10-23-2013 06:48 PM
121 ... 2345
tools
  1. spaulagain's Avatar
    Um, your argument is nonsensical. What the 'right' to broadband has to do with is having a certain speed to everyone's home available. I'm assuming, logically since I haven't read the bill, because the Finnish government isn't stupid, that there are clauses for weather conditions and outages, etc.

    What the right is for is that everyone should have the same advantage as everyone else, regardless of where there live. Finland is semi-socialist in nature. There's nothing wrong with the idea.

    They also have the right to pick berries and mushrooms in the forest regardless if it's on someone's property as long as it's not on 'farmed' land. It's a refreshing idea. It may be hard for someone who may be from a culture where 'selfishness' is the key factor of life to understand.
    Again, the term "right" in this circumstance is being watered down to practically nothing. There are "clauses" as to when your right may be inactive or "out of order?" That is not a right. That is just a social service provided by law. Calling it a right is foolish and just a politicians way to get votes.

    Selfishness is not the key factor of life to understand in the US. Just because we are not some socialist "everyone shares everything with everyone" country doesn't make us selfish.

    The US (its citizens) tops the charts every year as either one of the most charitable, or THE most charitable nation in the world. And we're selfish?

    We are individualists, but that doesn't mean we are selfish.
    08-19-2013 06:53 PM
  2. Jazmac's Avatar
    yes and no, bailing out any industry is wrong should never ever be done. However you are completely misguided if you think the war in Iraq is what caused the economic situation were in. When in fact it had little to nothing to do with it.
    Where did the money come from to pay for that search, the lives of those that died, the money to rebuild that countries infrastructure, and replace the weapons we lost in The process?
    08-19-2013 08:19 PM
  3. Reflexx's Avatar
    A lot depends on this.

    Do you believe that you were truly born with certain rights because that is human's natural state?

    Or do you believe that you were born without rights and it is up to others to bestow rights upon you?
    08-19-2013 08:37 PM
  4. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    Again, the term "right" in this circumstance is being watered down to practically nothing. There are "clauses" as to when your right may be inactive or "out of order?" That is not a right. That is just a social service provided by law. Calling it a right is foolish and just a politicians way to get votes.

    Selfishness is not the key factor of life to understand in the US. Just because we are not some socialist "everyone shares everything with everyone" country doesn't make us selfish.

    The US (its citizens) tops the charts every year as either one of the most charitable, or THE most charitable nation in the world. And we're selfish?

    We are individualists, but that doesn't mean we are selfish.
    OK the term selfish was wrong but there is a definite 'me' culture in the US. That doesn't mean that it's bad but it's not exactly good either. As for my opinions about charity, I'll just say nothing.

    As for this whole idea of rights. We're talking about two different things here. You're going by this idea of 'natural rights' and I'm referring to legal rights. Both have merit but are obviously different things by definition.

    Though I have to point out that most rights, both natural and legal have limitations. I can only think of one in the US that may not have any limitations, freedom of speech, so long as you can 'speak' in some form. Though I can't say that for certain as I don't know all the state laws which do impose limitations on rights, legally.

    So, yes I agree with your definition but the simple reality there is a 'need' for legal rights as well. Whether you agree with that is up to you.
    Dazzi likes this.
    08-20-2013 01:57 AM
  5. jonathan sink's Avatar
    Where did the money come from to pay for that search, the lives of those that died, the money to rebuild that countries infrastructure, and replace the weapons we lost in The process?
    Of course all wars cost money. But the collapse in our economy was from decades of out of control spending, and strangling regulations on private business. These wars only cost a very small percentage compared to what were in debt for. Lets not forget either that just in the war years under bush and Obama what were paying in wars compared to the rest of the out of control spending doesn't compare either. Factor that with all of the blood sucking government bureaucracies again over the last 60 years and you have the problem.
    derek533 likes this.
    08-20-2013 04:42 AM
  6. Reflexx's Avatar
    The US was founded on the idea of limited government.

    Local governments were closer to the people and were better able to address community concerns.

    Federal government's one size fits all approach wouldn't work very well.

    It's gone pretty far away from that now though. Now we do try to make one size fits all, and it isn't working out very well.
    derek533 likes this.
    08-20-2013 05:07 AM
  7. IrRevd's Avatar
    I don't like wars, should I therefore receive a rebate for my share of the defence budget?
    08-20-2013 05:15 AM
  8. Jazmac's Avatar
    Of course all wars cost money. But the collapse in our economy was from decades of out of control spending, and strangling regulations on private business. These wars only cost a very small percentage compared to what were in debt for. Lets not forget either that just in the war years under bush and Obama what were paying in wars compared to the rest of the out of control spending doesn't compare either. Factor that with all of the blood sucking government bureaucracies again over the last 60 years and you have the problem.
    During Clnton, there wasn't this question. Economist talked surplus and if not having the debt was a good thing. During Clnton, we almost reached full employment. Since bush, WTC, war in Iraq, 750 thousand jobs lost a month. How you think Domestic spending ignores reality.
    08-20-2013 07:34 AM
  9. jonathan sink's Avatar
    During Clnton, there wasn't this question. Economist talked surplus and if not having the debt was a good thing. During Clnton, we almost reached full employment. Since bush, WTC, war in Iraq, 750 thousand jobs lost a month. How you think Domestic spending ignores reality.
    its amazing to me how just because something happens under one president that its his fault. Your precious Clinton was one of the biggest problems when it came to the market crash. After all he signed the bill that created the housing bubble and forced the banks into all of those doomed to fail mortgages. Now I can put some blame on bush because he did nothing to try and stop it. Don't get me wrong no fan of bush here either. But to say that that one war caused the problem is just delusional.



    Stop looking at things from one side of the aisle wake up and realize that both sides are screwing us both sides only care about there own pockets and seizing more power for themselves and there buddies. Which is why I took offense to the original post of the article. Just another power grab by our government to put there corrupt hands where they don't belong.
    derek533 likes this.
    08-20-2013 08:57 AM
  10. spaulagain's Avatar
    During Clnton, there wasn't this question. Economist talked surplus and if not having the debt was a good thing. During Clnton, we almost reached full employment. Since bush, WTC, war in Iraq, 750 thousand jobs lost a month. How you think Domestic spending ignores reality.
    Clinton rode an economic boom, largely due to this little thing called the internet. I'm not saying he was a bad President. But giving him the kind of credit you are is just foolish.

    Job loss over the past 5 years was due to the economic crash from the banking industry. That crash was a result of over zealous lending to unqualified lendees and then the irresponsible trading of those toxic loans. This first part was due to the government (the democrats in this case) forcing the banks to make loans they never should have. All because "everyone should own a home!" even if they can't afford it. The second part was due to deregulation (Republicans under Bush) that allowed banks to make foolish business trades.

    Both factors were equally damaging. Blaming Bush single handedly is ignorant and won't prevent this from happening again. Blaming the war is just flat out stupid. The war impacted our national governments budget/deficit, not the economic nightmare in 2008.
    08-20-2013 12:07 PM
  11. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    Clinton rode an economic boom, largely due to this little thing called the internet. I'm not saying he was a bad President. But giving him the kind of credit you are is just foolish.

    Job loss over the past 5 years was due to the economic crash from the banking industry. That crash was a result of over zealous lending to unqualified lendees and then the irresponsible trading of those toxic loans. This first part was due to the government (the democrats in this case) forcing the banks to make loans they never should have. All because "everyone should own a home!" even if they can't afford it. The second part was due to deregulation (Republicans under Bush) that allowed banks to make foolish business trades.

    Both factors were equally damaging. Blaming Bush single handedly is ignorant and won't prevent this from happening again. Blaming the war is just flat out stupid. The war impacted our national governments budget/deficit, not the economic nightmare in 2008.
    Agree with you. To add, other past governments are partially to blame for the housing situation. Many have had 'everyone deserves a house' attitude and it is part of the American psyche to want to own a home. The issues are as you stated though. Many different layers at play which caused the collapse.
    08-20-2013 01:02 PM
  12. Reflexx's Avatar
    I think some manufactured rights are the result of modern technology and conveniences spoiling us.

    Back in the day, if you wanted something you worked and saved for a long time. You had a singular goal and worked to achieve it.

    Now, you can want 20 things and easily get 15 of them, then complain how the other 5 aren't fairly accessible.
    08-20-2013 06:08 PM
  13. fatclue_98's Avatar
    It's funny how this thread has evolved from the OP's claim to Bush and the unfunded wars. Forgive me for going back on topic in this off-topic forum but some of you are just too young and idealistic to know what's going on. First, education is funded through property taxes which is a bad idea to begin with. Second, because of the housing bubble property taxes went through the roof in some places because assessed values were artificially jacked up. The millage rates didn't budge so the climb was astronomical. As a result, local politicians saw all this new money in the kitty and couldn't resist awarding BS public works projects to their special interest buddies. All of a sudden, foreclosures ruled the day and the faucet that served tax money went dry. Problem is, these junket contracts had been awarded and signed but now there is a shortfall and property owners are clamoring for tax relief. The 2010 mid-term elections brought the wave of Tea Party politicians promising to shrink government, lower taxes and eliminate pork-barrel politics. Hook, line and sinker! Tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts. When the gravy train was groovin' nobody saw it fit to properly fill the coffers of certain services like education, firefighters and police. Our infrastructure is worse than some second-rate countries but nobody's complaining.

    Everybody wants non-existent taxes but they want 911 Paramedics to be at your house before you hang up the phone, a cop on every corner and an education system that churns out little Einsteins year in and year out. There's only one way to fund these services and that's through taxation. FAIR taxation. Governments at the local, state and federal levels take in more than enough money through taxes to give us free health care, roads paved in gold and a Maserati in every driveway. Problem is there are way too many crooks in politics to prevent this from ever happening. I, for one, don't mind paying for better services for education. Five bucks doesn't even cover a Big Mac and fries so it's not like I'm going to feel it, but we need more accountability.
    08-20-2013 06:43 PM
  14. spaulagain's Avatar
    It's funny how this thread has evolved from the OP's claim to Bush and the unfunded wars. Forgive me for going back on topic in this off-topic forum but some of you are just too young and idealistic to know what's going on. First, education is funded through property taxes which is a bad idea to begin with. Second, because of the housing bubble property taxes went through the roof in some places because assessed values were artificially jacked up. The millage rates didn't budge so the climb was astronomical. As a result, local politicians saw all this new money in the kitty and couldn't resist awarding BS public works projects to their special interest buddies. All of a sudden, foreclosures ruled the day and the faucet that served tax money went dry. Problem is, these junket contracts had been awarded and signed but now there is a shortfall and property owners are clamoring for tax relief. The 2010 mid-term elections brought the wave of Tea Party politicians promising to shrink government, lower taxes and eliminate pork-barrel politics. Hook, line and sinker! Tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts. When the gravy train was groovin' nobody saw it fit to properly fill the coffers of certain services like education, firefighters and police. Our infrastructure is worse than some second-rate countries but nobody's complaining.

    Everybody wants non-existent taxes but they want 911 Paramedics to be at your house before you hang up the phone, a cop on every corner and an education system that churns out little Einsteins year in and year out. There's only one way to fund these services and that's through taxation. FAIR taxation. Governments at the local, state and federal levels take in more than enough money through taxes to give us free health care, roads paved in gold and a Maserati in every driveway. Problem is there are way too many crooks in politics to prevent this from ever happening. I, for one, don't mind paying for better services for education. Five bucks doesn't even cover a Big Mac and fries so it's not like I'm going to feel it, but we need more accountability.

    That's the problem. Most people don't have an issue paying taxes for good social services, education, infrastructure, and emergency personnel. But when we have the highest dollar per student and yet some of the worst performance and education, it gets very hard to accept even the smallest increase in taxes.

    This country (like Europe) is slipping into nanny state inclinations. The people love to here "we'll give you this, and this, and this" from the representatives. But that all costs money. California fell victim to this by legislations that weren't funded. And when the big time tax payers disappeared after the economic collapse, so did all their tax revenue to pay for those services, etc.
    falconrap likes this.
    08-20-2013 08:12 PM
  15. Tracy Daken's Avatar
    Just them dipping their grubby paws into a CONSUMER market like cell phones proves how intertwined corporations and the government are. Bravo. What is next, going to tax air now?
    I already don't have much control over the public school system.
    08-20-2013 08:21 PM
  16. falconrap's Avatar
    The reality is that the Federal government collects more than enough taxes to pay for our real needs, but spends way too much on "stuff" to enrich themselves, their buddies, and the special interests that poor tons of money into the coffers. In all fairness to the Tea Party candidates that went into the last congress, kind of hard to get anything past a Senate that wants nothing done beyond more fed spending. Right now our congress is at a deadlock on the most important issues.

    What needs to happen, is the entire federal bureaucracy needs to be sunsetted and re-voted on where applicable, and with the intent of only doing what the feds should do; i.e. national defense, treaties, interstate commerce regulation, and interstate infrastructure. Everything else should be devolved back down to the states. The fed should also concentrate on solvency in their SSI and Medicare promises and seek ways to limit fed influence on the cost of healthcare to minimal regulation that maintains safety without micromanaging our health system. Of course, none of this is likely to happen, so I stand by my "we're screwed" statement.

    Five dollars a year is nothing, but the whole principle is that the feds shouldn't even be involved in this area with the rare exception of helping impoverished schools where the particular state simple doesn't have the funding. Even there, they should tread lightly. Otherwise, let the state and county governments deal with things like education, since they know far better than the feds how to serve their constituencies and are more easily removed if they fail to do so.
    kbilly70 and Reflexx like this.
    08-20-2013 08:26 PM
  17. kbilly70's Avatar
    The reality is that the Federal government collects more than enough taxes to pay for our real needs, but spends way too much on "stuff" to enrich themselves, their buddies, and the special interests that poor tons of money into the coffers. In all fairness to the Tea Party candidates that went into the last congress, kind of hard to get anything past a Senate that wants nothing done beyond more fed spending. Right now our congress is at a deadlock on the most important issues.

    What needs to happen, is the entire federal bureaucracy needs to be sunsetted and re-voted on where applicable, and with the intent of only doing what the feds should do; i.e. national defense, treaties, interstate commerce regulation, and interstate infrastructure. Everything else should be devolved back down to the states. The fed should also concentrate on solvency in their SSI and Medicare promises and seek ways to limit fed influence on the cost of healthcare to minimal regulation that maintains safety without micromanaging our health system. Of course, none of this is likely to happen, so I stand by my "we're screwed" statement.

    Five dollars a year is nothing, but the whole principle is that the feds shouldn't even be involved in this area with the rare exception of helping impoverished schools where the particular state simple doesn't have the funding. Even there, they should tread lightly. Otherwise, let the state and county governments deal with things like education, since they know far better than the feds how to serve their constituencies and are more easily removed if they fail to do so.
    Well said.
    08-20-2013 08:29 PM
  18. fardream's Avatar
    Clinton rode an economic boom, largely due to this little thing called the internet. I'm not saying he was a bad President. But giving him the kind of credit you are is just foolish.

    Job loss over the past 5 years was due to the economic crash from the banking industry. That crash was a result of over zealous lending to unqualified lendees and then the irresponsible trading of those toxic loans. This first part was due to the government (the democrats in this case) forcing the banks to make loans they never should have. All because "everyone should own a home!" even if they can't afford it. The second part was due to deregulation (Republicans under Bush) that allowed banks to make foolish business trades.

    Both factors were equally damaging. Blaming Bush single handedly is ignorant and won't prevent this from happening again. Blaming the war is just flat out stupid. The war impacted our national governments budget/deficit, not the economic nightmare in 2008.
    Actually the separation of investment bank and commercial bank is repealed in Clinton era. Also, JPM invented CDS during Clinton era. Up until 2012, wall street favors democrats more than Republicans. To blame Bush for all the faults of the doomsday trading machine is too narrow minded.
    08-20-2013 08:43 PM
  19. fatclue_98's Avatar
    The reality is that the Federal government collects more than enough taxes to pay for our real needs, but spends way too much on "stuff" to enrich themselves, their buddies, and the special interests that poor tons of money into the coffers. In all fairness to the Tea Party candidates that went into the last congress, kind of hard to get anything past a Senate that wants nothing done beyond more fed spending. Right now our congress is at a deadlock on the most important issues.

    What needs to happen, is the entire federal bureaucracy needs to be sunsetted and re-voted on where applicable, and with the intent of only doing what the feds should do; i.e. national defense, treaties, interstate commerce regulation, and interstate infrastructure. Everything else should be devolved back down to the states. The fed should also concentrate on solvency in their SSI and Medicare promises and seek ways to limit fed influence on the cost of healthcare to minimal regulation that maintains safety without micromanaging our health system. Of course, none of this is likely to happen, so I stand by my "we're screwed" statement.

    Five dollars a year is nothing, but the whole principle is that the feds shouldn't even be involved in this area with the rare exception of helping impoverished schools where the particular state simple doesn't have the funding. Even there, they should tread lightly. Otherwise, let the state and county governments deal with things like education, since they know far better than the feds how to serve their constituencies and are more easily removed if they fail to do so.
    What the Republican Party wants you to believe is that the states and the local governments can do a better job of doling out the cash. I'm proudly registered as "No Party Affiliation" after nearly 30 years as a Republican and I can tell you this, the GOP does not have your best interests at heart.

    This state-first idea is not new. In fact, it was our first form of government after the war of independence. How'd that work out? It failed because the plantation states of the south were richer by means of their trade commodities and as such, wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Two senators per state regardless of population is a product of that failure. The Articles of Confederation should serve as a history lesson in how NOT to govern. So why does the GOP want so badly to reduce the scope of the central government? Privatization. Here in my lovely s**thole of Flori-Duh, the Republican-led legislature, along with Gov. Rick Scott (the indicted for medicaid fraud, Rick Scott) have privatized the prison system to an uncomfortable degree. I don't know about you, but I don't care for the idea of my tax money going into the hands of private individuals or corporations.

    Under former Governor Jeb Bush (the one who gave away the presidency in 2000) the efforts to privatize education has been gaining traction in the last few years. He basically b***h slapped his brother into creating "No Child Left Behind" as the last bastion of public education. It is doomed for failure and it's by design. Teachers no longer educate, they teach to a test. The funding for each school is tied to the test scores and now you hear about test grade scandals such as the one in Georgia. The powers that be WANT the public school system to fail so that their rich buddies can come to the rescue. More of your tax dollars going to a select few. Make no mistake, they're not giving up anytime soon.

    There is a saying that became very popular when I was in grade school toward the end of the Vietnam War, "If you ain't pissed off, you're not paying attention".
    08-20-2013 10:17 PM
  20. spaulagain's Avatar
    What the Republican Party wants you to believe is that the states and the local governments can do a better job of doling out the cash. I'm proudly registered as "No Party Affiliation" after nearly 30 years as a Republican and I can tell you this, the GOP does not have your best interests at heart.

    This state-first idea is not new. In fact, it was our first form of government after the war of independence. How'd that work out? It failed because the plantation states of the south were richer by means of their trade commodities and as such, wanted a bigger piece of the pie. Two senators per state regardless of population is a product of that failure. The Articles of Confederation should serve as a history lesson in how NOT to govern. So why does the GOP want so badly to reduce the scope of the central government? Privatization. Here in my lovely s**thole of Flori-Duh, the Republican-led legislature, along with Gov. Rick Scott (the indicted for medicaid fraud, Rick Scott) have privatized the prison system to an uncomfortable degree. I don't know about you, but I don't care for the idea of my tax money going into the hands of private individuals or corporations.

    Under former Governor Jeb Bush (the one who gave away the presidency in 2000) the efforts to privatize education has been gaining traction in the last few years. He basically b***h slapped his brother into creating "No Child Left Behind" as the last bastion of public education. It is doomed for failure and it's by design. Teachers no longer educate, they teach to a test. The funding for each school is tied to the test scores and now you hear about test grade scandals such as the one in Georgia. The powers that be WANT the public school system to fail so that their rich buddies can come to the rescue. More of your tax dollars going to a select few. Make no mistake, they're not giving up anytime soon.

    There is a saying that became very popular when I was in grade school toward the end of the Vietnam War, "If you ain't pissed off, you're not paying attention".
    Lol, are you serious? You think we think state government is new? This country was founded on state and localized government. We are united states because being united helps us maintain our nation's sovereignty. It also creates a natural "competition" of government. If someone doesn't like how things are being run, they can move to another state.

    States rights are still very important and so is their localized government. Just because the federal government has been on a power grab since the turn of the 20th century, doesn't mean this nation is abandoning localized government.
    08-20-2013 10:48 PM
  21. derek533's Avatar
    What is next, going to tax air now?
    They already are. Ever hear of carbon offsets and carbon credits? :rolleyes: (not at you, at carbon credits/offsets)
    christenmartin likes this.
    08-21-2013 09:05 AM
  22. fatclue_98's Avatar
    Lol, are you serious? You think we think state government is new? This country was founded on state and localized government. We are united states because being united helps us maintain our nation's sovereignty. It also creates a natural "competition" of government. If someone doesn't like how things are being run, they can move to another state.

    States rights are still very important and so is their localized government. Just because the federal government has been on a power grab since the turn of the 20th century, doesn't mean this nation is abandoning localized government.
    You must have not read my post. I said the state-first idea is NOT new and proceeded to elucidate why it was, and is, a bad idea. It's no different than communism, beautiful on paper but not much else. Being Cuban-born I have first-hand knowledge on the subject so please, don't go there. A strong central government is tantamount to healthy states. Without the checks and balances the Constitution provides, the states with more resources such as Texas, Pennsylvania, etc. would be in a position of power over say, Rhode Island. BTW, the federal government doesn't need to be on a "power grab" because the law of the land already provides it.
    08-21-2013 04:56 PM
  23. spaulagain's Avatar
    You must have not read my post. I said the state-first idea is NOT new and proceeded to elucidate why it was, and is, a bad idea. It's no different than communism, beautiful on paper but not much else. Being Cuban-born I have first-hand knowledge on the subject so please, don't go there. A strong central government is tantamount to healthy states. Without the checks and balances the Constitution provides, the states with more resources such as Texas, Pennsylvania, etc. would be in a position of power over say, Rhode Island. BTW, the federal government doesn't need to be on a "power grab" because the law of the land already provides it.
    You must have not read my post, I didn't state that you said it was new. I said it was ridiculous that you acted as if we, anyone else, or the Republicans acted like it was new. Which is just preposterous.

    Second of all, claiming state governance is just like communism in its value in practice is just flat out ridiculous. Our State governments are still very much a part of our government today. Budgeting, infrastructure, emergency personnel, and a lot more are all still run by our local government. So I don't see how in hell you think they have failed or are disappearing in any way. Not to mention that localized control or governance is practiced all around the world and is even mirrored in organizations and companies.

    And of course there has to be a federal government that keeps the States in check. And yes that is a part of the constitution. NO ONE, is proposing that we abolish the federal government and leave everything up to the States. People are just pointing out that the fed has been trying to infringe on states rights for decades. They're not always successful but they try to grab power. Hence the movement to try and move focus back to the States.

    I really don't get where you are coming from in your posts. You acknowledge state governance in the Constitution, but then make up some ridiculous statement on how state governments are complete failures. If you are from Cuba you should most definitely understand the drawbacks of pure federalism.
    08-21-2013 06:13 PM
  24. fatclue_98's Avatar
    You must have not read my post, I didn't state that you said it was new. I said it was ridiculous that you acted as if we, anyone else, or the Republicans acted like it was new. Which is just preposterous.

    Second of all, claiming state governance is just like communism in its value in practice is just flat out ridiculous. Our State governments are still very much a part of our government today. Budgeting, infrastructure, emergency personnel, and a lot more are all still run by our local government. So I don't see how in hell you think they have failed or are disappearing in any way. Not to mention that localized control or governance is practiced all around the world and is even mirrored in organizations and companies.

    And of course there has to be a federal government that keeps the States in check. And yes that is a part of the constitution. NO ONE, is proposing that we abolish the federal government and leave everything up to the States. People are just pointing out that the fed has been trying to infringe on states rights for decades. They're not always successful but they try to grab power. Hence the movement to try and move focus back to the States.

    I really don't get where you are coming from in your posts. You acknowledge state governance in the Constitution, but then make up some ridiculous statement on how state governments are complete failures. If you are from Cuba you should most definitely understand the drawbacks of pure federalism.
    Your prose and grammar leads me to believe that you are very well educated. However, your comprehension leaves much to be desired. I don't know where you read that I claimed state governments were a failure. Your words, not mine. You also take a flight of fancy by "claiming state governance is just like communism in its value in practice is just flat out ridiculous". I wrote that confederacies are akin to communism by being beautiful on paper. One has nothing to do with the other. If you ever bothered to read the works of Marx & Ingalls you'd know what I mean. Despots like Lenin and Mao used the decades old writings to scam their populaces and form dictatorships. I'll let you in on a dirty little secret, Fidel is about as communist as you, me or the man on the moon. He is a conniving dirtbag (respect to the mods) who sided with the Soviet Union because he refused to be the US's puppet when he came to power and wouldn't share the riches with Meyer Lansky, Santos Trafficante and others whose last name ended in vowels. Here endeth the lesson.
    08-21-2013 06:49 PM
  25. spaulagain's Avatar
    Your prose and grammar leads me to believe that you are very well educated. However, your comprehension leaves much to be desired. I don't know where you read that I claimed state governments were a failure. Your words, not mine. You also take a flight of fancy by "claiming state governance is just like communism in its value in practice is just flat out ridiculous". I wrote that confederacies are akin to communism by being beautiful on paper. One has nothing to do with the other. If you ever bothered to read the works of Marx & Ingalls you'd know what I mean. Despots like Lenin and Mao used the decades old writings to scam their populaces and form dictatorships. I'll let you in on a dirty little secret, Fidel is about as communist as you, me or the man on the moon. He is a conniving dirtbag (respect to the mods) who sided with the Soviet Union because he refused to be the US's puppet when he came to power and wouldn't share the riches with Meyer Lansky, Santos Trafficante and others whose last name ended in vowels. Here endeth the lesson.
    You must have not read my post. I said the state-first idea is NOT new and proceeded to elucidate why it was, and is, a bad idea. It's no different than communism, beautiful on paper but not much else.
    Now (after back tracking to several of your prior posts) I can see that when you say "state-first" you mean a confederacy in the strictest sense. While I still don't think confederacies are as "theoretical" as communism, strict confederacies have their issues, some of which you've noted.

    HOWEVER, you seem to have led to the whole "confederacy" discussion based on the inclination that the Republicans/Tea Party want a confederacy. Maybe some extremist have stated such a desire, but they are most certainly in the minority. If you look at our nations history, our central or federal government has grown exponentially in the past century. From Teddy Roosevelt's progressive movement, and FDR's New Deal, the federal government has extended itself greatly (good and bad).

    Lately, the failures, corruption, and overall mess of the Federal government has reached a point where people are truly beginning to distrust it at a fundamental level. Hence the interest in refocusing on States rights. NOT building a confederacy.
    08-21-2013 08:37 PM
121 ... 2345

Similar Threads

  1. Updated to Amber, having problems, please help!
    By Tyler Stegall in forum Nokia Lumia 928
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-21-2013, 11:20 AM
  2. cant update to gdr2
    By Aleksandr Gurmeza in forum Nokia Lumia 810
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-16-2013, 03:02 AM
  3. Anyone else notice this? find my phone issue
    By mcivor88 in forum Windows Phone 8
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-15-2013, 06:53 PM
  4. Installed the update, phone won't boot up
    By themadpoet1 in forum Nokia Lumia 928
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-15-2013, 03:07 PM
  5. What is the most secure way to wipe info from Surface RT
    By blackhawk556 in forum Microsoft Surface for Windows RT
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-15-2013, 02:01 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD