The "Con" in Conservative - DFWstangs Forums
View Poll Results: Is Bush too Konservative?
She-it, he makes hitler look like a liberal 3 33.33%
No, not corrupt enough 0 0%
Yes...no doubt 4 44.44%
politics is dumb 2 22.22%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-29-2004, 10:19 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20
The "Con" in Conservative

Here is a catalogue of some of the major issues on the national agenda. In every single one of them, the conservative position advances the cause of “cheap labor”. I defy any conservative reading this to show me one single conservative position, belief, principle or policy that has any tendency to boost the earning power of labor.

1. DUBYA’S TAX CUTS AND RESULTING BUDGET DEFICITS. Twenty years ago, cheap-labor conservatives claimed that tax cuts would stimulate the economy, and lead to balanced budgets. They don’t even bother spouting that crap any more. Now they say that deficits “aren’t so bad”, they don’t drive up interest rates, and they don’t create inflationary pressure.

Here’s the real skinny. The purpose behind tax cuts and budget deficits is to bankrupt the government.

Conservatives hate “social spending”. That’s what they mean by “big government”. They want you naked in as harsh an economic environment as they can create. But here’s the problem. Most ordinary people aren’t so ruthless. Most people think life is for living, not working your ass off until you drop. So if we the people can provide some basic social infrastructure for things like a basic retirement, assistance for higher education, unemployment compensation to get you through those Republican periods of high unemployment -- well, most people support all of that stuff. Conservatives lose elections when they talk about undoing it.

So the manipulative sons of bitches – who don’t really believe in your right as a citizen in a democracy to establish institutions that do you any good – have come up with a “stealth plan” to get rid of our entire social welfare infrastructure. It’s called “bankruptcy”, and it is not an accident that the first thing Dubya did when he took office was bring back the deficits Bill Clinton had eliminated.

2. OPPOSITION TO EVERY IMPROVEMENT IN WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN US HISTORY. This is obviously directly related to “cheap labor” and doesn’t require much further explanation. In fact, the heading serves as the “One Sentence Response” – and I would stress the “every improvement in US history”, all the way back to abolition of slavery, and such obvious reforms as child labor laws. Cheap-labor conservatives have never been the friend of working Americans. Ever.

3. OPPOSITION TO ANY SORT OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. Health care costs are outrageously expensive, and threaten people with financial ruin. Also, health insurance is primarily provided by employers through “group plans”. So if you lose your job, you lose your health coverage. This is not quite as a big a problem, since the passage of COBRA – which was opposed by guess who? That’s right, the cheap-labor conservatives.

In short, national health insurance would provide a huge measure of security for working Americans from potential financial catastrophe – which catastrophe is therefore no longer a force keeping you suitably intimidated by your employer.

4. SCHOOL VOUCHERS, OPPOSITION TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OPPOSITION TO LOCAL BOND ISSUES, ETC. Way back in the late nineteenth century – where the cheap-labor conservatives are trying to take us – conservatives opposed universal public education. You can go to “Freeper” right now and find cheap-labor conservatives who still oppose it. And the reason is simple. Ignorant and illiterate people have fewer options in life, making them fit subjects for “industrial serfdom”.

In other words, an ineffective public education system is necessary to create a semi-literate workforce of “industrial serfs”, which accounts for cheap-labor conservative opposition to increased teacher pay, smaller class sizes, improvements in physical infrastructure, and anything else that might actually work.

Let’s just propose a simple thought experiment. Suppose we had 95% functional literacy, with similar high school graduation rates, and vast numbers of those high school graduates going to college, or receiving specialized technical training. When everybody is properly educated, who is going to ride on the back of the garbage truck? Who is going to pick tomatoes? Who is going to digger footers on construction sites? And what kind of wages are such workers – who are in short supply and smart enough to know it – going to command?

But wait, there’s more. Let’s consider your average dittohead “wannabe” living in the suburbs. Does he really want his children competing with those “brown” children for a seat in the university? What interest does he have in universal education that actually works? And you know how conservatives are about their “self-interest”.

Well, he can’t very well advocate “resegregation”. So here’s what the cheap-labor conservatives came up with. “Vouchers”. Some of those “brown” children can escape from failing schools – but not all of them. As for the one’s that are “left behind”, well there’s a garbage truck with their name on it – assuming they don’t wind up in jail.

5. “LAW AND ORDER”. According to cheap-labor conservatives, the only legitimate function of government is to protect the fortunes and privilege of the “haves”. Economic progress like “full employment”, living wages, and first rate education system, all improve the living standards and prospects of the “working poor” – and the “cheap-labor conservatives” can’t have that, can they. So that leaves prison as the only “social program” the conservatives support. They say we “throw money at every problem”. Well “cheap-labor conservatives” throw prison at every problem.

6. “FAMILY VALUES” AND THE “CULTURE WAR.” They say they are defending American “culture” – but that “culture” is the culture of the corporate “middle class”. It features conformity, hierarchy, “respect for authority”, regimentation and other “values” of the industrial work place. In fact, America was founded by a group of decidedly undisciplined nonconformists. But that won’t do at all, if you want a docile workforce who will work cheap.

7. RACISM AND OTHER FORMS OF BIGOTRY. This one is amazingly easy to understand. Dividing working people against each other along racial, gender and ethnic lines keeps them from uniting along class lines. Consider the following example. In 1990, the nation was suffering under yet another period of Republican high unemployment. That was the year that Jesse Helms ran his famous “angry hands” commercial against Harvey Gantt, former African-American mayor of Charlotte. “You needed that job, but they had to give it to a minority.”

This gambit is 150 years old. The cheap-labor conservatives produce a high deficit, high interest rate, “structurally sluggish” economy – then tell struggling white wage-earners that the “problem” is “unqualified minorities”. It was classic “scapegoating”, when the real culprits were the cheap-labor conservatives who liked that sluggish economy.

And in case you doubt whether they liked the sluggish economy, consider the eight year tantrum they threw as President Clinton undid the deficits, brought interest rates down, and fueled an eight year economic boom, bringing unemployment to a 30 year low. Naturally, throwing a wrench into that economy was the first order of business after Dubya’s inauguration.

8. “RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.” Since prison and punishment are generally ineffective to reduce crime, and since the “cheap-labor conservatives” will hear of no economic improvements that are effective, “self defense” is about your only protection from crime. Instead of better schools, full employment and other improvements in social conditions, the cheap-labor conservative solution is “buy a gun”.

9. THE “WAR ON DRUGS”. Maybe you don’t see the “cheap-labor” connection. It’s there. The “libertarian” position on this is that what you choose to voluntarily ingest, is your business. And of course, marijuana isn’t nearly as bad for you as say, alcohol abuse. But cheap-labor conservatives don’t give a rat’s ass about you’re health, anyway.

What they do care about is delegitimizing the “counter-culture”. If they could do it, they would outlaw deviations from the conformist culture of the “corporate middle class”. They can’t do that directly, so they have come with a “back door” method. They find cultural practices – like smoking a joint – and punish those. Today, they deny education benefits if you have any drug conviction – even for simple possession. They have also encouraged this “privatized” harassment of corporate workers through drug screening, etc. in an effort to economically marginalize the “counter culture”. It is really an exquisitely efficient means to keep the industrial work force intimidated.

10. “PRO OIL” ENERGY POLICIES. Answer this question, why don’t we have efficient cost effective renewable energy systems? Why didn’t we follow Jimmy Carter’s advice in 1979, and undertake the “moral equivalent of war” for energy independence. The technology has been around for decades. In the case of hydrogen fuel cells, the first one was invented in 1843 – that’s “eighteen forty three”.

Energy is like labor in its central importance to the economy. But while conservatives want “cheap labor” they want “expensive energy” – in sources they can monopolize and control. Unfortunately, sunlight is like air. It’s kind of hard to “corner the market” on it. Meanwhile, the biggest beneficiary of “cheap energy” is the work force – who pay a larger portion of their income for energy. Well, we can’t have that. Lowering a wage earner’s “balance of payments” is just like giving him a raise. The same logic, by the way, motivates a “high interest rate” environment.

Now you know why conservatives bad mouth “renewable energy”, and claim that the government “has no business” subsidizing R&D into this technology – as if the government hasn’t subsidized R&D into virtually every piece of high tech gadgetry in your house. Meanwhile, there is one form of “alternative energy” they like. Nuclear power. Why? Because nuclear power is horrendously expensive, and can be monopolized by the huge corporations selling it.

Meanwhile, they support destruction of pristine habitats like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and unlawful invasions of sovereign nations -- sitting on a “sea of oil” to use the words of Paul Wolfowitz. All of which proves that the cheap-labor conservatives will do anything – and I mean anything – to prevent any improvement in the wage earner’s economic circumstances, including making sure he doesn’t have access to “cheap energy”.

11. THE INVASION OF IRAQ AND THE “BUSH DOCTRINE”. Perhaps, you thought this should be first – since it is highest on the national agenda right at the moment. Actually, the War in Iraq is an aggregate application of a number of simpler “cheap-labor” policies. First of all, Republican “demonization” notwithstanding, Saddam Hussein was a “target of opportunity”. Paul Wolfowitz said so. Saddam sat atop a really odious regime, in a country sitting atop a “sea of oil” – to again quote Paul Wolfowitz. As for global opposition to the US invasion, that was not an “unforeseen complication”. It was another ”opportunity”. In fact, one of the objectives was to demonstrate to the world that the US can do whatever it wants.

But what about the “cheap-labor” angle, you ask. The invasion of Iraq is the first step in establishing a US led global corporate empire, with a wealthy corporate elite living off of a global pool of “cheap labor”.

Don’t’ believe it? Go to whitehouse.gov and look at the National Security Strategy of the United States. This remarkable document lays out the “cheap-labor” foreign policy of the United States. In addition to the doctrine of “pre-emption – which is nothing new, we’ve been doing it for fifty years – there is the general strategy of “forward deployment” of US forces in the middle east and east Asia, along with the express goal of “discouraging” the emergence of a military rival.

But the National Security Strategy doesn’t stop there. It goes on to discuss which internal policies of other nations the US will “encourage”. Guess what those policies are? The very same policies they are promoting here, including “free trade”, “flattening” tax rates, shifting taxes away from passive investments, reducing the “public sector”, and generally paving the way for corporations to dominate other societies.

The US military will be the “police force” for this global “corporate order”, and Iraq is nothing more than the start of establishing the “military pre-eminance” of that “global police force”. Notice that the neocons are specifically intent on destabilizing international organizations that don’t promote corporate dominance. The conservatives don’t like the World Court, the United Nations or similar organizations. But GATT, the IMF and the World Bank don’t bother them a bit – since those organizations undermine the ability of third world nations to establish anything like our “New Deal mixed economy". And don’t forget, the cheap-labor conservatives are busy destabilizing our own “New Deal mixed economy”, in favor of an economy that strongly resembles present conditions in say, Argentina.

In short, the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with any “threat” of weapons of mass destruction. Neither do the cheap-labor conservatives really care about a “dictatorial regime” – since they prop plenty of them up, and even supported Saddam Hussein in years gone by. The real purpose of the invasion of Iraq is to provide a demonstration of American military “pre-eminance” – which will ultimately translate into global corporate “pre-eminance”. If you want another word for this “cheap-labor” foreign policy, try “corporate feudalism”.
KorruptKonservatives is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-29-2004, 10:31 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 95
haha awesome, took me a while to read. but awesome
DanielMc is offline  
post #3 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-29-2004, 10:41 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Thornton, CO
Posts: 778
I will start here:
In short, national health insurance would provide a huge measure of security for working Americans from potential financial catastrophe – which catastrophe is therefore no longer a force keeping you suitably intimidated by your employer.

WRONG!!!
I do not want the government controlling my health control PERIOD! Setting prices on what each surgery should cost and how much THEY are willing to pay for certain procedures. Also, if I get cancer(god-forbid) and the government sees its cheaper to them if I die in 6 months as opposed to giving me the treatment and surgeries I need to keep me alive for another 3 years and they wont spend the money to keep me alive. NO THANK YOU. This is bad business PERIOD.
fastfordfan1 is offline  
 
post #4 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 12:50 AM
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
that read was fabulous here is some useful info...


Fobra is offline  
post #5 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 10:18 AM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Re: The "Con" in Conservative

Quote:
Originally posted by KorruptKonservatives
Here is a catalogue of some of the major issues on the national agenda. In every single one of them, the conservative position advances the cause of “cheap labor”. I defy any conservative reading this to show me one single conservative position, belief, principle or policy that has any tendency to boost the earning power of labor.

1. DUBYA’S TAX CUTS AND RESULTING BUDGET DEFICITS. Twenty years ago, cheap-labor conservatives claimed that tax cuts would stimulate the economy, and lead to balanced budgets. They don’t even bother spouting that crap any more. Now they say that deficits “aren’t so bad”, they don’t drive up interest rates, and they don’t create inflationary pressure.

Here’s the real skinny. The purpose behind tax cuts and budget deficits is to bankrupt the government.

Conservatives hate “social spending”. That’s what they mean by “big government”. They want you naked in as harsh an economic environment as they can create. But here’s the problem. Most ordinary people aren’t so ruthless. Most people think life is for living, not working your ass off until you drop. So if we the people can provide some basic social infrastructure for things like a basic retirement, assistance for higher education, unemployment compensation to get you through those Republican periods of high unemployment -- well, most people support all of that stuff. Conservatives lose elections when they talk about undoing it.

So the manipulative sons of bitches – who don’t really believe in your right as a citizen in a democracy to establish institutions that do you any good – have come up with a “stealth plan” to get rid of our entire social welfare infrastructure. It’s called “bankruptcy”, and it is not an accident that the first thing Dubya did when he took office was bring back the deficits Bill Clinton had eliminated.

2. OPPOSITION TO EVERY IMPROVEMENT IN WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN US HISTORY. This is obviously directly related to “cheap labor” and doesn’t require much further explanation. In fact, the heading serves as the “One Sentence Response” – and I would stress the “every improvement in US history”, all the way back to abolition of slavery, and such obvious reforms as child labor laws. Cheap-labor conservatives have never been the friend of working Americans. Ever.

3. OPPOSITION TO ANY SORT OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. Health care costs are outrageously expensive, and threaten people with financial ruin. Also, health insurance is primarily provided by employers through “group plans”. So if you lose your job, you lose your health coverage. This is not quite as a big a problem, since the passage of COBRA – which was opposed by guess who? That’s right, the cheap-labor conservatives.

In short, national health insurance would provide a huge measure of security for working Americans from potential financial catastrophe – which catastrophe is therefore no longer a force keeping you suitably intimidated by your employer.

4. SCHOOL VOUCHERS, OPPOSITION TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OPPOSITION TO LOCAL BOND ISSUES, ETC. Way back in the late nineteenth century – where the cheap-labor conservatives are trying to take us – conservatives opposed universal public education. You can go to “Freeper” right now and find cheap-labor conservatives who still oppose it. And the reason is simple. Ignorant and illiterate people have fewer options in life, making them fit subjects for “industrial serfdom”.

In other words, an ineffective public education system is necessary to create a semi-literate workforce of “industrial serfs”, which accounts for cheap-labor conservative opposition to increased teacher pay, smaller class sizes, improvements in physical infrastructure, and anything else that might actually work.

Let’s just propose a simple thought experiment. Suppose we had 95% functional literacy, with similar high school graduation rates, and vast numbers of those high school graduates going to college, or receiving specialized technical training. When everybody is properly educated, who is going to ride on the back of the garbage truck? Who is going to pick tomatoes? Who is going to digger footers on construction sites? And what kind of wages are such workers – who are in short supply and smart enough to know it – going to command?

But wait, there’s more. Let’s consider your average dittohead “wannabe” living in the suburbs. Does he really want his children competing with those “brown” children for a seat in the university? What interest does he have in universal education that actually works? And you know how conservatives are about their “self-interest”.

Well, he can’t very well advocate “resegregation”. So here’s what the cheap-labor conservatives came up with. “Vouchers”. Some of those “brown” children can escape from failing schools – but not all of them. As for the one’s that are “left behind”, well there’s a garbage truck with their name on it – assuming they don’t wind up in jail.

5. “LAW AND ORDER”. According to cheap-labor conservatives, the only legitimate function of government is to protect the fortunes and privilege of the “haves”. Economic progress like “full employment”, living wages, and first rate education system, all improve the living standards and prospects of the “working poor” – and the “cheap-labor conservatives” can’t have that, can they. So that leaves prison as the only “social program” the conservatives support. They say we “throw money at every problem”. Well “cheap-labor conservatives” throw prison at every problem.

6. “FAMILY VALUES” AND THE “CULTURE WAR.” They say they are defending American “culture” – but that “culture” is the culture of the corporate “middle class”. It features conformity, hierarchy, “respect for authority”, regimentation and other “values” of the industrial work place. In fact, America was founded by a group of decidedly undisciplined nonconformists. But that won’t do at all, if you want a docile workforce who will work cheap.

7. RACISM AND OTHER FORMS OF BIGOTRY. This one is amazingly easy to understand. Dividing working people against each other along racial, gender and ethnic lines keeps them from uniting along class lines. Consider the following example. In 1990, the nation was suffering under yet another period of Republican high unemployment. That was the year that Jesse Helms ran his famous “angry hands” commercial against Harvey Gantt, former African-American mayor of Charlotte. “You needed that job, but they had to give it to a minority.”

This gambit is 150 years old. The cheap-labor conservatives produce a high deficit, high interest rate, “structurally sluggish” economy – then tell struggling white wage-earners that the “problem” is “unqualified minorities”. It was classic “scapegoating”, when the real culprits were the cheap-labor conservatives who liked that sluggish economy.

And in case you doubt whether they liked the sluggish economy, consider the eight year tantrum they threw as President Clinton undid the deficits, brought interest rates down, and fueled an eight year economic boom, bringing unemployment to a 30 year low. Naturally, throwing a wrench into that economy was the first order of business after Dubya’s inauguration.

8. “RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.” Since prison and punishment are generally ineffective to reduce crime, and since the “cheap-labor conservatives” will hear of no economic improvements that are effective, “self defense” is about your only protection from crime. Instead of better schools, full employment and other improvements in social conditions, the cheap-labor conservative solution is “buy a gun”.

9. THE “WAR ON DRUGS”. Maybe you don’t see the “cheap-labor” connection. It’s there. The “libertarian” position on this is that what you choose to voluntarily ingest, is your business. And of course, marijuana isn’t nearly as bad for you as say, alcohol abuse. But cheap-labor conservatives don’t give a rat’s ass about you’re health, anyway.

What they do care about is delegitimizing the “counter-culture”. If they could do it, they would outlaw deviations from the conformist culture of the “corporate middle class”. They can’t do that directly, so they have come with a “back door” method. They find cultural practices – like smoking a joint – and punish those. Today, they deny education benefits if you have any drug conviction – even for simple possession. They have also encouraged this “privatized” harassment of corporate workers through drug screening, etc. in an effort to economically marginalize the “counter culture”. It is really an exquisitely efficient means to keep the industrial work force intimidated.

10. “PRO OIL” ENERGY POLICIES. Answer this question, why don’t we have efficient cost effective renewable energy systems? Why didn’t we follow Jimmy Carter’s advice in 1979, and undertake the “moral equivalent of war” for energy independence. The technology has been around for decades. In the case of hydrogen fuel cells, the first one was invented in 1843 – that’s “eighteen forty three”.

Energy is like labor in its central importance to the economy. But while conservatives want “cheap labor” they want “expensive energy” – in sources they can monopolize and control. Unfortunately, sunlight is like air. It’s kind of hard to “corner the market” on it. Meanwhile, the biggest beneficiary of “cheap energy” is the work force – who pay a larger portion of their income for energy. Well, we can’t have that. Lowering a wage earner’s “balance of payments” is just like giving him a raise. The same logic, by the way, motivates a “high interest rate” environment.

Now you know why conservatives bad mouth “renewable energy”, and claim that the government “has no business” subsidizing R&D into this technology – as if the government hasn’t subsidized R&D into virtually every piece of high tech gadgetry in your house. Meanwhile, there is one form of “alternative energy” they like. Nuclear power. Why? Because nuclear power is horrendously expensive, and can be monopolized by the huge corporations selling it.

Meanwhile, they support destruction of pristine habitats like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and unlawful invasions of sovereign nations -- sitting on a “sea of oil” to use the words of Paul Wolfowitz. All of which proves that the cheap-labor conservatives will do anything – and I mean anything – to prevent any improvement in the wage earner’s economic circumstances, including making sure he doesn’t have access to “cheap energy”.

11. THE INVASION OF IRAQ AND THE “BUSH DOCTRINE”. Perhaps, you thought this should be first – since it is highest on the national agenda right at the moment. Actually, the War in Iraq is an aggregate application of a number of simpler “cheap-labor” policies. First of all, Republican “demonization” notwithstanding, Saddam Hussein was a “target of opportunity”. Paul Wolfowitz said so. Saddam sat atop a really odious regime, in a country sitting atop a “sea of oil” – to again quote Paul Wolfowitz. As for global opposition to the US invasion, that was not an “unforeseen complication”. It was another ”opportunity”. In fact, one of the objectives was to demonstrate to the world that the US can do whatever it wants.

But what about the “cheap-labor” angle, you ask. The invasion of Iraq is the first step in establishing a US led global corporate empire, with a wealthy corporate elite living off of a global pool of “cheap labor”.

Don’t’ believe it? Go to whitehouse.gov and look at the National Security Strategy of the United States. This remarkable document lays out the “cheap-labor” foreign policy of the United States. In addition to the doctrine of “pre-emption – which is nothing new, we’ve been doing it for fifty years – there is the general strategy of “forward deployment” of US forces in the middle east and east Asia, along with the express goal of “discouraging” the emergence of a military rival.

But the National Security Strategy doesn’t stop there. It goes on to discuss which internal policies of other nations the US will “encourage”. Guess what those policies are? The very same policies they are promoting here, including “free trade”, “flattening” tax rates, shifting taxes away from passive investments, reducing the “public sector”, and generally paving the way for corporations to dominate other societies.

The US military will be the “police force” for this global “corporate order”, and Iraq is nothing more than the start of establishing the “military pre-eminance” of that “global police force”. Notice that the neocons are specifically intent on destabilizing international organizations that don’t promote corporate dominance. The conservatives don’t like the World Court, the United Nations or similar organizations. But GATT, the IMF and the World Bank don’t bother them a bit – since those organizations undermine the ability of third world nations to establish anything like our “New Deal mixed economy". And don’t forget, the cheap-labor conservatives are busy destabilizing our own “New Deal mixed economy”, in favor of an economy that strongly resembles present conditions in say, Argentina.

In short, the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with any “threat” of weapons of mass destruction. Neither do the cheap-labor conservatives really care about a “dictatorial regime” – since they prop plenty of them up, and even supported Saddam Hussein in years gone by. The real purpose of the invasion of Iraq is to provide a demonstration of American military “pre-eminance” – which will ultimately translate into global corporate “pre-eminance”. If you want another word for this “cheap-labor” foreign policy, try “corporate feudalism”.
Wow, am I the only one that sees the trend here?

The common theme seems to be.... raise taxes, give more money to the government and let them dole it out to everyone who thinks they need it.

Sounds a lot like Socialism to me.

No thanks, i don't need good Old Uncle Sam to manage my health care, my retirement or anything else. I'm more than capable.
AL P is offline  
post #6 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 10:36 AM
Boost is Good
 
The Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: With Weapons of Mass Instruction
Posts: 3,135
hey Korrupt Socialist. This is for you...

Stand by or fight while Obama wages his war against capitalism...
The Punisher is offline  
post #7 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 11:56 AM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally posted by 281R
hey Korrupt Socialist. This is for you...
Ok so you don't support welfare, and you don't support abortion. So you expect mothers to have their kids, but you don't necessarily care what hjappens to that little baby once they start to grow up and their mom loses her job. As long as she has the kid, right??

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #8 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 12:01 PM
Boost is Good
 
The Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: With Weapons of Mass Instruction
Posts: 3,135
Quote:
Originally posted by BadLXHB302
Ok so you don't support welfare, and you don't support abortion. So you expect mothers to have their kids, but you don't necessarily care what hjappens to that little baby once they start to grow up and their mom loses her job. As long as she has the kid, right??
How about momma has 6 or 7 kids, we should just hand her a paycheck for every kid right? America is the land of the free, not the land of the socialized government.

Stand by or fight while Obama wages his war against capitalism...
The Punisher is offline  
post #9 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 12:05 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
That's why therre's regulations set on it, by your good 'ol friend Bill Clinton. what baout social security, you against that, too??

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #10 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 12:10 PM
Boost is Good
 
The Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: With Weapons of Mass Instruction
Posts: 3,135
Quote:
Originally posted by BadLXHB302
That's why therre's regulations set on it, by your good 'ol friend Bill Clinton. what baout social security, you against that, too??
Limitations with loop holes. Social Security, I would say don't count on it to support you after you retire.

Stand by or fight while Obama wages his war against capitalism...
The Punisher is offline  
post #11 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 12:16 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
What kinda loop holes are you talking about?? I think the 5 year limit is pretty damn stiff. Social security was never meant to be a sole source of income, it's merely supplemental. Why does it matter, anyway, it won't even be existent when I will be eligible for it. Thanks to you and your people

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #12 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 01:22 PM
Boost is Good
 
The Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: With Weapons of Mass Instruction
Posts: 3,135
Quote:
Originally posted by BadLXHB302
What kinda loop holes are you talking about??
Do a search on the internet and you'll find plenty

Stand by or fight while Obama wages his war against capitalism...
The Punisher is offline  
post #13 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 04:16 PM
Worship me
 
AL P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 34,345
Quote:
Originally posted by BadLXHB302
Ok so you don't support welfare, and you don't support abortion. So you expect mothers to have their kids, but you don't necessarily care what hjappens to that little baby once they start to grow up and their mom loses her job. As long as she has the kid, right??
It's called personal accountability. You might want to check into it sometime. It's a concept wherein people are responsible for their own actions and their own well being.
AL P is offline  
post #14 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-30-2004, 07:35 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Tell that to your pro-life brothers.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #15 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 11:42 AM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
Quote:
Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
that read was fabulous here is some useful info...
If you can sit through this, take a look at the good ol' attorney general himself, back in the day. Read especially "B. Ashcroft's Missouri Years Summarized" and don't forget to pay special attention to "2. Desegregation and Other Civil Rights Issues." And you think the liberals are bad? Thank God I'm white with him watching over my civil liberties. The Patriot Act says to me this: Middle Eastern Brown is just another shade of black.

Ashcroft
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #16 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 12:15 PM
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
If you can sit through this, take a look at the good ol' attorney general himself, back in the day. Read especially "B. Ashcroft's Missouri Years Summarized" and don't forget to pay special attention to "2. Desegregation and Other Civil Rights Issues." And you think the liberals are bad? Thank God I'm white with him watching over my civil liberties. The Patriot Act says to me this: Middle Eastern Brown is just another shade of black.

Ashcroft
You are forgetting the time frame when this stuff was occuring. Lots of racism from both sides (left and right) from whites happened, it's alittle different these days. Why would you bring up John Ashcroft anyway? Last time I checked he was a democrat.

Fobra is offline  
post #17 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 01:43 PM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
Quote:
Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
You are forgetting the time frame when this stuff was occuring. Lots of racism from both sides (left and right) from whites happened, it's alittle different these days. Why would you bring up John Ashcroft anyway? Last time I checked he was a democrat.
Nobody said anything about parties, and twenty years ago? It's a little different now, not much. But the thing is, he fought desegregation, equal rights for equal people, right? Bush appointed him to watch out for every American's God-given, unalienable civil liberties.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #18 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 02:46 PM
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
Nobody said anything about parties, and twenty years ago? It's a little different now, not much. But the thing is, he fought desegregation, equal rights for equal people, right? Bush appointed him to watch out for every American's God-given, unalienable civil liberties.
He fought that stuff a long time ago, is it really necessary to hold somebody accountable for those actions to this day?

Fobra is offline  
post #19 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 02:57 PM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
Quote:
Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
He fought that stuff a long time ago, is it really necessary to hold somebody accountable for those actions to this day?
1982 wasn't too awful long ago. It was after John Kerry got back from Vietnam and made waves.
Aside from that, those conservative bastards that don't want too much government control are the ones chanting, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Am I right?
It wouldn't be so bad if he'd said, "My bad," instead of "I inherited that case from my predecessor."


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #20 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 03:06 PM
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino

Aside from that, those conservative bastards that don't want too much government control are the ones chanting, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Am I right?

Nope, you are not right, I dont hear any of that segregation stuff in our current time. If there are people that do that, you have to understand that those people are small minority that want segregation, dont paint conservatives as if they all support segregation, that is just ludicrous.


Last edited by x_redhotcobra_x; 05-01-2004 at 04:56 PM.
Fobra is offline  
post #21 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 03:38 PM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
Quote:
Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
Nope, you are not right, I dont here any of that segregation stuff in our current time. If there are people that do that, you have to understand that those people are small minority that want segregation, dont paint conservatives as if they all support segregation, that is just ludicrous.
No, I agree, not all conservatives support segregation, but some do, and one of the major proponents is the watch dog for that kind of thing.
And wealthy people and politicians are a very small minority, but they're still the ones in control.

Read This, He's Not Alone


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #22 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 04:03 PM
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
No, I agree, not all conservatives support segregation, but some do, and one of the major proponents is the watch dog for that kind of thing.
And wealthy people and politicians are a very small minority, but they're still the ones in control.

Read This, He's Not Alone
This does not mean I support Ashcrofts racial views nor does it mean conservatives do, he just sticks out like sore thumb on that issue. One thing I do support the Bush administration on that Ashcroft supports is the Patriot Act. Unfortunatly it may play as a sterotype, but we have to understand that majority of the threats come from the middle east and we must take extra precautions to make sure we never see another 9/11 again. I know this is slightly off topic but ask yourself this, are you hiding anything that the government may deem as a threat to our security? If not, then dont worry about it because the government cant really prove anything if they come after you and you honestly have nothing they want.

The only reason I bring the patriot Act up is because I remember you talked about it earlier on.


Last edited by x_redhotcobra_x; 05-01-2004 at 04:05 PM.
Fobra is offline  
post #23 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 04:55 PM
#4 Best QB Ever
 
That_Is_My_El_Camino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Land of the Free
Posts: 29,339
Quote:
Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
Unfortunatly it may play as a sterotype, but we have to understand that majority of the threats come from the middle east and we must take extra precautions to make sure we never see another 9/11 again. I know this is slightly off topic but ask yourself this, are you hiding anything that the government may deem as a threat to our security? If not, then dont worry about it because the government cant really prove anything if they come after you and you honestly have nothing they want.
And so these extra precautions include holding Arab-looking men and women without charge and indefinitely? I'm not old enough, but I've heard stories about this. It happened back during World War II, and not just on Germany's side. True, they killed the Jews, but we rounded up Japanese and held them on suspicion of being spies or saboteurs (effectively terrorists). It wasn't right then, and it still isn't right now. Give them a trial and let them go or, if they're guilty of treason or terrorism, hang them high (figuratively, of course).


Quote:
Originally Posted by DON SVO View Post
Women: vaginal life support.
That_Is_My_El_Camino is offline  
post #24 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-01-2004, 05:08 PM
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
Quote:
Originally posted by That_Is_My_El_Camino
And so these extra precautions include holding Arab-looking men and women without charge and indefinitely? I'm not old enough, but I've heard stories about this. It happened back during World War II, and not just on Germany's side. True, they killed the Jews, but we rounded up Japanese and held them on suspicion of being spies or saboteurs (effectively terrorists). It wasn't right then, and it still isn't right now. Give them a trial and let them go or, if they're guilty of treason or terrorism, hang them high (figuratively, of course).
This was a conversation I had in my political science class forum. Hopefully this will answer some of your questions, in all honesty, the questions that were directed to me took some thinking, but I think they are logically thought out.

>In what specific situations should the patroit act be
>utilized?

In any case where our government officials feel that they need to investigate a credible potential threat. In my opinion, they need to investigate all potential credible threats.

>Could you please define "suspicious looking"
>characteristics and what actions should be taken in
>reaction to differing physical (or other)
>characteristics.

This is not a matter of characterizing people by physical attributes. Again, back to my first statement, this gets into which professional agents that are trained in terrorism and crime feel are suitable candidates to look at. It seems obvious that a certain amount of potential candidates into today’s world could be of middle eastern decent. Obviously other people of non-middle eastern decent need to be investigated because some of them are getting involved in terrorism, such as Richard Reed. He was the guy who put a bomb in his shoe and was going to blow himself up on a plan from Britain to the U.S. Lets not forget who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and nose dived one into the ground in Pennsylvania. By no means am I suggesting all people from the middle east are terrorist because they are not, but undoubtedly, there is a threat coming from that part of the world.

>How far should the government go in terms of limits, if
>any, while operating under the Patroit Act?

I am not so sure I want to concentrate on limits, but allow the professional agents to decide what the limits are based on the Patriot Act and relative to the level of potential threat they feel we are facing. Again the overwhelming majority of the people in the U.S. really don’t have anything to hide and are not involved in terrorism.

>How long should the government apply the Patriot Act in
>individual cases?

Until such time the professional government agency is satisfied that the potential threat is understood and neutralized. Bare in mind that in order to hold somebody for a period of time by the government, they would have to have reasonable cause. People can take this limit stuff to extremes, but by in large, the overwhelming majority of government agents and agencies do the right thing without injustice. One thing I would offer for thought is to think that these government agencies are fighting a war and we need to be less critical of potential errors and more supportive of their efforts.

>If charges are made, how should the individual be
>prosecuted (if you believe, for instance, that a
>non-standard court should convene or if citizens should
>be prosecuted differently than non-citizens)?

I do believe that non-citizens should be prosecuted differently if the crime is one related to terrorism or mass murder. We have seen this in the past where military tribunals tried non-citizen combatants for war crimes. We have to be cautious not to play in the hand of terrorist who feel they can hide behind our legal system and either get away from being prosecuted or flee the country. Military tribunals have been used to prosecute mass murderers and terrorist. The system tends to be very swift without court delays which results in either being exonerated or convicted. In either situation with how the people are tried, I am very confident that reasonable professional people will be used and they will have honest intent in their judgement.

I know the Japanese case during WWII was very disrespectful, but that was during a time of war and the government did not want to take chances of an attack on our soil. If you recall, in the 1980's, Reagan gave the existing families that lived in those camps $20,000 as a way of saying sorry for our mistake.

Hope that helps clear some things up.


Last edited by x_redhotcobra_x; 05-01-2004 at 05:10 PM.
Fobra is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome