| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Webber on 10/22/2001; 12:26 PM The Unites States is a retarded country. Yeah I said it! Don't believe me? Just look at our President. Better yet, just look at a picture of a chimp. Our president represents whats wrong with this country. Last time I checked, most people voted for the other guy. Go figure. The election system is not my main concern though. Oh no. It is the legal drinking age. We live in a country where at age 18 we are allowed to gamble, buy porno, and buy a gun. In other words, the man would rather see me holding a loaded deadly weapon than a bottle containing non heart piercing liquid. When these crazy idiots go shooting up their school, did they go around with a bottle of Jim Beam bourbon? Stupid country. Whats up with the censorship system? Giant Food supermarkets are now putting up a protective binder in front of Cosmopolitan magazines to protect young children. Protect from what? The evil cover woman? In Giants eyes the cover woman on Cosmo is obviously not as evil as the woman on the protective binderless Vogue magazine next to it. Another thing that pisses me off is the way TV insults viewers intelligence by bleeping out cuss words. Why do they go to so much trouble to bleep out the u in the word fuck, but they are too goddamn stupid to bleep out the f and the ck. Hmmm, I wonder what Fck means. They do this to the word shit as well, bleeping out the I. Also, why do they blur middle fingers? I think if a blurry hand is in the air people are gonna read the sign language anyway. Speaking of middle fingers, I was on my way to school one morning and some little old lady cuts ME off and then gives ME the finger. Not the thumb, or index, or pinkie, or ring. And it wasnt even blurred out! Whats she so mad about? Was the cashier at the supermarket a bitch to her? Did she hit a parked car and actually got caught for once? It doesnt matter. Just remember. If you have the means, go to Canada. Now! End of rant.
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 4/11/2001; 9:03 AM >The election system is not my main concern though. Oh no. It is the legal >drinking age. We live in a country where at age 18 we are allowed to >gamble, buy porno, and buy a gun. Actually I think the weird thing is that you can't drink until you're 21, but you can be charged as an adult for a murder in some states at an age as young as 13. >Another thing that pisses me off is the way TV insults viewers' >intelligence by >bleeping out cuss words. Why do they go to so much trouble to bleep out >the "u" in the word fuck, but they are too goddamn stupid to bleep out the >"f" and the "ck." Hmmm, I wonder what Fck means. Also, why do they blur >middle fingers? I think if a blurry hand is in the air people are gonna >read the sign language anyway. Well, if you're talking broadcast television, they're required by law to do so -- and, in fact, the FCC has recently announced a crackdown on radio stations that have been ignoring the law in this area.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Evan on 5/19/2001; 4:37 PM Heh my brother argues with me about this all the time. He's seriously for lowering the drinking age. Louisiana was the last state to have the drinking age at 18 and raised it a few years ago. I think the theory behind it is that by spacing out the drinking age and the driving age they hope to help avert drunk driving. I personally think all the alcohol manufacturers should switch to making fruit juice but if people really want to down the stuff, then I guess its okay. I don't drink and probably won't ever as my state of mind is already apparently the way most people are when drunk. In fact at the graduation dance last night one of my peers asked me in all seriously whether I had been drinking or doing any drugs. Just because my dance partner was a baloon I had detached from the wall with a bread knife, does not mean I have been consuming mind-altering substances (although I had drunk a fair bit of Dr. Pepper at this point but was still below the threshold amount that can make me hallucinate. Oops I kind of digressed a bit didn't I? The big problem is people driving under the influence and hurting themselves and others. That's what the government is hoping to avert with the high drinking age. Unfortunately, its efficacy does not seem to be particularly high but I can see no other solution to the problem at this time.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: tim on 3/26/2003; 1:40 PM If you dont like it leave. Go to Canada. We dont want you here. Be a slave over in another country with no freedoms and get stoned to death. Pay 50$ for a cheeseburger. Im tired of people like you with no respect and no brains. Keep cursing complaining and being negative which Im sure follows every aspect of your life. Focus on the negative and in the end you will have only negative results. Good luck.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 3/29/2003; 7:51 AM Bleacher alert? America? Freedom? Give me a moment while I chuckle into my sleeve. I'm not sure what the cheesburger has to do with it, but did you know that you can buy a burger made of beef that's been fed beer while still in mammal form and massaged daily? Man, I'd let myself be inevitably slaughtered to get that kind of treatment for free... I'll take the moment to post something here I posted at pubbawup (where by one, it was roundly denounced as pointless rhetorical language... hmm) Odd how quickly we discredit infommercials yet believe the news. Odd how we watch a movie, cheer the heroes, and feel disgust at the villains, although we only know what the movie told about them. Odd how ten minute news is a boon, since we don't have to spend too much time learning about the world outside of Hollywood, Sports, and Game Shows. Odd how we know so little about Iraqi culture. Odd how we call ourselves democratic and free, when we impose our way of governance, our version of freedom on a people who did not rebel to establish it for themselves. Odd how we back up the UN only as long as it agrees with us. Odd how we are the peace bringers by bringing war. Odd how we ask God to bless America when America doesn't know who god is, which god, and what blessings are. We should rephrase it: May George Bush be Santa Claus, the military his reindeer bringing lots of oil, power, and wealth for all the good little unquestioning "capitalist" girls and boys. Odd how the nation that superficially is founded on freedom and liberty, wants to be "secure" in governmental regulation. Odd how socialism is bad even though the most popular "reforms" in America have socialist foundations. Odd how willing we are to censor a dissenter because of our fear of danger. Will we even have an inquisition? Odd how children are told not to give in to peer pressure when peers isn't a term exclusively for children. Odd how we've lost sight of the spirit of America.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: R.A.B. on 3/31/2003; 7:51 PM The world is full of contradictions and craze that one couldn't handle in a lifetime,but, those contradictions are what makes our life colorful.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Pat burke on 9/30/2003; 11:47 PM To the person who wrote " If you don't like it then leave it " You've missed the concept that was dreamed by our fore fathers. The whole ideal of America, is to stand up to injustice or your belief of injustice. Thomas Jefferson was once asked to speak out against a rebellion against the American government but he declined and supported the rebells. he supported the peoples right to rebel or oppose any institution against their beliefs. Try to think about how you believe and feel about our country. don't just take what your told by the news channels or by me for that matter. If you care enough about our country you will put a monumental effort for what is true and what isn't
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: dave buccola on 3/19/2004; 9:44 PM Greatest country based on what? On the percentage of our population we incarcerate? On how much we spend on the millitary? On firearm deaths? Perhaps this idea is based on how much we consume. It could be based on how much we spend per person on health care. We're number one in all these catagories. The last one is interesting because although we spend more per person than anybody, we have over 50 million people with no coverage! Strange how Canada, Japan, and most of Europe can cover all of their citizens and still pay significantly less per person than we do. I'm really not sure what critieria people use when they claim: the USA is the greatest country in the world! It's sad really that Cuba, one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, has a lower infant mortality rate than the USA. The criteria I would look to would be: percentage of citizens who have access to health care, clean water, food and shelter. That's the basic stuff. Then I'd look at life expectancy and mortality rates. I'd also take a close look at education: spending, literacy, etc. Freedoms and liberties would also be a good place to look. Certainly the United States isn't the worst country in the world. But given its vast wealth it's hard to understand why it is doing so poorly in so many important areas.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Richard Davidson on 3/20/2004; 1:30 AM Other than the "if you don't like it, leave" guy, this thread is some interesting reading. It goes back all the way to 10/22/2001, when feelings ran all kinds of different ways in America. (wow, am I articulate tonight, or WHAT?) I never read Chie's contribution before; for some reason, I missed it. I always did like that girl. I wonder how she's been. In my opinion, she's a freakin' genius, and gifted beyond belief. Evan's piece is absolutely perfect. If there was ever a concept the founders would understand, it's a young man's right to be weird, especially when he takes the time to write about it. That was always one of my favorite Voices of Unreason. Pat burke stopped by last September to point out what freedom truly is, while the rest of us try desperately to understand the Fifty Dollar Cheeseburger reference, which must be about "one a them other countries," because anybody in America who would charge you that much for a meal, certainly wouldn't serve you a cheeseburger... (note: In Election 2000, Bush threw a $250.00 a plate fundraiser BBQ, where on the menu were such Haute Cuisine as: Corn on the cob Beans Burgers Brats Ribs Good thing they had those ribs, or we'd be getting close to a line we've never dare crossed in America. R.A.B, you sure took a stand on this subject, buddie! Sort of the t.s. elliot of the thread, my friend. Overall, it was a nice thread, because it implied to me that young people have something on their minds. That is never a bad thing. I recommend dedicating your entire life to having something on your mind, because the second you don't, you will be dead. Evan can explain that for you, if you don't get it. And now, along comes dave buccola, who passionately makes HIS case
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Mark Morgan on 3/20/2004; 10:03 AM This is a pretty good discussion, isn't it? Despite my instincts to go to DEFCON 2 whenever a political discussion shows up, we manage to do pretty well in these discussion. (There are always notable exceptions, of course. Fortunately, the most prominent just got his own weblog to rant upon.) "I never read Chie's contribution before; for some reason, I missed it. I always did like that girl. I wonder how she's been. In my opinion, she's a freakin' genius, and gifted beyond belief." No freaking kidding. I have spoken with her briefly on AIM but, alas, it seems we must go on without her. I'll stop now until I have something substantive to say about the actual topic on hand.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 3/22/2004; 10:03 PM Dave wrote:
Oh that's simple -- per capita spending on pornography. Or it could be the number of myths per capita that Americans believe like this one,
It's not sad at all because it's simply not true. Comparing Cuba's infant mortality rate to the U.S. infant mortality rate is like comparing apples to oranges since the two countries use entirely different methods to count dead babies. But left wing sources always insist on comparing the two as if they are measuring the same thing. The sad thing is that it is precisely the willingness of U.S. doctors to go the extra mile where other countries that leads to this discrepancy which largely exists only on paper.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 3/22/2004; 10:31 PM BTW, I'm surprised Richard Davidson thought this was impressive ("Pat burke stopped by last September to point out what freedom truly is")
First, Pat has his/her history wrong. This is Shays rebellion that is referred to and it was a rebellion against the state of Massachussetts, not against the United States government. Second, the Shays rebellion involved up to 1,200 farmers taking up arms against the government. Do you think that armed revolution against the governemnt is "what freedom truly is"? If 1,200 people in a state like California decided to take up arms because they were angered at gay marriage in that state, this wouldn't strike me as being particuarly pro-freedom even though it would definitely fit Pat's definition of "peoples right to rebel or oppose any institution against their beliefs" (under that definition, Eric Rudolph is a political prisoner -- in fact, Jefferson argued that violent rebellions shouldn't be punished too severely, so maybe the feds should just let ER go). I don't doubt that violent rebellion against an oppressive government might be necessary and even proper at some point, but I'm not sure it constitutes "what freedom truly is" nor that violent rebellion is legitimate within a functioning democracy. Pat was wrong because Jefferson was wrong about Shays Rebellion -- violent rebellion against a democracy does not strengthen it, but inevitably only weakens it.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Richard Davidson on 3/23/2004; 11:51 PM Brian, this is not a debate site. It is a site for people to express their creativity, and that's what these posters did. I never used the word "impressive," so you're surprised at something that simply was never stated. As far as my reference to Pat Burke describing what freedom truly is, I was referring to this: To the person who wrote " If you don't like it then leave it " You've missed the concept that was dreamed by our fore fathers. The whole ideal of America, is to stand up to injustice or your belief of injustice. Your contention that violent rebellion is not legitimate within a functioning democracy ASSUMES that said democracy is, in fact, "functioning." Even if Pat got his history wrong, these words: Try to think about how you believe and feel about our country. don't just take what your told by the news channels or by me for that matter. If you care enough about our country you will put a monumental effort for what is true and what isn't are the words of a young person articulating their feelings about America. This site is called "Voices of Unreason," and that implies that there is something to be had BEYOND reason. Brian, you stop by once in awhile to correct people whose facts aren't straight, or to tell us we're wrong, but I don't see you doing any CREATIVE WRITING here. Isn't this a creative writing site? Maybe what I enjoyed about this thread was that people were expressing themselves, right or wrong. Finally, you said, "It's not sad at all because it's simply not true. Comparing Cuba's infant mortality rate to the U.S. infant mortality rate is like comparing apples to oranges since the two countries use entirely different methods to count dead babies. But left wing sources always insist on comparing the two as if they are measuring the same thing." Left wing sources ALWAYS insist... Sounds like you're painting with a pretty broad brush there. It appears all I would need is to find ONE left wing site that doesn't do that, and I would prove that statement wrong. Are we then to only take you at your word regarding how child mortality rates are calculated, or can you provide some specifics, and possibly links? Sorry if I seem a bit combative, but it takes away MOST of the fun of this site if we always have to worry if what we post will meet the approval of a person who doesn't contribute any of their own original work. If that's harsh, sorry. I don't like being told what to think. Here is what I could find about Shay's Rebellion: http://www.shaysnet.com/dshays.html Daniel Shays (1747?-1825, born Hopkinton, MA), a former Revolutionary Army captain, led a rebellion by farmers against unsettled economic conditions and against politicians and laws which were grossly unfair to farmers and working people in general. They protested against excessive taxes on property, polling taxes which preented the poor from voting, unfair actions by the court of common pleas, the high cost of lawsuits, and the lack of a stable currency. They rallied for the government issue of paper money, since at the time there were a variety of paper monies in circulation, but not much was honored at face value. A campaign for "sound money" rallied for the issue of a gold-backed currency. The revolutionary war was over, but The United States had yet to form formal government organizations. The contstitutional congress had yet to convene, and the country was in chaos. The rebels protested against governmental and court systems that were wrought with dictatorial and oppressive regimes and against excessive salaries for government and court officials. Their actions included mobbing the court buildings in Northampton, Great Barrington, Worcester and Concord to prevent the sitting of the courts, whose actions had been grossly unfair to working people. On August 29, 1786, rebel mobs stormed the courthouse in Northampton to prevent the trial and imprisonment of debtors. In September 1786, Shays and about 600 armed farmers stormed the courthouse in Springfield. Governor Bowdoin countered with a militia of 4400 troops. On January 25, 1787, Shays led 2000 rebels to Springfield, MA to storm the arsenal, but government forces of 1200 soldiers led by General Shepard quelled the uprising. The rebels were captured and sentenced to death for treason in February 1787, but they were later pardoned. Isn't stating that Jefferson was wrong about this an OPINION? And in what case is an opinion FACT? It seems to me, polling taxes alone go against the very nature of what this democracy is. They sure aren't legal now! As for 12,000 Californians having an armed insurrection against gay marriage, of course that doesn't represent freedom, because in that case, it would be a rebellion that DENIES Americans rights. Talk about apples and oranges!
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Mark Morgan on 3/24/2004; 12:43 AM >Brian, you stop by once in awhile to correct people whose facts aren't straight, or to tell us we're wrong, but I don't see you doing any CREATIVE WRITING here. Isn't this a creative writing site? Maybe what I enjoyed about this thread was that people were expressing themselves, right or wrong. This is probably the only part of this discussion that is still interesting to me. (Not that it's a bad discussion; this is merely a comment on where my interests lie.) One issue I have thought about often is the fact that, save from yourself and occasional comments by others (Chie, and others I'm forgetting) the actual workshopping part of the site doesn't really happen. Right or wrong I've always considered it my personal issue--a lack of leadership from myself by example. I honestly considered following in Kuro5hin's footsteps and have two kinds of comments: editorial, and reactionary. But you know, any time you put something into an interface it makes it that much less likely that people will actually bother to use the interface. (We still get the occasional "Offtopic" work that is clearly, say, a poem. The "genre" dropdown is just so much visual noise that a writer can skip. If I knew how I'd make a javascript thing to make it required. But I digress.) So Richard, I find it heartening that you see creative acts even in the commentary. It's a nice break from the "I'm right! No, I'm right!" that comes out of most of these political threads. And it's particularly nice to see after Don's drive-by posting. I didn't realize he still did that. Erg. One never knows how one's project is perceived until someone lets one know. So thanks. As for Brian, considering the tremendous amount of verbiage he puts up at his own constellation of sites I'm surprised he even comments. I do agree it would be nice to see him post an essay or two here but hey, there's nothing wrong with a little debate. Is there? As Seth pointed out in another thread we actually handle it pretty well, certainly better than, say, your average Metafilter political thread. And finally, I'm going to think some more on how to give better writerly feedback on writings. As you were.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 3/24/2004; 12:51 AM Point taken about "impressive." But I hardly think that Pat captured much of what freedom truly is. "Brian, you stop by once in awhile to correct people whose facts aren't straight, or to tell us we're wrong, but I don't see you doing any CREATIVE WRITING here. Isn't this a creative writing site? Maybe what I enjoyed about this thread was that people were expressing themselves, right or wrong." I thought my corrections were, in fact very creative! They were short, to the point, and highly representative of early 21st century Internet communications (I was kind of going for a mid-2000 high bandwidth midwestern approach). The creative writing on this site that I comment upon is non-fiction in nature. While it is debatable IMO whether or not non-fiction can be truly creative in the sense that fiction is, for it to be non-fiction it must not be fiction. Claiming that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. is just as fictitious as it would be to claim that a Canadian earning $50,000 is making more than an American earning $48,000 in their respective countries (or, if you prefer, an American politician claiming that plans for reconstituting weeapons of mass destruction is the same thing as stockpiles of chemical weapons). I'm not sure why it would be enjoyable to read creative non-fiction that is wrong. There are quite a few eloquent, well written and very creative articles about our former vice-president, for example, which revolve around his well-known claim that he invented the Internet. Now, to me, regardless of how creative those articles are, they're pretty much pointless since that claim is largely a myth, and I'm not sure I'd know what to make of the argument that what is important about them is the language and the fact that the writers were expressing themselves rather than whether or not they were factually correct. This also extends, I guess, to fictional creative works when it is extreme enough. I've never been able to get past the actual plot of "Birth of a Nation", for example, to appreciate the movie as some sort of piece of genius film that textbooks rave about (I mean, if Hitler had been a fabulous stylist would people say "well, if you can put that whole Jew thing aside, that Nazi really knew how to coin a phrase!"?)
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Richard Davidson on 3/24/2004; 8:17 AM Well, fair enough. I think I've had it with playing on other peoples' threads for now. I think I will write a piece where I've done the research, and provide links, and THEN WE'LL SEE HOW SMART YOU ARE MISTER!!!! I will write a piece with such diabolically logical logic, that you will be logically logified before you can even type your first logical logicism! And then we'll see who comes crying when all the good adjectives have been used up. Until then, type with caution, as there is a keyboard deficiency that causes some PC's to explode when you type a certain combination of numbers and letters that I cannot divulge here.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 3/27/2004; 11:06 PM Oh, come on Richard. There must be a few more ways you can twist the word "logic"! :-)
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian Garcia on 10/11/2004; 7:09 PM The United States is the greatest country in the world. I as an American is given oppertunities in this world that I could get from no other country. This government of mine makes decisions that will effect me. It could either hurt me or either help me, but I as an American has given my trust and faith into this country of mine, and so many others. Yeah there might be laws against things that may seem stupid to you but the are to protect you and to shelter you from wrong in both the outside world of this country and from yourself. Yes in other countries the might be able to drink and marry young, but just look at their way of life. That's no life for you. You and me as Americans (If you are American) are entitled to a better life then that. We earn it and we deserve it just for being born in this country. There are only two things that you are entitled to in this world. An education that you except for your own choice and a future that you make for yourself. I'm still very young to even discuss things of this matter and about my own future, but I plan on furthering my future for myself. One thing in this counrty of mine that I've found to be important to me. Is that this country has given me the right to freedom of speech and to express my opinions to others for other countries are still under communism so its hard for them to even speak out to others. I don't down people from the country they live or come from. I don't down people because other culture or religion they might believe in. I'm actually happy for people to be able to believe in what they want to believe in. I leave here thinking diffrently about things after reading some of what people wrote back about USA being the greatest country in the world. People have their opinions, but my opinin is that the United States is the greatest country in the world!
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/12/2004; 1:04 AM . Yeah there might be laws against things that may seem stupid to you but the are to protect you and to shelter you from wrong in both the outside world of this country and from yourself. (emphasis mine). You know what, Jillian? I don't need to be protected from myself. If I'm not harming anyone else, I don't need the Nanny.Gov to protect me.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian Garcia on 10/14/2004; 6:26 PM I did not mean to imply that your hurting yourself that you would need protection from yourself from the government, but that small stupid things that people fuss about everyday on how the government screws them over some how. I was just giving my opinion on how I dont think the governmet does these things to intentionaly hurt us in some way. But then again what do I know I'm still in high school and on my last year, and I dont think I qualified in knowing the hardships and struggled people go through everyday.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 10/14/2004; 6:49 PM I understand what you say Jillian and I agree with you on this subject about the government. I dont know people make so much of a big deal about it. "It is only when the People become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Let us, by all wise and constitutional measures, promote intelligence among the People, as the best means of preserving our liberties." - James Monroe I could say that about alot of people and what there actions are and what they say about the situation they are in. I mean help a person dont disconcert them
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/17/2004; 10:23 PM Jillian, for example, one of the "laws against things that may seem stupid to you but the are to protect you" is the laws against drugs (in particular, marijuana). Why, exactly, would I need to be protected from this? And no, the "Do you want someone who is high behind the wheel?" argument doesn't work, since the exact same argument can be applied to alcohol, and the exact same solution could be used. To wit: The law could read, "It is legal to use marijuana, but driving while under the influence of marijuana is a felony, punishable by no less than XXXX period in prison."
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 10/18/2004; 7:07 PM ScottN I agree that no body under the influence of any illegal subsatnce should be behind the wheel of any mechanical machinry. It would not matter if it was to the simplest thing from a electric carving nife to a four-wheeler. You might be in the safty of your own home or on your own property but there are still laws against substances that could harm you, that the law does not want in your possesion. Alchohl for instance I agree that you can drink as much as you want, but in a bar, club, or in your own home. If you are intoxicated to the extent that you have no morals at that moment and you get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone it's automatic manslaughter 2nd degree felony pending on circumstances of 1st degree. Yes marijuana is legal to use for some states to use for medical research and people with medical problems, but what their trying to say you are given the privalege without breaking the law to use marijuana for a medical reasons, but in the confinements of your own home. People choose to use it illegally that have no other reason other then to get a buzz, but if the the law finds out about it and find you in your home or just out walking and you have some on you with a certain amount of grams you can be tried as a dealer an its a 1st degree felony. So the law is not stupid in most things! I really do like debating this issue. lol To see your point of view. Your comments are thought out well but your not that strong in this issue, I mean dont get me wrong your an intelligent person, but it's just your reasons you give me that can be argued. Well my opinion doesent matter really you probly older then me and have gone through these issues, and I haven't. Well I'm way off the issue here so this is concluded.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/20/2004; 10:10 PM People choose to use it illegally that have no other reason other then to get a buzz, but if the the law finds out about it and find you in your home or just out walking and you have some on you with a certain amount of grams you can be tried as a dealer an its a 1st degree felony. So the law is not stupid in most things! But that's circular reasoning. People use it illegally because it's illegal to use. My question is, WHY should it be illegal to use? What is the point, other than protecting me from myself, which I do not need? What, specifically, is the constitutional basis for such federal laws against drug possession?
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 10/24/2004; 3:27 PM The law makes it illegal to use, because people intoxicate themselves with drugs, and if the person were to consume to much of it, it would make them inadequate to make life threatening decisions that could effect others and themselves. Like for example: rapists, some choose to drug their victims with illegal substances. The victim consumes to much of the substance and is not aware and is not capable of making their own decisions, leaving them easy prey for the rapist. A little goes a long way. Especially the use of drugs. Another example: People who commit suicide under the influence of something. They think their on top of the world and something happens and their dead the next day. So in all the government makes it illegal to use to protect people, and to maybe show people how the influence of drugs can hurt you. They protect the victims of people who use drugs, and in making it illegal, maybe less people will use drugs. So now why don't I ask some questions from you. Why do you want to protect people that use drugs? Are you protecting them? Are you just giving drug users the choice? :( Their only hurting themselves, you should be against the use of drugs. :( That is if you don't use drugs yourself.:( Why do you object in my beliefs? Do you think that drugs should be legal to use? and if so why? Answer these questions for me. :)
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/24/2004; 8:19 PM Disclaimer: I do not, nor have I ever used drugs. Now, let's dissect your response, shall we? The law makes it illegal to use, because people intoxicate themselves with drugs So what? and if the person were to consume to much of it, it would make them inadequate to make life threatening decisions that could effect others and themselves. Again, so what? Other perfectly legal substances impair decisions. Like for example: rapists, some choose to drug their victims with illegal substances. The victim consumes to much of the substance and is not aware and is not capable of making their own decisions, leaving them easy prey for the rapist. A little goes a long way. Non-sequiter. Drugging somebody against their will is already illegal. Has nothing to do with personal use of drugs. If you'll note, getting someone drunk to rape them is illegal, but use of alcohol is not. Why don't we ban all knives? Someone could use them to kill someone! Or, taking it to the illogical extreme, why don't we cut off everyone's hands? They could use them to steal, or even worse, use them to hit someone, possibly killing them!!!!!! Another example: People who commit suicide under the influence of something. They think their on top of the world and something happens and their dead the next day. Again, non-sequiter. Again, the alcohol parallel shows up. So you want to restrict MY rights because somebody who has mental problems (suicidal tendencies fall under mental illness, IMHO) can't handle something? We'd better ban cars, because a suicidal person might drive off a bridge or a cliff! So in all the government makes it illegal to use to protect people Again, I don't need protection from myself. It's not the government's job to be my nanny. and to maybe show people how the influence of drugs can hurt you. That's fine. They protect the victims of people who use drugs They also protect the victims of people who don't use drugs. and in making it illegal, maybe less people will use drugs But again, I ask (and you didn't answer before), what is the constitutional basis for federal drug laws? Why do you want to protect people that use drugs? Are you protecting them? Are you just giving drug users the choice? :( Their only hurting themselves, you should be against the use of drugs. Who said I want to protect them? The answer is that yes, I want to give them the choice. I never said I was for the use of drugs, I said I was against the government banning them. There's a difference there that you should see. That is if you don't use drugs yourself.:( Why do you object in my beliefs? Do you think that drugs should be legal to use? and if so why? See my disclaimer above. I object to your belief that the government is there to protect us from ourselves. That is *NOT* the principle that this country was founded on. Yes, drugs should be legal to use. When their use interferes with someone else, at that point it becomes illegal. Again, compare with alcohol. Drinking is legal. DUI is a felony. How would you like it if the goverment said, "Eating cheeseburgers is harmful - it leads to heart disease. Therefore it is illegal to eat cheeseburgers."? That is the same thing. There is zero constitutional basis for any federal drug laws.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 10/24/2004; 8:47 PM "See my disclaimer above. I object to your belief that the government is there to protect us from ourselves. . . . . . . How would you like it if the goverment said, "Eating cheeseburgers is harmful - it leads to heart disease. Therefore it is illegal to eat cheeseburgers."? That is the same thing." Unfortunately, the view that the government shouldn't protect people from themselves is a minority one today. Clearly we are headed to a point where there will be government actions against cheeseburgers. I can't tell you how many people have come up to me and blabbed on about "Supersize This!" and how something needs to be done about the fast food industry.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Mark Morgan on 10/24/2004; 9:19 PM Interesting discussion. (I wish Richard were still around. I worry that I offended him last political discussion with my pretty much off-the-cuff loudmouthing.) Question: is there ever a circumstance where the government should step in and protect its citizens from themselves? If (for example) I make crappy financial decisions and decide to declare bankruptcy, is that not the government stepping in and deciding to protect me from my own mistakes? I'm not going to be homeless, and the companies that I owe money to aren't going to get their money. I am protected. Is that okay?
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 10/24/2004; 10:04 PM I swear, all I do is wright back my opinions and you just sit there and analyze and criticize every little thing I wright. Its like you shred everything that I believe in and crumble it. Reading what you say, I even have to sit there and read again what I wrote and ask myself am I right on the issue. Did I explain myself right. Have I given plausible reasons? I ask myself those questions, and I believe I'm correct on everything I say. Your just a person that needs to be shown a better way, and a better side of things. The more logical views on issues. I just cant seem to get the right things and the wrongs things plowed into your head yet, but I'm willing to give it my best shot on this view for you. Oh and the whole cheeseburger thing was a lame example for the issue. I could find a better example. Another thing you don't have to quote me, just state your point. Questions: Why do you want drugs to be legal? Why do you care if its legal or not if you don't use them anyway?
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 10/24/2004; 10:36 PM Mark Morgan wrote: >If (for example) I make crappy financial decisions and decide to declare bankruptcy, is that not the government stepping in and deciding to protect me from my own mistakes? I'm not going to be homeless, and the companies that I owe money to aren't going to get their money. I am protected. > >Is that okay? > A very good counter-example. The United States didn't have a permanent federal bankruptcy laws until 1898. There were some temporary ones before that -- for example there was a bankruptcy law in effect from 1867-1878 to deal with economic problems caused to companies by the Civil War. There are libertarian legal scholars who argue for eliminating bankruptcy laws and handling bankruptcies through contract law. The Libertarian Party platform doesn't have anything on bankruptcy, but the California state party has this in its platform," "We hold that individuals and business firms that declare bankruptcy are not fulfilling their contractual obligations to their creditors. The government should cease providing an avenue through bankruptcy laws for violation of the rights of those creditors who have provided goods or performed services and are entitled to payment under the terms of the contract." "In the case of insolvency of a business enterprise, we recognize the need for legal means by which assets may be liquidated and debts discharged, especially where initiated by creditors. Though we believe that each individual should bear the risk and cost of failure, it is a legitimate function of the law to prescribe means to preserve assets and protect the security interests of claimants from fraudulent or preferential conveyances. The current state of the law, however, serves more to create excessive exemptions by which the bankrupt debtor may retain substantial assets while escaping responsibility for legitimate obligations." "Accordingly we call for reform of existing bankruptcy law to severely restrict the extent and nature of assets that may be exempted from distribution to creditors. We encourage and applaud the use of private mediators to assist debtors to work out solutions that are acceptable to both debtors and creditors." Sticking with drugs, an analogous question might be whether or not the government should fund programs to help drug users kick their addiction, since that's also offering a sort of protection (why should I have to pay, through taxes, for heroin addicts to kick the habit? They got themselves into that mess . . .) One of the things about libertarianism is that it really encapsulates a specific cultural regimen in addition to legal values, and our society presently is just light years away from the cultural presuppositions of libertarians. I think most Americans clearly believe that the role of the government is to protect them from a long list of threats/problems. Forget marijuana, what about Bush's claim that he can't allow Americans to re-import pharmaceutical drugs because the government has to protect us against potentially dangerous Canadian drugs of all things. His challenger retorts that it's the government's job to ensure an adequate supply of flu vaccine.
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 10/24/2004; 10:41 PM Jillian wrote: >Oh and the whole cheeseburger thing was a lame example for the issue. >I could find a better example. > Why was it lame? Obesity is a far bigger health problem than illegal drug use. McDonald's, Burger King and other companies make it easy for people to get fat and then stay fat by offering food that is both cheap and loaded wth calories. If the primary role of government is to protect people from themselves, why shouldn't it crackdown on cheeseburgers and other fast food items? This is not just a thought experiment, as we are clearly heading to a point where there will likely be special taxes on certain food items, such as cheeseburgers, just as there are on cigarettes and alcohol. There might even end up special taxes on fat people themselves (giving people a larger tax deduction for having a BMI 25 or under, for example, which would effectively be a tax on fat people).
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/25/2004; 2:14 AM If (for example) I make crappy financial decisions and decide to declare bankruptcy, is that not the government stepping in and deciding to protect me from my own mistakes? Different. The gov't is not stepping in and protecting you whether you want it or not. You are specifically asking for such protection.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/25/2004; 2:22 AM I swear, all I do is wright back my opinions and you just sit there and analyze and criticize every little thing I wright. Its like you shred everything that I believe in and crumble it. Reading what you say, I even have to sit there and read again what I wrote and ask myself am I right on the issue. Did I explain myself right. Have I given plausible reasons? I ask myself those questions, and I believe I'm correct on everything I say. And is that not the purpose of a debate? To attempt to sway the other person? Please don't take it personally... I've been debating this sort of point for many years. But you'll note that my criticisms are against your arguments, and your argumentation style, not you. If you're in a debate -- and make no mistake, even though this is on-line, it's a debate -- you must be prepared to have your arguments shot down either on a factual basis, or on a logical flaw basis. I'd love it if you could shoot me down, it would cause me to have to reformulate my arguments (at a minimum), or even reconsider my arguments completely. By the way, you still haven't answered my question. Where is the constitutional basis for federal drug laws? Your just a person that needs to be shown a better way, and a better side of things. About 25 years ago, I thought as you do. About 10 years ago, I started thinking about the issues more and more, and have come to my current beliefs. I am certainly not saying that your opinions or beliefs are invalid. They are your beliefs, and you're quite entitled to them. I'm stating that I believe you are wrong about the role of government in the US.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/25/2004; 2:30 AM Don't know how I missed Ashlyn's comment above, but... "It is only when the People become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Let us, by all wise and constitutional measures, promote intelligence among the People, as the best means of preserving our liberties." - James Monroe It seems to me that by attempting to protect people from themselves, by not allowing them to make mistakes, that it would cause people to become ignorant. By all means, allow the goverment to educate, and dissuade "bad" behavior. But do not ban it, as long as nobody else is harmed. "When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'this you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motive." -- Robert A. Heinlein
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Seth Dillingham on 10/25/2004; 9:36 AM On 10/24/04, Brian Carnell said: >There might even end up special taxes on fat people themselves >(giving people a larger tax deduction for having a BMI 25 or >under, for example, which would effectively be a tax on fat >people). That would also be a tax on tall people (like me), since the BMI scale is so screwed up. In order for me to have a "perfect" BMI, I'd have to be nearly gaunt. You touched a nerve. :-) Seth
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 10/25/2004; 4:43 PM If you know what's good for you, you wont debate me. She might take you crap on this issue but I wont. I still think that Jillian's well justified in her comments and opinions on the issue. I personally agree with her out look about this issue. If you could see it in her perspective you would understand what she means. She not only gives bad sides of this issue but she also gives you well plausible reasons for what she writes. To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938). The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty indeed, are under a solemn duty to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of thy courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/25/2004; 6:13 PM Ashlyn, If you read my comments, you'll see that I have considered her positions, and when I was younger, I'd even have agreed with them. However, I believe this country was founded on the principle that the government is the servant of the people, not vice versa. The nanny government reverses that principle. Look at her arguments. For each one, the act involved is already illegal, without criminalizing drugs. There is no need to criminialize drugs just to prevent said acts. The nanny government assumes that the people are too stupid to watch out for themselves. How then, if we are so stupid, should we be able to elect our own government? "What's that? You want me to go out and vote? But I'm too dumb to know what's good for me, so how can I elect the right government?" As to your quotes from the Court, I quite agree with them. Based on those quotes, I again ask, "What is the constitutional basis for a federal drug ban?" Please cite Article and Section, or Amendment number.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/25/2004; 8:41 PM More from Heinlein: (1) Most people are basically honest, kind and decent. In particular, refer to 2, 3 and 5.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 10/25/2004; 8:43 PM I do agree with you on the basis of: "this country was founded on the principle that the government is the servant of the people, not vice versa." But then again you have to see that in most points the government has to put their foot down on some issues. People blame the government for their problems. The government does add gas to the fire, but you and others started the flame. Their only trying to maintain it. Jillian's point on the government trying to protect you. It protects you on giving you rights, and opportunities in this world that you could not get from any other country. Outside this specific country there is still communism, and other things that to you might not seem far there either. All she did was state out with just saying that in this country of the United States allows people in this country to have more rights then any other country in the world. We as Americans are treated better the other countries treat their citizens. Thats basically all she was stating. I personally cant find a basis at all in the constitution on drugs other then the use of marijuana (in today's laws). The constitution is just a guidelines in what your entitled to in this country. The government now has the power to change the law in today's society, and they do that to benefit you. Do you honestly think that they want you to intentionally suffer? Your entitled to own your own land. The right of freedom of speech. The pursuit of happiness, etc. But I could not find a constitutional right saying your entitled to use drugs or that your not entitled to use them. but I don't know how or what drugs has to do with the freedom in this country that you have. It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power. Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 10/25/2004; 8:46 PM 2 minutes apart!
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/25/2004; 10:34 PM It protects you on giving you rights, No, it does not. My rights are MINE. They are inherently mine. See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The constitution is just a guidelines in what your entitled to in this country. You have it backwards. The Constitution is a set of restrictions, specifically limiting what the US. Government may do. Again, see the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But I could not find a constitutional right saying your entitled to use drugs or that your not entitled to use them. See the Ninth Amendment. And the Tenth, again, for why the Federal Government should not be allowed to make federal laws banning the use of drugs. From USConstitution.net: Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. To paraphrase: 9. You still retain all your rights, even if we didn't explicitly talk about them here. 10. If this document (as amended) doesn't say the US Gov. can do it, then it can't.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Seth Dillingham on 10/26/2004; 7:54 AM On 10/25/04, Ashlyn said: >It protects you on giving you rights The government gives us rights!?!? What? We, the people. Ever heard that phrase? We, the people, gave us rights, and we give the government certain rights and responsibilities. Period. Never the other way around. Seth
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 10/26/2004; 9:28 AM ScottN wrote: >Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note > >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. > And that really makes it clear how the people who approved the Constitution thought of rights. The people were *delegating* limited power to a government rather than the government bestowing rights or privileges upon them. Again, though, I suspect that Ashlyn's view is likely the view that prevails today.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/26/2004; 1:42 PM Which is exactly what I was trying to say in my post, Brian. Thanks.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 10/26/2004; 4:12 PM What does drugs have to do in the whole topic? I'm only backing up Jillian in her opinions. All I am saying is that I agree with her views on the issue. My opinion, and don't quote me: is that I believe doing drugs if wrong and should be illegal. I don't think that I should have to justify my beliefs. I'm entitled to my opinions and I don't need anyone telling my other wise. That would be like telling an atheist their going to hell, because they don't believe in heaven or hell. Their entitled to their beliefs and religion. Freedom on religion: First amendment. (if you wanted me to tell you were in the amendment it said that.) The first amendment :Freedom of religion, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I used it as an example. So I guess us younger people have a different view on this issue then as to older people have.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Seth Dillingham on 10/26/2004; 4:54 PM On 10/26/04, Ashlyn said: >I don't think that I should have to justify my beliefs. I'm >entitled to my opinions and I don't need anyone telling my other >wise. So you're saying that you believe what you believe, and aren't interested in debating the point? You're not interested in logic or reasoning that's contrary to your beliefs? Nobody has said you're not entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but what good is it to go through life without questioning your assumptions? Why are you getting so worked up about people expressing alternative viewpoints? You're welcome to disagree with them, but instead of being offended at their audacity in trying to challenge your beliefs, why don't you defend them with counterpoints to the points raised by Scott and Brian (and anybody else)? I assure you that nothing said by any of us has been said with a mean spirit. We're not telling you that you're a dumb kid, or that you'll understand better when you grow up (though I admit a couple of Scott's comments did sound a tiny bit like that)... you can probably get enough of that at home or at school. We're all equals here, and we're just trying to argue our points, mind to mind. Debate and dissent are at the heart of freedom, choice, and democracy. Try it out, you might find you like it. On the other hand, I don't recommend posting your opinions (here, or anywhere else) if you're not willing to justify and explain them at least a little. Repeating "this is what I believe" does not count as justification. You'll get called on it, every time. Seth
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 10/26/2004; 5:15 PM Ashlyn I more then thank you for agreeing with my on my views. You express yourself well, but don't be so demanding on your views, but other then that you good. Your quotes back up most of what you say. Preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "The 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act made the manufacture, distribution, sale, and consumption of alcohol a crime. The alcohol industry went underground, smuggling lines were set up, speakeasies were opened and the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol went its merry way, except with a vicious twist. With the disappearance of the legitimate alcohol industry with its normal business taxes, a bootleg industry arose without social restraint or government regulation which literally shot and bribed its way into existence laying the business foundation of organized crime. Territorial and other business disputes were settled with Thompson submachine guns, which incidently were against the law to possess. Once territories were settled everything calmed down with the Mafia emerging as the winner. The Mafia made enough money during prohibition to finance all their future activities including their entrance into drug trafficking. They have been joined by the Colombians in the drug trade but are really looking forward to the formation of the European Communitywith a Europe sans borders and with a common banking system. Its just made to order for the way they do business. The success of the Mafia in prohibition and drugs, and the Colombians in drugs, is due to the willingness of millions of middle class Americansthen as nowto purchase the services offered and to ignore the law." "The Prohibition on Drugs Is Giving Us the Drug Wars" The Free Market in Drugs "The traffic in drugs is described as a mature market. Incidental events such as the seizure of drug shipments or the arrest of drug kingpins have not slowed the entry of drugs into the nation and have not even affected the price which has been dropping as the quality of the product improves." Why do you fight so much on making drugs legal if you don't use them. What would you care if they were illegal or legal? Jillian
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Seth Dillingham on 10/26/2004; 5:48 PM On 10/26/04, Jillian said: >What would you care if they were illegal or legal? This debate isn't really about drugs, it's about the government not having the legal authority to prevent people from taking drugs. We didn't give them that right. This argument would be exactly the same if the government said you can't wear pink polkadotted underwear on Thursdays. I, personally, have no interest in wearing pink polkadotted underwear on *any* day, but I would have a serious problem with the government thinking it has the right to tell me I can't do it. So what if studies show that wearing pink polkadotted underwear on Thursdays is extremely bad for my health? If I want to wear it, even if it's going to make me sick, why should the government be allowed to tell me I can't? The government is there to protect my rights, not restrict them. It's there to "promote the general welfare," not to prevent individuals from doing things which might hurt themselves. You're welcome to disagree, you're welcome to say that you *want* to live in a country where the government is *supposed to* force you to do things which are good for you, and is *obligated* to prevent you from doing things which will hurt you. However, according to the U.S. Constitutution, that's most definitely NOT how this country's government is supposed to operate. We, the people, never gave them that authority, so they don't have it. We, the people, never explicitly gave up the right to harm ourselves (individually). It would require an amendment, perhaps even a complete rewrite, to change that. Seth
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 10/26/2004; 7:15 PM Ashlyn wrote: >That would be like telling an atheist their going to hell, because they don't believe in heaven or hell. Their entitled to their beliefs and religion. >Freedom on religion: First amendment. (if you wanted me to tell you were in the amendment it said that.) The first amendment :Freedom of religion, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I used it as an example. > > But religious freedom makes no sense at all if the government's goal is to primarily protect us from ourselves. Why should the government allow Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses to engage in the extremely dangerous practice of refusing certain kinds of medical treatment if they become ill or injured? I can't legally use marijuana but I can refuse a blood transfusion even if it is certain that I will die without it. In fact, Christian Science believers advocate for and practice withholding vaccines and life-saving medical treatments from their *children*. This whole freedom of religion thing is downright dangerous -- somebody needs to do something about it.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/27/2004; 12:40 AM though I admit a couple of Scott's comments did sound a tiny bit like that You're right. That one did come out condescending, which was not what I was going for. What I was trying to say was that I understood her position because I once held that same position, but my views have changed.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 10/27/2004; 9:38 AM Brian wrote: "But religious freedom makes no sense at all if the government's goal is to primarily protect us from ourselves. Why should the government allow Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses to engage in the extremely dangerous practice of refusing certain kinds of medical treatment if they become ill or injured? I can't legally use marijuana but I can refuse a blood transfusion even if it is certain that I will die without it. In fact, Christian Science believers advocate for and practice withholding vaccines and life-saving medical treatments from their *children*." If we're on the government protecting your constitutional wrights. Then freedom of religion is a right that you have. You cant say that its wrong or wight because its what the American people want. ScottN : The issue is not really about drugs. Its not but on how the government doesn't want you to have it is because people who take is is more then likely to become addicted to that drugs. They end up hurting someone, and the American tax dollars are going to have to pay for them to get better by going to rehabilitation. They make it illegal so they don't have to help you in that situation. The government has enough problems of their own without drug addicts on the streets making it worse. The government pays for so much by making you pay taxes. Medicate Military Army Air force Social services orphanages more but I cant right now name them for you I think Jillian I got you covered so far. lol Ashlyn
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/27/2004; 10:25 AM They end up hurting someone, and the American tax dollars are going to have to pay for them to get better by going to rehabilitation. So Joe commits an illegal act against Jill, and as a result: 1) I have to pay for it. 2) My rights are infringed. Jill doesn't have insurance? Why am I paying for Jill to get better? Again, this is a strawman. Let's assume that Joe commits the same illegal act harming Jill, but in a non-drug related setting. Jill still needs the same rehab. By your logic, I still have to pay for it. Joe is still a criminal, and subject to criminal penalties. Why is there the special case for drugs?
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 10/27/2004; 11:52 AM Ashlyn wrote: >You cant say that its wrong or wight because its what the American people want. > > Can you clarify, as that seems like an appeal to authority. What the American people want is completely unrelated to whether something is right or wrong. >ScottN >: The issue is not really about drugs. >Its not but on how the government doesn't want you to have it is because people >who take is is more then likely to become addicted to that drugs. They end up hurting someone, and the American tax dollars are going to have to pay for them to get better by going to rehabilitation. They make it illegal so they don't have to help you in that situation. The government has enough problems of their own without drug addicts on the streets making it worse. > > This argument would allow you to pretty much outlaw anything. Jillian said Scott was being ridiculous for bringing up the idea of banning cheeseburgers. But the government has to pay a lot of money for healthcare for fat people, who tend to have more health problems and more expensive chronic health problems. The government will have to pay if a Christian Scientist refuses to vaccinate her child and that child is hospitalized with an easily preventable disease. Accurate news stories about diseases tend to increase health care costs by sending hypochondriacs and the concerned to their doctor about this or that medical condition. Given the obscene size of the government in the United States there is *no* private action that doesn't have public financial consequences.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/27/2004; 1:20 PM Granted, we've gone off the nanny.gov thread onto drugs, but here's another comment. Most, if not all of the examples posted so far in favor of a drug ban describe behavior that is either a) illegal even if drugs are not involved, or b) have identical financial/economic consequences to the public if drugs are not involved. I'd still like to see a good constitutional reason for a federal drug ban. Or even a logical reason other than "Drugs are bad for you", and which relies on drug-related behavior where the consequences would be different in a non-drug related setting.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 10/27/2004; 1:53 PM OK off the subject. Do you believe the government has the wright to sentence a man to death? Do you think its unlawful, that the governments penalty is to harsh for their convictions?
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/27/2004; 3:21 PM Yes. I do believe the death penalty is legal, and in certain cases moral. I won't discuss the morality of the death penalty here, since those wind up as people shouting past each other. However, from the Fifth Amendment: Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. Emphasis is mine. The highlighted portion makes it clear that the death penalty is constitutional, and that it is one of the powers that the People have granted to the federal government (see Amendment 10, once more). If the government was not constitutionally allowed to impose the death penalty, then such a statement would not be needed. In addition, the highlighted section makes it clear that given due process of law, the government may sentence someone to death.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 10/27/2004; 5:20 PM So we agree that the death penelty is right in some cases?
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/28/2004; 2:56 PM Yes. However, that has nothing to do with the concept of the nanny.gov "protecting me from myself".
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 10/29/2004; 4:10 PM I also agree that the death penalty is lawful. I don't really care if its off the subject. I personally don't car what ScottN writes anymore because he doesn't get the picture Jillian. I'm sure you understand the preposition we're in, and I strongly agree thats he's not going to back down. I need protection from myself, because if I were to make a mistake I would need someone to help, if not the government who then? Ashlyn
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/29/2004; 6:18 PM I need protection from myself, because if I were to make a mistake I would need someone to help, if not the government who then? Do you mean that you are truly alone in the world? Who would help you if you made a mistake? Your friends, your family, etc.... Even the government could help you IF YOU MADE A MISTAKE. However, the government should not be there to preemptively protect you from making a mistake. We learn from our mistakes. How do we learn if we are not allowed to make them?
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 10/29/2004; 8:23 PM ScottN wrote: >Even the government could help you IF YOU MADE A MISTAKE. > >However, the government should not be there to preemptively protect you from making a mistake. We learn from our mistakes. How do we learn if we are not allowed to make them? > I can just see Jefferson...."to protect our unalienable rights and correct our mistakes." Oh and fund football stadiums, tear down people's homes to build malls and make it illegal for adults to drink alcohol. It's interesting how the founders' radical individualism, flawed as it was by the stain of slavery, has transformed into this culture in which the vast majority of people *want* a nanny state.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: TomM on 10/29/2004; 11:11 PM ScottN posted a link to this discussion on another discussion site we both frequent. (I also recognized a couple of other familiar usernames and writing styles.) Ashlyn and Jillian-- You seem to feel that Scott is arguing for illegal drugs. I can assure you that he is aware of, and agrees with most of the medical evidence against "recreational" drugs. He most certainly is not in favor of irresponsible people getting stoned. The problem is, the federal government does not have the authority to pass a law prohibiting them. In order for Congress to pass a law prohibiting alcohol, a Constitutional amendment was necessary. Likewise, an amendment would be necessary to prohibit drug use. Most current federal drug laws were originally based on the government's powers to regulate interstate and international trade and have exceeded those mandates. If a particular state's drug laws do not violate the state's constitution, or the Bill of Rights as applied to the states by the 14th amendment, then Scott would have no objection to it as a law properly passed by the people. (I suspect, however, that he would argue, using the failure of prohibition as an example, that most of these laws are not very effective and that there are better ways to discourage drug use.) From Scott's perspective, however, this discussion is not about drugs at all -- that's just a particular example that grabbed the focus away from his point. The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the people and their governments (as are the constitutions of the various states). But unlike older charters, the Constitution is not a listing of grants or concessions to the people, but of authorizations from the people to the government. That is the whole point and purpose of amendments nine and ten. Based on these amendments, if the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate something, it is not authorized to regulate it, just as the first amendment, which specifically withholds certain areas from the government based on rights not waived by the people begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting..." Beyond this consideration, Scott, along with many libertarians (small "l" -- the mindset, not the political party), is a very firm believer in a liberal interpretation of unenumerated rights: if it does not affect anyone else, it's none of the government's business. However, the moment an innocent victim is involved (or in some cases, such as DUI, seriously threatened), the government, on the appropriate level,has not only the right, but the duty to become involved by passing criminal and tort laws, providing courts to adjudicate, etc. Many of your examples involved innocent victims. If you look back at Scott's responses, he agreed that laws that protect those victims are approriate. But they are appropriate no matter what the substance or instrument. Homicide due to willful intoxication, wheter stoned or drunk should be prosecuted, etc. The ones that he disagreed with are the ones where you assumed that a blanket prohibition was a good thing. He would agree that it would be good if no one abused drugs, but he would disagree that a blanket prohibition is the only (or even the best) way to attempt to acheive that goal. And would point out that the federal government does not have the authority to do it, in any case.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Josh Gould on 10/30/2004; 12:40 AM > One of the things about libertarianism is that it really encapsulates a > specific cultural regimen in addition to legal values, and our society > presently is just light years away from the cultural presuppositions of > libertarians. I think most Americans clearly believe that the role of > the government is to protect them from a long list of threats/problems. That is the role of government. The very idea of any community is that the whole is better equipped to deal with threats (be it disease, violence, or injustice) than the individual. Government provides for the "common defence" of all citizens. Obviously people disagree about what kinds of things are constitute threats or problems that government should face, but that does not mean that libertarians have the right idea about how much it should. > Forget marijuana, what about Bush's claim that he can't allow Americans > to re-import pharmaceutical drugs because the government has to protect > us against potentially dangerous Canadian drugs of all things. His > challenger retorts that it's the government's job to ensure an adequate > supply of flu vaccine. Setting aside Bush's specious claims, it is most certainly the role of government agencies to protect citizens against unscrupulous or incompetent pharmaceutical companies which place profits over safety. You can claim all you want that the "market" will "punish" those companies that sell unsafe drugs, but the damage will be done, won't it? Similarly, it is also the government's role to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines. Vaccination is one of the bedrocks of the public health system along with basic sanitation. The epithet of the "nanny state" is merely a loaded term used to argue implicitly that the state providing for the "common defence" in anything but military terms is somehow paternalism. This is patently absurd. I expect my government to protect me from risks I have no control of. How would I ever "learn from my mistakes" if drug companies don't see the incentive in producing more flu vaccines? The market is NEVER 100% efficient and allowing for simply *some* market failure means that government must pick up the slack from time to time, sometimes a great deal, and especially in areas like public health. > The nanny government assumes that the people are too stupid to watch out for > themselves. How then, if we are so stupid, should we be able to elect our > own government? "What's that? You want me to go out and vote? But I'm too > dumb to know what's good for me, so how can I elect the right government?" Some people are too stupid to watch out for themselves, but the major point is that no one has the resources, the time, or the expertise to "watch out" for themselves about all things at all times. How is one to know whether a prescription drug is necessarily safe? Scott, you are moving towards logical fallacy by your continued use of the epithet "nanny government." As I said above, this is not an argument, but a loaded term. Moreover, your Heinlein quotations are merely arguments from authority - I see no evidence that Heinlein as a science fiction author had any particular expertise in political science, and since you are presenting his catchphrases not his arguments, they are not truly part of the "debate." > From Scott's perspective, however, this discussion is not about drugs at > all -- that's just a particular example that grabbed the focus away from his > point. The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the > people and their governments (as are the constitutions of the various > states). But unlike older charters, the Constitution is not a listing of > grants or concessions to the people, but of authorizations from the people > to the government. That is the whole point and purpose of amendments nine > and ten. No, a constitution is not a contract. Did the people of the United States actually formally vote for the constitution in a referendum? Even if they did, a constitution is simply a set of supreme laws that can only be changed with very broad support. It is NOT a contract by any means. Similarly, your conception of the constitution does not match reality. It was not drawn up by some democratically-chosen representative assembly, but by elites who then submitted it to other elites for ratification. Even then, the ratification of a constitution is a legislative act not a contracting act. (For starters, the powers of the Courts who enforce the constitution are defined by the constitution.) This does not preclude the idea that government is a "creation" of the Sovereign People, but then we are delving into Social Contract Theory.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: TomM on 10/30/2004; 3:55 AM >>I expect my government to protect me from risks I have no control of. The key phrase there is "[that] I have no control [over]." Yes. for situations where there is an innocent victim, we expect the government to provide redress, and under many circumstances preventative measures. (DUI, pharmaceutical safety, etc.) But that is quite a different thing from telling someone "Your protective Uncle Sam knows better than you do what is good for you." Seatbelt and helmet laws (just to use a new example and get away from drugs) go far beyond ensuring that the products meet minimum safety standards. If a parent drives around with his child unbuckled, there is an innocent victim. But if a motorcyclist decides that the increased risk of injury without a helmet is offset by the increased vision and hearing that will help to avoid the accident in the first place, and if he is willing to pay increased insurance premiums to cover that risk, why should the law "protect" him from his own decisions? >>No, a constitution is not a contract. Did the people of the United States actually formally vote for the constitution in a referendum? ....It is NOT a contract by any means. Similarly, your conception of the constitution does not match reality. It was not drawn up by some democratically-chosen representative assembly, but by elites who then submitted it to other elites for ratification. Even then, the ratification of a constitution is a legislative act not a contracting act. (For starters, the powers of the Courts who enforce the constitution are defined by the constitution.) The bulk of your complaint seems to be my choice of the word "contract." While I believe that I can defend that choice, I won't. That would mean getting as bogged down and off track about the definition of "contract" as Scott allowed Ashlyn and Jillian to bog the discussion down over illegal drugs. Instead, I'll concede that there are probably several other words I could have used that are as accurate, or even better than contract. That does not change the thrust of my argument: the Constitution limits the rights and the powers of the federal government, reserving all rights not specifically waived to the people, and all power not specifically granted to the states. >>...a constitution is simply a set of supreme laws that can only be changed with very broad support. The Constitution is more than "simply a set of supreme laws." It is also a set of guiding principles, meta-laws, if you will, especially the Bill of Rights. It expresses a philosophy of government. One which takes a particular view of the comparative value of individual rights and governmental responsibilities and decides in favor of the individual. Yes it can be changed, but that change was deliberately made a difficult and tedious process to ensure that it was done cooly, and with much consideration of the consequences. Since the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights), only the Civil War amendments (13, 14, 15), Women's Sufferage (19), and the poll tax amendment (24) which together re-affirmed this philosophy and extended it to some individuals who had been left out, have touched on this issue. Certainly, none have waived or attempted to revoke individual rights.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 10/30/2004; 1:56 PM Really what does this discussion really do.What does it prove, and also whats the point because obviously everyone here sees on different views. Are you trying to state: Your not given freedom? Your rights are being violated somehow? The government should back off and give you choices? You don't agree with the legal system? The government forbids you from to many things? or not enough things? The government is not doing what their suppose to do? How can they do better financially and reasonably? I mean tell me how you think the government can make it better for you? I'm not only talking about the government helping (protecting) here at home, but from the out side world that threatens your way of life. I'm going to say this even though I know somewhere I'm going to be quoted. Do you think that if the government didn't have the navy or the air force etc. that you could protect yourself when the enemy comes. The enemy doesn't have to be physical, it could be a disease for instance. Most people wouldn't be able to pay for a flu shot, so thats why they have medicare. Most cases people are indigent but if they have medicare, medicare will pay for either most of it, all of it, or just some of it, and thats a government funded organization. >>.No where that I know of does it say the government has to provide Americans with medicare, jobs, and a place to live, a car etc Because its suppose to be your responsibility to take care of yourself, but the government assists you anyway regardless if their suppose to or not. Your entitled to have these things, but the government doesn't have to provide you with them. >>.Thats all I'm trying to say. The government is not there for nothing. Ashlyn
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: TomM on 10/30/2004; 3:23 PM Ashlyn-- Being quoted is not being put down. I quote from other's postings when I agree with the point as well as when I disagree. Since there are often other posts in between, it is not like a spoken conversation where I can jump right in as soon as a point is made to comment on it. If I just wrote "I agree with that," or "I think you're wrong," how would you know whose post and which part of it I was commenting on? >>How can they do better financially and reasonably? I mean tell me how you think the government can make it better for you? "The government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Jefferson Scott and other libertarians firmly believe in this sentiment of Jefferson's. They believe that there are functions that the government should be involved in, but many more that it shouldn't. >>Do you think that if the government didn't have the navy or the air force etc. that you could protect yourself when the enemy comes. Military defense is one of the necessary functions of government, and it is authorized by the Constitution. Even libertarians agree on this issue. >>The enemy doesn't have to be physical, it could be a disease for instance. Most people wouldn't be able to pay for a flu shot, so thats why they have medicare. Most cases people are indigent but if they have medicare, medicare will pay for either most of it, all of it, or just some of it, and thats a government funded organization. Here it gets a little more iffy. Hard-line libertarians would claim that, regardless, it is not the federal government's duty or responsibility. I tend to be a little more compassionate, and am uncertain whether government should get involved in such "social engineering" (to use the hard-liners' term), and if so at what level (local, state, federal). I do know that more money is wasted in government-run programs than in "privatized" programs, and more in "privatized" programs than in "private-sector" programs. But I also know that more people "fall through the cracks" in the reverse order. >>Are you trying to state: Your not given freedom? Your rights are being violated somehow? The government should back off and give you choices? You don't agree with the legal system? The government forbids you from to many things? or not enough things? The government is not doing what their suppose to do? How can they do better financially and reasonably? Some libertarians might have problems even with the phrasing of these questions. They might, for example, jump on the word "given" in the first question. "The government did not "give" me these rights (freedoms); they are, as the Declaration of Independence states "unalienable." Or they might rephrase your fourth question and say "It's not that I disagree with the legal system, its that I disagree with your interpretation of what it should be. That is a real problem with many issues, especially political ones. The very words we use to discuss them are often loaded with meanings that we did not intend or with assumtions that we don't realize we are making. Some people will jump on those hidden meanings, just to prove that you are a demon (Look at how the partisan pundits rip apart every word the opposing party's candidate speaks.), but most will try to allow you the benefit of the doubt. This site is an exception of sorts because one of the functions of some of the replies here is to help you to sharpen your communication skills, so picking apart the words you use is not always mean-spirited. Sometimes it is meant to help you focus on the logic of your arguments. And I think I just argued myself into a corner: Josh-- Although I still feel it would be off-topic to persue it here, if you want to start a new thread about defining the best word to describe a document such as the Constitution, I will listen to what you have to say.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 10/30/2004; 10:58 PM Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation. A State Ex Rel. Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 10/30/2004; 11:58 PM Precisely, Jillian. And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are quite clear. See my "translations" of them above.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 10/31/2004; 12:12 AM Jillian, why in the world would you offer up that quote? First, I've never understood why people are so fond of quoting this 19th century decision by the *Nevada Supreme Court* (which is actually Torreyson v. Grey). Especially since it's such a silly, stupid case -- they should have publicly flogged Grey for his role in this case. Grey was the Nevada Secretary of State. Torreyson was the Attorney General. Nevada is one of the states where an amendment to the state constitution has to be passed by successive legislatures before it can go to a vote. The Constitution requires that after the legislature has initially passed an amendment that it be published "for three months next preceding the last general election" in order for the succeeding legislature to take it up. The idea here is you don't want a bunch of lame duck legislators doing this after the election. So in early 1891, the legislature passes several proposed amendments and publishes them in its proceedings. A new legislature is elected in 1892 and in early 1893 the legislature requests the Amendments from the office of the secretary of state. And then here's where dumbass Grey steps in. Grey actually argued that since the legislature published the proposed amendment in 1891 -- 18 months before the election -- rather than in August 1892 -- three months before the election -- that the legislature had failed to publish the amendments "for three months next preceding the last general election" and he refused to release them to the legislature. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with the legislature, pointing out the obvious -- that the amendments had actually been continually published since 1891, which met the three month requirement,
I'm surprised you would cite this quote "Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous. . ." because it is typically cited by defenders of the sort of view of the Constitution that Scott shares. If you take it literally, Scott is right -- most of the edifice of national government we have today clearly violates the rather unambiguous intent of the framers. Is there anything more contorted, for example, than the Supreme Court's rulings on the Fifth Amendment which simply ignore the plain language of the amendment? But even the Constitutionalists are overreaching, since the Nevada SC was simply applying a bit of a smackdown to an official who offered up a blatantly pedantic reading of the Nevada Constitution for political purposes. (If this guy were alive today he'd be in some militia arguing the 16th amendment had never passed because of minor typos in some published versions.)
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Richard Davidson on 11/1/2004; 9:16 PM I have some thoughts on this thread: 1. I haven't been around because I've been caught up in the Presidential Election. I have been making a difference, and getting out the vote. If you can't guess on whose behalf, then you haven't read enough of my stuff, and need to do so immediately, or you will be PUNISHED. 2. Poor Ashlyn and Jillian. They came here with the wild-eyed innocence of youth, only to fall into a den of nasty, dangerous libertarian nit-pickers, several of whom HAVE NEVER LEFT THE HOUSE. Ladies, these guys got you on many points, but the overall FEEL of what you first wrote was dead on. Take that for what its worth. Your argument is not quite specific enough for me to take sides, but believe me, once you start using 19th Century Supreme Court Opinions for your fall back position, you're in a world of hurt, and in danger of boring everyone to death. 3. I hereby forbid the use of the term "nanny state" EVER AGAIN. It offends me, because it's been done too much, and I now will introduce a new cliche: The Art Noveau Appendage. Symptoms of the Art Noveau Appendage include vomiting, heavy bleeding and a propensity for loud Mozart. 4. Mark, fearing you have offended me is a waste of your time and mine. The very concept offends me. Great! Now look what you've done! You've offended me by bringing up a concept! Hope you're proud, Buck Rogers. If anyone here offends me, I will come right out and say so, and then either flame them, or write something so brilliant they'll wish I had simply flamed them. Finally, I would ask that all posters here consider simply buying any number of Dylan and Lennon albums, listening to them in their entirity, and then buying my book "Welcome to Percotran" which still hasn't made me rich or famous. I would like to get into the specifics of this argument, but frankly, it bores the living crap out of me. Needless to say, The United States of America is beyond a doubt the greatest country in the world, but there's no reason to think we can't improve it from here. I intend to do just that, starting with tomorrow, a day I am completely STOKED about. The sweet taste of freedom is in the air, people. Drink it in. Drink it in. Ashlyn, Jillian, stay away from Libertarians and Librarians for awhile. You really are both too young and sweet to be jaded in this manner. Post some nice poems about horses and maybe Buffalo, and stop back in three weeks, when I will be back to writing gibberish that seems deep, God willing. Thank you, and GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 11/2/2004; 6:39 PM Richard Davidson wrote: >2. Poor Ashlyn and Jillian. They came here with the wild-eyed innocence of youth, only to fall into a den of nasty, dangerous libertarian nit-pickers, several of whom HAVE NEVER LEFT THE HOUSE. > You're damn right -- and I demand a government program to help me deal with my agoraphobia. I think that's pretty clear from the Constitution that Thomas Jefferson intended for the federal government to give a helping hand (and plenty of tax dollars) two us subterannean dwellers. > Ladies, these guys got you on many points, but the overall FEEL of what you first wrote was dead on. > So life in Great Britain is horrible because the drinking age isn't 21? (Jillian's first post in this thread -- "Yes in other countries the might be able to drink and marry young, but just look at their way of life. That's no life for you.") That doesn't feel dead on to me at all.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 11/2/2004; 6:49 PM I take that as an offense implying that I cant defend my fact base opinions on this subject, and that I'm to young to understand the issue firsthand. I get what you say but the others are just don't understand. Their probaly Democrats and I'm republican and we agree on different views, and thats I'll I'm going to say because I'm not trying to change anyones opinions on things, I was just expressing my thoughts. Ashlyn
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: lindsay on 11/2/2004; 7:48 PM You shouldn't take what anyone says on this site as a personal insult. Most people on here don't mean it that way. That's all I wanted to say, except that I support Jillian and Ashlyn with the overall idea of what they say. I'm not good at debates and would probably have my arguments ripped apart by these people so I don't really try. Anyway, back to being the passive observer... Lindsay P.S. I'm sorry for any misspellings...
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 11/2/2004; 9:33 PM lindsay wrote: >You shouldn't take what anyone says on this site as a personal insult. Most people on here don't mean it that way. > >That's all I wanted to say, except that I support Jillian and Ashlyn with the overall idea of what they say. I'm not good at debates and would probably have my arguments ripped apart by these people so I don't really try. Anyway, back to being the passive observer... > The last few remarks seem to suggest that Ashlyn and Jillian are just getting ripped apart by Scott and I. Give me a break -- outside of Internet junkies who live in their parents basement, who takes this position seriously. Anyone seen where Baradnik is polling these days? Ashlyn and Jillian represent the clear status quo in the United States today, even among allegedly conservative parties such as the GOP.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: lindsay on 11/2/2004; 9:48 PM No No No That is not what I meant. I actually think they are doing a fine job. I am saying that I would do a horrible job because I'm no good at debates.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Mark Morgan on 11/2/2004; 9:51 PM >Give me a break -- outside of Internet junkies who live in their parents >basement, who takes this position seriously. I would just like to clarify, I assume from Richard's previous posting and writing history that he was kidding about the living in the basement thing. If not, he should be aware that I am no longer in the basement. And this Thanksgiving they might even let me eat at the grownup table! Wowza! He's right about at least two of us being libertarian nitpickers, while I'm at it. I follow some libertarian concepts as does Scott, and we are both definitely <http://www.nitcentral.com/discus>nitpickers! Several posts up there was a comment about not changing anyone's mind. In several years of reading and posting opinions online I think I can say that I have never changed anyone's mind about anything except by sheerest coincidence. I like reading other points of view to sharpen my mind, and when I disagree with someone and I write it down it forces me to think through my position. I find healthy disagreement a great joy of the Internet, and at least one of the reasons Unreason exists. What else? I'd like to welcome jillian and ashlyn to Unreason. (And anybody else who is new here if I missed you it wasn't intentional.) I hope you take some time to read some of the non-political things here. ScottN has written some things that will make your brain melt in one way, while Richard has written some things that will make your brain melt in a different way. Feel free to write up something of your own for publication as well. Or just read and enjoy. (Have I derailed the conversation enough yet? Let's see. . . .) I hope nobody's actually offended by anything anyone said to anyone else in this thread, and as site owner and admin I formally apologize on behalf of everyone to everyone else. And the nanobots are particularly sorry about the thing with the creamed corn. Really. -- ---Mark "Too bad dark languages rarely survive."
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 11/2/2004; 11:28 PM I hope nobody's actually offended by anything anyone said to anyone else in this thread Ditto. I was doing my damndest to make sure I was attacking arguments, and not the person. There's enough of that elsewhere (you know what I mean, Mark). And the nanobots are particularly sorry about the thing with the creamed corn. Really. So it was the 'bots? You probably shouldn't have let that slip. I was convinced it was Bill Gates that did it! ^_^
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Richard Davidson on 11/3/2004; 11:01 AM This will be the second time on this thread that Brian Carnell misinterprets my congratulations to a poster or posters for thinking, and expressing themselves. All I can say is I love you all, and stop by sometime for ice cream. I would like to agree with Mark that you should read the creative writing at this site, instead of getting into political debates, which you can do just about anywhere these days, and I wasn't trying to say anybody couldn't defend their positions; I am a writer of HUMOR, and a lot of what I write is tongue in cheek, and I'm never going to tell you when I'm serious and when I'm not, so too bad, so sad, if you don't like it, send me money. By "Libertarian Nitpickers" I actually meant ScottN and Brian. If Brian isn't a Libertarian, then he's a Conservative with a Nasty Libertarian bent. Mark, you're really not too bad of a nitpicker, but I hear you're working on it. Anyway, I will try and get back here soon and start another novel or really pretentious short story with waaaaaay more subconscious meaning than anyone needs or wants.
Re: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Carnell on 11/3/2004; 2:56 PM Richard Davidson wrote: >This will be the second time on this thread that Brian Carnell misinterprets my congratulations to a poster or posters for thinking, and expressing themselves. > > It is because the lighting in my parents' basement simulates a red sun and causes me to lose my powers.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 11/3/2004; 9:31 PM Bush so beat Kerry, and I'm glad.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Richard Davidson on 11/3/2004; 10:37 PM Bush beat Kerry by a very very narrow margin. How that amounts to "so beating Kerry" is beyond me. It was a larger margin than he beat Gore by (since Gore actually got more votes than he did,) but it wasn't exactly his daddy vs Dukakis, now was it? Brian, you're going to want to consider buying some auxiliary lighting. Something with the word "halogen" in it. Those plant grow lights are wonderful; not only do they improve your photos, but they actually help plants to grow.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 11/5/2004; 5:16 PM You have to admit we all knew the Bush was going to beat Kerry. I could have saved the people that were campaigning for a lot of trouble and told them all to go home. >Jill
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 11/5/2004; 6:53 PM No, we didn't. That's why we held the election.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 11/5/2004; 7:10 PM We all knew Kerry didn't have a chance against President Bush, come on. Bush is a good president. He may be not the best but he's a far president. Jill
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 11/5/2004; 10:11 PM Again, no, "We all" didn't know that. You may have believed so, but about 49% of the voting population didn't. Disclaimer: I voted for neither Bush, nor Kerry. I voted third party.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 11/6/2004; 10:44 AM Third party is just another name for democrat.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Josh Gould on 11/6/2004; 4:04 PM Um, no, it isn't, Jillian.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 11/6/2004; 11:49 PM Jillian, as a registered Libertarian, I resent that comment. Without being condescending (which I considered your comment to be), I'll merely chalk it up to youth on your part. Again, as stated earlier, I have come to my position over many years. At one point I was a Democrat, at one point I campaigned for John Anderson. About 5 years ago, I became a Libertarian.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 11/8/2004; 6:13 PM Democrats and third party has allot in common in how they decide to vote. I personally see no difference in third party Libertarians between democrats maybe just a few flaws. The only president I know on record that was third party was Abraham Lincoln, and the only reason he became president is because he was the only candidate to address slavery issues. >There hasn't been a third party president before or after him, because when it comes to elections democrats and republicans make the rules. They make it so third party cant win and wont win. It would be a cold day if a third party candidate did win, because his chances are very minimum. So why be a third party if you know your candidate wont win. >>Be any party you want to be, don't just look at the chances of your candidate. most people vote on how it will effect them, and the promises the candidate makes while running. >>Even if Kerry won, the congress is 5 to 4 republican. Majority rules. So if he were to become president the congress would be ran by republicans. The chances of going in the presidents favor, because he's democrat is very little. the president proposes laws but he does not make them, He can veto a law or pass it, but either way if he veto's a law, congress is going to run it through again and make it a law with or without him. >So then you should see that what Kerry said that if he became president what he was going to do for Americans. Do you believe he could have kept those promises? >>I don't think so. >>If elected president he would "lower middle class taxes." "Make more jobs here at home, and not send them overseas." Raise taxes on higher class citizens. He wouldn't make jobs and he doesn't make jobs, business do and by lowering the middle class taxes and raising the higher class taxes businesses would lose money because these high industries are owned by the upper class. The more money they lose the more things or people they'll cut. which would cause the prices of merchandise to raise and to either fire people or cut their work hours. >>Florida for example, they just raised the average pay. So by raising it businesses are going to have to pay the workers more and their not going to be happy. Some businesses will fire you and find someone willing to work for less for the same thing. Businesses only pay you what your worth to them. Example a law firm, of coarse the lawyers are going to get more then a janitor that works there also, but the Janitor will get paid less because he's not a great asset to the company and doesn't contribute much. He's not worth that much to the company. Thats why he gets paid less. >>So my personal opinion and you don't have to quote me is that it was a waste to vote for John Kerry, Isn't being a senator enough for him. Ashlyn
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 11/9/2004; 8:08 PM I personally see no difference in third party Libertarians between democrats maybe just a few flaws. Then you don't know a darned thing about the Libertarians. Libertarians want a small federal government, unlike both the Dems and the GOP, which want big government (in different places). Libertarians believe the federal government should be limited to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, per the Tenth Amendment. it was a waste to vote for John Kerry So we should just have not held the election? Again, I state that 49% of the population held a differing viewpoint. Secondly, I state again that I voted for neither Kerry nor Bush. You have a lot to learn about politics, I'm afraid. This is not meant as an insult, but as an exhortation to go out and learn about the other parties besides the "Big 2". Libertarian Party Natural Law Party (just for you, Brian Webber! ^_^)
Constitution Party
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Jillian on 11/10/2004; 5:58 PM I understand what you are saying, but the do you realize the only two parties that ever get the official elections are the democrats and the republicans. Pardon my speech but Hell with the rest of them, because the chances of the other parties ever-ever get to be president is very-very unlikely in todays society. >>I only stated that it was a waste to vote for John Kerry is because his thoughts and opinions were unrealistic, they would hurt are society as we know is now. >>I made no offense toward other campaigning parties, but that allot of people don't recognize them as anybody really. Most of people that I know haven't even heard of those parties is because they haven't won any election so far, and that tells you how many people would vote in their favor on anything. >>I mean no offense toward you or anyone else that would take this to offense, but that you have to see the view points in this. Jill
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Brian Webber on 11/10/2004; 8:29 PM Seeing as several cities in America have Green mayors, and (hopefully) Denver is about to have a Natural Law City Councilman... A lot of people said the same thing about Republicans when they first started.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: ScottN on 11/11/2004; 12:41 AM Not to mention that Minnesota had a Reform Party governor (Jesse Ventura). Oh, and Jillian, I realize that the Big 2 have such a lock on things that it is difficult for a third party to win an election. What I objected to is the statement that all third parties are the same as the Dems. As for I only stated that it was a waste to vote for John Kerry is because his thoughts and opinions were unrealistic, they would hurt are society as we know is now Again, I state that about half the population (49%) disagreed with you there. Also, I would argue that Bush did quite a bit of harm to society and trampling on the Constitution, though now that Ashcroft has resigned, hopefully things may get better.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Ashlyn on 11/11/2004; 10:00 PM I agree with Jill, but Jillian people have choices in who they want to believe in. Who they see right for a canidate or as the future president. Other then that I have no objections.
RE: USA: The Greatest Country in the World By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 3/7/2009; 9:05 PM YAY OBAMA! (hahahahaha)
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|