong opinion on anything someone will try and grind you down because of it. I just stop talking to them because to acknowledge it just feeds their egos. It works, try it.
As to the final points.
1) Bush the Christian. First, I don't think you could elect an atheist as President in this country because the underlying bias is that Christians are moral and none Christians aren't. Since most voters want at least the illusion of electing good moral leaders the folks that make a success of getting into high office have to play the religion card, if you don't do it the other guy will and so at minimum you have to neutralise the issue. That said the Christian right can mobilise vast numbers of volenteers and generate a lot of campaign money. I'm told nobody works harder on campaigns than some of the Christain groups and in tight elections where having someone come to your door can swing a voter, that's a big deal. As a result I can't imagine any Republican giving up such a huge tactical advantage on principle, they want to be elected too badly, and if the price of keeping the faithfull pounding the pavements and writing cheques is to suck up to the Dobsons of this world they will.
George is playing the Republican play book, it's just bidness.
2) Bush the Republican
In the UK we have a different system. The leader of the government, the Prime Minister, is the leader of the largest party after an election. He comes to power on the basis of his party's popularity and based on his party's platform. As such his not directly elected and has no individual mandate. Consequently he can't really go it alone even if he's convinced he's right because in the end he represents the party and they can replace him --- just like Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair.
In the US the president is elected seperately and has his own powers and mandate. This means that members of his own party can't quite as easily unseat him. However, because he is a seperate actor his party also has a high degree of plausable deniability if they believe he's going in the wrong direction. It has been suggested before by posters here that Bush is not a "true Republican" but the fact remains that the Republicans in congress have continued to support him when as has been demonstrated they have some leeway to be critical. If he really was a cockoo in the nest it would be in their interest to call him out since it's their good name he's messing with. Since it's taken 6 years before anyone other than Dr Paul has stood up and called him on any of this stuff and as he's had the very vocal support of most of the high ranking Reps in congress during that time I can only assume that he's playing to their agenda. Now it could be that he's not behaving like you believe a Republican should, or how you might suggest Republicans have behaved in the past but the majority of the current party seems to believe he's within the Republican ranks. Look at Dr Paul, there have already been snipings to the effect that he's a Libertarian trying to be elected on a Republican ticket. If Bush's agenda differed that markedly from the Republican leaderships I would assume that they would have said similar things about him. Don't know what he is but the Reps have been happy to claim him.
3) Bush the conservative.
I was going to ask what a conservative was anyway, because there really isn't a great definition of what one should be. However, if we take the idealised view of the American conservative as peddled on this board what do we find. A group that favours small government, states rights, lower taxation and personal liberty/responsability. The problem that I see here with regards to Bush is that he isn't in a possition to do anything about any of these things except use the veto. He doesnt decide government programs so he doent decide the size of government, he can twist ar
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Excellent points there Fletch. I can't really find too much to argue with you about. Your assessment of what a Conservative is, is pretty much on the mark as well. The only thing I would add, which is the most important thing in my eyes, is that a Conservative does whatever is in their power to conserve the original intent of our Forefathers and Our Constitutional rights.
-----
As for the Religion, you're absolutely right. There is no way an atheist could be elected today. Possibly someday tomorrow, but I still think we're a long way away from that. I'll go as far as to say we'll see a Woman, African American, Mexican and Muslim president before we see an Atheist president. I'm sure he was playing the card, but he's played it fiercely and constantly has brought up God in his speeches, all the while setting himself up to be the most loathed president of all time. The hatered that I see Christians getting now, which is due in very large part to everything GWB, is unfortunate in my eyes. I think there is a lot of good things that religion has to offer that is being vastly overshadowed in the wake of Bush's presence in office.
-----
Bush the Republican - Bush is not a Republican, at least not in the sence of the Conservative type anyhow, which they used to be. You're right to compare him to his bretheren in both the house and the senate as well. I'm hesitant to say that they're all just like him, but even ones who aren't Globalists and Warmonguers like he is will go along with him 9 times out of 10 because they're all "R"s. You're also right about Ron Paul. He is the only Republican Congressman to continually run his entire life in politics as a Conservative, and by the Constitution. He has a record a mile long to prove it as well.
The way I see it. Today's Republican, in 80% of their capacity, is actually yesterday's Democrat. Today's Democrat, likewise, is yesterday's Socialist. But throw in Bush's Globalism and desire for Amnesty for all illegals living here and all the public aid on our dime that would entail, I believe that any Republican politician who actually supported Bush's decisions in the last 6 years is not only not a Conservative at all, but a borderline Socialist as well.
Bottom line is, I believe both parties would be happier tomorrow if that little piece of paper were to disappear forever.....
Which leaves the Libertarians. Today's Libertarian was yesterday's Republican. Hence, Ron Paul, the only Conservative in (Today's) Republican clothing.... at least, the only one with balls enough to stand by his convictions. I've never voted once in my life. I've never liked a politician before. I don't see how I cannot vote for Ron Paul though. I know he's not going to be enough on his own to perform the huge overhaul our Government so desperately needs, and Frem is probably right that he will be killed during his first term, but it's a start. He has a message of freedom and self accountability that is very important and I believe will pick up steam if we could really get him elected, possibly bringing in like minds in congress one day who together could start making these changes.
This two party bullshit has seriously got to go. They're so in bed with each other it's sick. And they bank on the fact that we're to stupid and/or lazy to do anything about it and that a third party will never be a threat to them.
The only reason that the maggots are scrambling to the other side now and assulting their party's leader now is because they're knee deep in shit. They've lost the House, They've lost the Senate, and in 2008 They're very likely to lose the Throne as well and they'll be virtually ineffective until they can somehow get somebody to vote for them again. Truth be told, unless some Republican with a message like Ron Paul's, or a message equally as revolutionary, was to actually get enough votes to get in, I think we're looking at 50 years of Democratic rule. This could possibly be the beginning of the death of the Republican party.
Quote:
Personal libNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(Since we're all kinda rantin, let's go for broke here)
That's thing Jack, the Neocons and related right wingdings scare the hell out of me with this Sieg-Heil bullshit...
But so too do the would-be Nannys of the left with their for-your-own-good bullshit, that reeks to me of Demolition Man and it's own form of tyranny...
I don't want either set of them bastards in my life, and it's a damn sad era when all we can hope for is to gridlock them against each other so they're too busy stomping each other to piss all over us.
As for setups, lets go back to Kerry rather blatantly taking a dive for his skull n bones buddy, or even further back - although medicore, I think the last really worthwhile prez we had was Carter who was almost a fluke and did more good after he was out of office than he ever did in it.
As far as religion and govt goes, let em do what the hell they please on ONE condition - yoink their damn tax exempt status, that just reeks of government sponsorship to me, especially since it's ten times harder for any non christian sect to get said exemption.
And don't even get me started on that faith based initiative shit, and so-called charities witholding assistance from non christians, grrr.
I'm actively hostile to christians and their religion, but am willing to put up with them so long as they behave and respect me and my right to not believe - which, let's be totally frank, they do not.
Let's skip all the nonsense about who's "really" christian and who ain't - thing is you got plenty of decent folk of that belief who're more than willing to live and let be, which is ok, but as long as folks who are NOT willing to do that are accepted by the greater mass of the belief they also represent it - so if i give mister nice guy one single inch, then mister fanatic moves in and fortifies the position while clamoring for more turf.
Doesn't mean I dislike folk personally for it, but it does mean a certain hostility and a pretty hard line is gonna get drawn, so don't take it personal cause it ain't, it's just a matter of necessity.
Marriage is a social and religious contract that is properly none of the Govs damned business, pun intended, and if you wanna marry your livestock I could care less, although I would restrict medical and financial benefits to sentient lifepartners as a general rule.
As far as Government in general goes, lemme put it to you this way - government is force, that's all it is, force to make someone do the will of that government or it's agents, up to and including lethal force.
Ponder for a moment, some guy parks his car in a spot where the Gov doesn't think he should, and he gets a ticket, a financial penalty - he then tears up said ticket, eventually resulting in loss of license, says hell with em, continues to drive.
3 weeks later, gets pulled over, cop attempts to place him in custory and take his vehicle, guy utterly refuses - cop offers force, guy responds in force, cop offers LETHAL force, guy winds up dead.
Every single law, no matter how stupid or minor, has that force, that escalation of force, behind it, because that is what government IS.
So, what "rules" would you, personally, honestly, really... be willing to kill someone over ?
I want you to think on that one, hard and long, how many stupid petty rules and laws exist, and ponder strongly the fact that every single one of them, if fully defied, can and will result in lethal force being levelled against the one defying it, and then ask yourself, how many of those rules and laws would YOU be fully willing to kill someone in order to enforce.
And with THAT firmly in mind, take a second look at our so-called Government, and ask yourself if you really support such a thing.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think much of the hatred direct toward Bush is flat out, off the rail, empty hysteria. Saw it with Clinton, to a lesser degree, when folks were damn certain that he was going to use the Y2K disaster to declare marshal law, round up dissenters into large concentration camps, etc.... There was no END to the ridiculousness of it all.
Now, the new 'haters' of Bush include many conservatives. I cannot by any stretch of my immagination understand why Bush is so willing to sell out the country and was pushing for this gawd awful idea of a 'comprehensive' immigration bill. There's simply no need for it when we have a flood of illegals coming across our borders. Bush offers no explanation, other than " see you at the bill signing" . Well, guess again, W. You've just insulted and pissed off the last group of folks who offered you ANY support. Bravo.
I fear for this country mainly because the Right no longer has a voice in Washington. Certainly not the voice it thought it had. The Left , there's no question as to what they believe, but the Right ? It seems no one has a gorram clue. Why there isn't another Newt Gingrich out there is beyond me. The Contract with America was a great idea, as it solidified what the GOP will fight for, and allowed all to see. Like what you see? Vote for us. Don't care for it? There are other choices, but we think we've made a pretty solid case for you to choose the GOP. Sadly, I fear that the country will go with a more cohesive Left wing, despite its terrible ideas, than a rudderless Right wing.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Bush the Republican - Bush is not a Republican, at least not in the sence of the Conservative type anyhow, which they used to be.
I think the problem here is that you're mixing up a party with an ideology. The Republican party has never been a "conservative" party in that not every member has supported all the goals we have defined as conservative. All political parties that have any success are big tent parties in that internally they are coalitions of smaller groups with different agendas. That they are together at all is because the agree on a number of key points, that does not mean that they agree on all of them. Consequently the Republican party has never been a conservative party, it's just been the party that had the most conservatives in it and consequently the one that has an agenda most in line with conservative thinking. So if you think that by voting republican you are nescessarily voting conservative you are not, and there has been evidence in recent years that they conservative vote is being "played" in the same way the religious vote is --- ie the politicos want to know you at election time or when they need money but are not too keen on follwoing through after that.
It's always struck me that small government conservatives always miss the big picture. Suppose they ever got what they wanted, States rights reverted leaving the Feds in charge of commerce, defence and a few other intra-state operations? If you do that then being a representative becomes almost a part time job. That was great for the Founders because they were amateur politicians, they had farms and businesses they had to run. The current batch in both parties though are not on the whole public servants, they are professional politicians, it's what they study for it's what they build a career doing. The influence they have outside of congress, the perks and a lot of their business dealings are tied to their political position, friends and influence.
Do you really think these folks would ever vote themselves out of a job? Not only that but effectively make the Federal political job obsolete?
How many Turkeys vote for thanksgiving?
Quote:
The way I see it. Today's Republican, in 80% of their capacity, is actually yesterday's Democrat. Today's Democrat, likewise, is yesterday's Socialist.
They're not Socialist. In fact American Democrats wouldnt even be considered a party of the left in Europe. Like I said at the beginning political parties are big tent affairs, essentially coalitions of smaller groups with similar interests. What you are right in saying is that what happened to the Reps also happened to the Dems. Let me run through what I think that was.
1) All Parties are actually collections of groups that share some similar goals. However, there will be conflicts. Because the whole party has to campign on one message one of the first things that happens is that party managers try to ride herd on these various interests and shape them into one policy. Increasingly this is done with focus groups, polls and PR. The parties "message" is shaped to fit as closely to their target audience as possible.
2) What is that target? Well the brass ring is the reasonably comfortable suburban middle class voter. Why? Because by and large he's the guy that has money to contribute to campaigns and will likely vote. Therefore no message or policy you put out will ever intensionally agrivate that group. But there is a kicker. While these folks are needed to win an election and will most likely stick a cheque in the mail, they are less likely to attend meetings, pound pavements and campaign for you. They are busy with work and other things.
3) So we have the activists, true believers in this and that, the folks motivated enough to get rained on for politicians. These are the foot soldiers of the parties. With the Reps, that's the conservatives and the religious right, for the Dems the loony lefties and the minorities. To keep them working you throw them
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Missed something but have to be quick.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Personal liberty goes out the windo in war time. Lincoln confescated weapons in border states (thus effectively breaking the 2nd ammendment) and suspended habius corpus.
Now this is where you lose me. I'm not arguing the Lincoln confescating weapons part. I'm just arguing the first sentence. I'm not sure if you stated it because you believe it or because historically this has happened, but I couldn't disagree with the notion more.
It's an historical perspective. I'm not saying that's how it has to be, just that that's how it tends to be. If Bush had kept his powder dry after 9/11 he would have been the exception rather than the rule.
Truth is that these kind of knee jerk reactiona are not just the ideas of power hungry politicos. Part of the thing Joe public wants to see when something like that happens is government responding to it. If the government does nothing the people feel insecure and the government looks weak. I understand that you look at the various Constitutional papers and see the Founders foresaw these kinds of chalenges to liberty but they were not seers, they just understood human reactions to crisis. Their fear was that government could exploit that fear against the people but it's also true that people's fear can influence government,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
....the politicos want to know you at election time or when they need money but are not too keen on follwoing through after that.
That's just it, ain't it? How come politicians are the only people who don't get sued for false advertising? Considering the fact that their job is much more important than say, Tide getting a stain out of clothes, I would think they would be held to a higher standard. I realize that it's not that cut-and-dry, but they don't even pretend to try to do what they promise before the election anymore.
During the last 6 years under a so-called Republican, I've seen my cigarette price increase 150% from taxes and I've witnessed this so-called Republican push hard for Amnesty and vote in the Real ID act. All three of these things are hard-core Liberal agendas performed under which was strong "Republican" influence, until the last election anyhow.
Quote:
Consequently the Republican party has never been a conservative party, it's just been the party that had the most conservatives in it and consequently the one that has an agenda most in line with conservative thinking.
Well that's part of my huge gripe here. Ask any of the Idol watching sheeple.... Conservatives are taking a beating for what Bush has done, and as already agreed upon, he is anything but Conservative. Nothing that's happened in the last 6 years could be qualified as Conservative, yet I'm willing to wager that an almost unanimous majority of Americans think "Republican = Conservative", just like they would think "Democrat = Liberal".
Quote:
Do you really think these folks would ever vote themselves out of a job? Not only that but effectively make the Federal political job obsolete?
Absolutely not. That's why I believe that Orwell had it wrong and you can only push the proles too far. I see a storm on the horizon, and because of their actions I think there is going to be a loss of life on our own land, at the hands of our own people, that makes 9/11 and all of the soldier's deaths in the MidEast ever since look like child's play. This isn't crazy talk. It's happened before. I see no reason why, if pushed far enough, the people won't rise against.
Quote:
So what does this mean in agrigate. First both parties are at least a little right of center because that is where the suburbanite swing vote is.
We're definately going to have to agree to disagree on this point. As I've said before, I've seen Liberal agenda after Liberal agenda get passed through these last 6 years behind the scenes and without much media coverage, while they dangle the war and oil and Paris Hilton and Kobe Bryant in front of our faces to distract us. I can't even begin to imagine how you would consider both parties slightly to the right of center when I figure them far to the left of center.
The blatant attempts at Globalism and the joining of Canada, US and Mexico scream Socialism through and through. I want to know how many people you think in the suburbs believe that we should all have a National ID card, want amnesty for illegals, or would support this:
http://www.spp.gov/
http://www.freedom.org/naugreen2/player.html
I'm not one for polls, but I would say a majority of the answers on this Yahoo question about it would sum up the "suburbanite" stance on this:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070404154044AAsSLtD
I'd like to figure out how you think any of this is "right" or in the interests of what the "suburbanite demographic" want. I honestly haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Quote:
Truth is that these kind of knee jerk reactiona are not just the ideas of power hungry politicos. Part of the thing Joe public wants to see when something like that happens is government responding to it. If the government does nothing the people feel insecure and the government looks weak. I understand that you look at the various Constitutional papers and see the Founders foresaw these kinds ofNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
By Fremdfirma:
That's thing Jack, the Neocons and related right wingdings scare the hell out of me with this Sieg-Heil bullshit...
But so too do the would-be Nannys of the left with their for-your-own-good bullshit, that reeks to me of Demolition Man and it's own form of tyranny...
That just about sums it up man. The Neocons made the Coservatives look so bad here that we're going to have the sickest nanny-state the world's ever seen since Demolition Man in the next 8 years.
Imagine a world where we're still not keeping score of Football games in High School.... or maybe we're still playing flag football in High School because insurance costs are far too high and the risk of injury is too great to justify full contact Football anymore.
That thought almost makes Soccer look appealing...
Quote:
I don't want either set of them bastards in my life, and it's a damn sad era when all we can hope for is to gridlock them against each other so they're too busy stomping each other to piss all over us.
That's my best arguement for having a Republican president, if Ron Paul isn't a contender in the end. A USA where the Demons have all three branches will be just as much a nightmare as the one we recently had with Rethugs in all three branches.... The only time our personal liberties aren't being pissed all over, at least as much, is when they're too busy fighting each other to notice that the proletariat is breathing again, temporarily, while they took their boots off our faces long enough to insert them up each other's asses.
Quote:
As far as religion and govt goes, let em do what the hell they please on ONE condition - yoink their damn tax exempt status, that just reeks of government sponsorship to me, especially since it's ten times harder for any non christian sect to get said exemption.
Agreed. I don't think either should have any say in the other's affairs. I've thought that churches should be taxed as well, but not so much for those reasons, though I don't argue any of them. I feel that Government has used the tax exempt status as a means of corrupting the church, just as it has used federal funding of schools to corrupt the schools and control the cirriculum. At the very least, the tax exempt status has left this door open for the Government. We might disagree on the reasons, but we agree that chruches should pay taxes.
Otherwise, on religion, I don't think I'm going to discuss it much more with you right now. I can tell you're agitated by it, and for your reasons, I can't say I blame you. I just think the actions of a few are making the whole look really bad. And Bush.... ain't a Christian.
Don't worry, I don't take it personally. Like I said, I don't know what I believe. I was born a Catholic and baptised, but I've never even been Confirmed, nor do I see any reason too. I likely believe in God, but I do not go to church or practice organized religion of any kind. Way I see it, that's between me and him.
Quote:
Marriage is a social and religious contract that is properly none of the Govs damned business, pun intended, and if you wanna marry your livestock I could care less, although I would restrict medical and financial benefits to sentient lifepartners as a general rule.
Absolutely right. Government has no business even knowing if you're married, as far as I'm concerned. But if we're going to give benefits to hetro couples, I don't see why the homo couples shouldn't get it either. Just don't go into the church and tell them how to run their shop. The Pope doesn't bust down the Oval Office doors and slap the dick out of George Bush's mouth.
Quote:
So, what "rules" would you, personally, honestly, really... be willing to kill someone over ?
Not many frem. I have my own rules. Don't steal my shit, don't hurt me, don't kill me... and the same for any of mine. Break any of those three, and your ass is getting shot.
http://myspace-468.vo.llnwd.net/01236/86/46/12364564
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:Quote:
So what does this mean in agrigate. First both parties are at least a little right of center because that is where the suburbanite swing vote is.
We're definately going to have to agree to disagree on this point. As I've said before, I've seen Liberal agenda after Liberal agenda get passed through these last 6 years behind the scenes and without much media coverage, while they dangle the war and oil and Paris Hilton and Kobe Bryant in front of our faces to distract us. I can't even begin to imagine how you would consider both parties slightly to the right of center when I figure them far to the left of center.
You see the world through the distorting mirror of US politics. There is no initiative that increases the public ownership of industry or utilities, with some exceptions there is less regulation, there is no move towards socialised health care. These things I think most would agree would be policies of the left and they are not there because the middle class right now doesnt support them enough to force them through.
I somehow dont think that constitutional amendments in states to ban gay marriage is a left wing initiative either. The US middle class remains slightly right of center compared to the rest of the world and your politics reflects it.
Quote:
The blatant attempts at Globalism and the joining of Canada, US and Mexico scream Socialism through and through. I want to know how many people you think in the suburbs believe that we should all have a National ID card, want amnesty for illegals, or would support this:
I think this just makes me wonder if you even know what Socialism means other than a boggieman work that equals "unAmerican." Globalisation is an extension of free market economics which is viewed by most people as an alternative to Keynesian theory. It is certainly not Socialist, which would attempt to manage the economy via regulation. This is incidentally why socialist and anarchist groups hold antiglobalisation rallys at the G8 every year. If you ask Sig I'm sure he'll tell you that Globalism is capitalism run riot (or something.) If you don't like it, then either it or you are wrong, that's not the same as things being "socialist."
You already have an ID card, in fact you have 2, a driver's licence and a SS card. You can't do anything, open a bank account, board a plane, buy something with a cheque without showing one or the other. The problem is that they are not secure and that means you either have to come up with a secure version (to combat ID theft and folks with false ID's) or scrap what you have now. I notice Dr Paul favors scrapping what you have now (or rather not allowing them to be used for anything except their exact purpose.) Strangely, that could work the UK didnt have photo drivers licences until recently and so had to come up with more secure bank and credit card systems instead.
Quote:
I'd like to figure out how you think any of this is "right" or in the interests of what the "suburbanite demographic" want. I honestly haven't a clue what you're talking about.
This is a straw man.... the modern equivalent of the idea from the 90's that Clinton was going to let the UN annex the US and rule the place from "Black helicopters." There will be no North American Union precisely because there is no middle class support for the concept. If you really think something like this could be pushed through without the concent of the American people you are nuts, for one thing any government proposing this would invalidate it's own legitimacy since the constitution garentees a republican form of government. This is petty nationalitic scare mongering for political ends. In addition it's interesting reading some of the responses from the site you linked. Those nice white Cannucks don't scare folk that much, they'd absorb them into the US but not the wetbacks.
You know, could be me but that doesnt sound like
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME