pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jun 10, 2006 21:34:23 GMT -5
Well, Morty...see, this is the thing. I find it much easier to address individual topics of political interest than to give some all encompassing, space wasting speech about my entire political ideology. If I have to sum it up in a nutshell, I'd call it a strange and unorthodox hybrid of Libertatianism and Green Ethics. Sound strange? It is... now throw in a hefty dose of First and Second Ammendment adherence and you begin to get a picture of why my political compass goes haywire. I respect seperation of church and state as equally as my right to bear arms. What does that make me? A liberal? A conservative? Truth of the matter is, I don't dwell exclusively on either side of the fence, meaning that perhaps I am a true individual who doesn't feel he needs to follow all the guidelines of any one party. This makes voting difficult, and debating very strange, because people often note that I seem to support things which conflict with one another. Mainly, my politics revolve around...well, two things. Common sense, and a personal desire to be left the hell alone. I feel the government should represent both. Common sense, and leaving people the hell alone when it comes to their personal lives...things such as abortion and gay marriage, which are quite frankly nobody's damn business, least of all the governments, are constantly paraded around by political pundits as some sort of national cause. I don't support that mindset. So before I go too far, I'm gonna pull back and say I'd much rather discuss the individual topics in individual threads, because there's way too many things about the government that piss me off to list in one topic. But keep in mind: Pilaf believes in common sense and privacy. So.. Libertarian Liberal maybe? Except with some environmental concerns thrown in. How's that for a paradox? I'm not normal.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 11, 2006 10:04:18 GMT -5
No one agrees with everything a party says (at least no one I've met).
Since you mentioned Libertarianism, do you mean the economic aspect of it too? With environmental regulations thrown in or something?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 12, 2006 16:05:23 GMT -5
EDIT: I have replies to both of you in here. How is not letting millions of people break an easily enforcable law making something a "police state"? Our citizens are actually gaining rights by this, because the people who are good, law-abiding citizens don't have to support foreigners who break our laws, suck on our social services, take our jobs and try to destroy our culture. I see this as a major win for the people. How? I'll tell you how. No way will the army, air force and marines and whoever else all work seperately, or as a single entity solely to stop immigrants. Soon after they had started, attempts at immigration would be much lower than when they start, but even if they didn't, do you think that so much money would go on keeping immigrant out? No way. Homeland security is the name for these guys, and its not just worries about people breaking the boarders that will be the problem. Well, nothing like that will happen in America anyway, so I guess my point will not be proven. I urge you not to make me go down that road again. For the sake of all our sanity..... Ok, i'll deal with this, and hope you realise that the earlier discussions of the 10 minute checks has been cleared from your mind. No way would I feel safe if I was thinking I were extreme for wanting passport checks... ........ There is nothing excessive in the measures I suggested there, and to be honest, I think each country should have its own laws about what is/isn't allowed there. Assuming that isn't already in place... Haven't been on holidays to another country in a few years now. Well, the immigration policy is something I have been trying to work out in my head on where exactly I stand. Obviously, I know that a country can not allow all immigrants in, or be seen to have a policy letting immigrants in, because if we consider how many immigrants that'd bring in... And not all would seek for employment. So its not like i'm braindead. Just out of curiosity, what would you deem the solution to Mexico's problems? Or does your "America taking care of its own" approach leave you with other worries? Sorry for the weighty language. I guess, basically what I was saying is Geographically, Mexico and Canada are closer, and so, immigrants leaving those places would come in greater numbers, than say Africa. You'd probably have more from Greenland, assuming immigration goes on from there. (Thats a place you don't hear much about, or at least I certainly don't.) Agreed. Yes, I recall that now. I recall you said about illegal immigrants coming here for work... Which I am not sure is always the case, which is what we argued about. Its not all the time, so consider how many immigrants would come for reasons you seem to understand... Living in a war-torn country.... Moving from a more corrupt system of government (Yes, I believe it exists ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#International_responseen.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks#International_reactionNo worries about confusion, for that is easy to set right And this is another thing we can agree and move on with. Seems like we have cut down a few from where this started out. (As an aside I just noticed that when I enter the quote tags, it eats the start of what you say. I assume this has been happening the whole time.) Anyway, I decided to look the guy up, and all I had to see was "CEO" and think, "are you actually surprised?" Then I saw about fraud... And I thought back to "Are you actually surprised?" I gotta say i'm shocked. That system, and the airport security are really shockers to me. I see how that could be a legitimate concern. Another agreement. Indeed, and I look forward to continuing this. Well, Morty...see, this is the thing. I find it much easier to address individual topics of political interest than to give some all encompassing, space wasting speech about my entire political ideology. Heh, I know that. Thats why I found it easier to respond once Morty had written up his post. Not sure about Green ethics, but I assume its something in the way of environmentalist attitude, and if so, sounds good so far. Don't take this wrong, but you sound kinda like me... Or rather, like you think pretty similarly to me. [qupte] Mainly, my politics revolve around...well, two things. Common sense, and a personal desire to be left the hell alone. I feel the government should represent both. Common sense, and leaving people the hell alone when it comes to their personal lives...things such as abortion and gay marriage, which are quite frankly nobody's damn business, least of all the governments, are constantly paraded around by political pundits as some sort of national cause. I don't support that mindset. [/quote] Again, thumbs up. I'm kind of liking the sound of Libertarian socialist to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 13, 2006 12:37:29 GMT -5
5 below the left to right line, and 1 east of the up down line.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 14, 2006 15:18:57 GMT -5
How? I'll tell you how. No way will the army, air force and marines and whoever else all work seperately, or as a single entity solely to stop immigrants. Soon after they had started, attempts at immigration would be much lower than when they start, but even if they didn't, do you think that so much money would go on keeping immigrant out? No way. Homeland security is the name for these guys, and its not just worries about people breaking the boarders that will be the problem. Well, nothing like that will happen in America anyway, so I guess my point will not be proven. Well, I suppose we would need better control over the military than we have in, oh say, Iraq, where they are mindlessly killing civilians. But I think that'd come easy when they are right here in the states. And I do believe that if they were ordered to do so, the entire military would simply watch the border. It's the best homeland security plan out there. Ah... not a fan of the official explanation, eh? To tell you the truth, I think it is pretty shoddy too and I'm not prepared to say I believe either side. But assuming there are actually terrorists out there who hate our guts, we need to not allow them an easy way in. Ok, i'll deal with this, and hope you realise that the earlier discussions of the 10 minute checks has been cleared from your mind. Heh, that's not extreme, kinda mainstream as we are doing it Well of course, I wouldn't infringe on national rule of other nations the regulations I'd like to see in my homeland. Well I'm not particularly versed on Mexico's situation and I can't readily offer a solution to their problems. I'm kinda trying to end the best things that have ever happened to their economy (NAFTA and illegal immigration to the USA). Mexico is in a tough spot right now, but I think they would benefit from not being so dependent on the United States and maybe then they can really grow their economy and raise their standard of living. They seem to have plenty of hardworking people, they just need some organization and less corruption and they could prolly make it ok on their own. Ohh, that's what you were saying. Yes, it does make sense that immigrants would mainly come from places right near us. And I'm ok with that, as long as they legally immigrate here. Well, I was speaking mainly of illegals. Legal immigrants often come here for much more than just work, that is agreed. Illegal immigrants tend to come here solely or at least mostly for the work. Heh, our government is just getting started The plan is to have us fully corrupted by 2012 I was not aware of this, my bad. Not exactly what I was talking about. That is international outrage perhaps, but not exactly aid. Regardless of both of those, we still clearly put into the world far more than we get out. That is undisputable. Ha, I wasn't surprised. I thought you might be, since you seemed to think only serial rapists and murders got that kind of time. Not in America, here you can rape a small child, get only 40 years probation (yes, absolutely no jail-time), but if you mess with our money... ohh you better watch out Yeah. Well, I think we are both agreed something needs to be changed. Dramatically. Yep, that'd be the ticket. Ah, that's what you guys are meaning with "Libertarian," as in the opposite of "Authoritarian." Sorry, in the USA "Libertarian" is synomous with an almost completely unregulated economy and a likewise social structure.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 15, 2006 9:36:33 GMT -5
Well, I suppose we would need better control over the military than we have in, oh say, Iraq, where they are mindlessly killing civilians. But I think that'd come easy when they are right here in the states. If it won't be done in Iraq, what makes you think someone like Bush would for America? He wouldn't. You'd need a different President. One that *shock* is actually good. Thats a mighty big if. And as I said, not one that would be brought about at least by this administration. Not a fan of the official explanation at all. Propoganda is generally bad for the diet. Yeah, I get your point, though its better to be safe than sorry. Though, just to clarify, what would you be seeking above that which I suggested previously in terms of security? Though if it is cleared as I would think, then ignore this. Oh, ok. Thats fine then. From what I was reading I was thinking "Pure incompotence." Well of course, I wouldn't infringe on national rule of other nations the regulations I'd like to see in my homeland. And what i'm concerned with is the process by which one becomes legal. I'll treat that as factual because I don't have anything in the way of evidence to counter it. What would you have wanted? International response to the families that lost victims in the disaster? I'm not even sure if there is a precedent for victims in the case of human-caused terrorism. Though I may err. In the name of Imperialism, yes. Oh noes. Personal freedom for all.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 15, 2006 15:33:23 GMT -5
If it won't be done in Iraq, what makes you think someone like Bush would for America? He wouldn't. You'd need a different President. One that *shock* is actually good. I don't think Bush should be leading anything. Ever. He couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag. Again, I don't expect this adminstration to do anything. Bush was bad as a first termer, he'll be even worse as a lame duck. Heh, good point. But don't fall into the trap of other sources of propoganda trying to avoid government propoganda. That's just as bad. Pretty much I'm looking for the borders to be locked down, massive background checks on any immigrant, and more expansive checks plus shadowing of tourists. Yeah, we've got plenty of real incompotence, no need to invent any Agreed, that system needs reform too. Sounds good. Check that off. An international rebuilding would have been nice. Or perhaps just some finacial aid so we could give the money to the individuals. What would also be wonderful, is if occassionally nations decided to pay us back for money we lend them. To my knowledge Finland is the only country to ever pay back all their debts to the United States. The rest we eventually just forgave because we knew the money was never coming. But then they have the audacity to think that all our debts to them should always be paid back in full, with interest? A little absurd if you ask me. Especially considering we built or rebuilt the economies of a lot of nations on Earth. Plenty of examples when that isn't even close to the truth. Since we don't control Europe, I think we can call the rebuilding after WW1 and WW2 genuine. We seem to be allowing Israel to conduct its own affairs, despite sending them upwards of a billion dollars annually and having given them the means to forge their existance. Africa looks pretty, well african, and not American. Check that one off (exception being Liberia, which I admit was just a puppet). South and Central America are not part of (not even always friendly with) the US, despite us not only aiding them directly through aid, but also allowed them to concentrate on economy instead of military by protecting them for over 175 years against all-comers (a few times we went imperialistic, I conceed. But we have helped them greatly through the Monroe Doctrine regardless) We protected South Korea and tried to protect South Vietnam from their oppressive Stalinist northern counterparts, for some of our own motives, but none the less had no desire to capture and control the southern or northern halves. Indeed. And Workers of the World Unite! ;D
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 16, 2006 7:09:21 GMT -5
I don't think Bush should be leading anything. Ever. He couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag. Again, I don't expect this adminstration to do anything. Bush was bad as a first termer, he'll be even worse as a lame duck. Heh, good point. But don't fall into the trap of other sources of propoganda trying to avoid government propoganda. That's just as bad. Agreed X 3 Assuming the borders could be locked down in a way that wouldn't lead to what I was paranoid about, the background checks were set in the motion of making a system to allow immigrants be nationalized, I guess I could agree to that, though I think there is more to be said on this issue. Shadowing of tourists? Huh?! I will not jump to conclusions, but i'd like you to elaborate on that one. Ah, good. You aren't the stereotypical "Keep America American hell yeah" yokel American. This is good. Yeah, it'd be nice, I agree. But was there any precedents of this in the form of terrorism caused by humans, as opposed to by natural devastation? Not that I know of. I know the distinction is a weak one, but if there are no precedents, and its a weak argument, its the best I got, admittedly. Damn it, Wiki isn't working, but i'd contest that countries don't pay back at least some of the debt annually... And by countries I mean most. ...And I think I can call the debts that were owed from then genuine. Though I can't really argue with the rest of your citations out of lack of knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 16, 2006 9:42:15 GMT -5
Assuming the borders could be locked down in a way that wouldn't lead to what I was paranoid about, the background checks were set in the motion of making a system to allow immigrants be nationalized, I guess I could agree to that, though I think there is more to be said on this issue. Shadowing of tourists? Huh?! I will not jump to conclusions, but i'd like you to elaborate on that one. We discussed this before a little. The police or feds will keep an eye on tourists, to ensure they aren't doing anything illegal. Especially things like, let's just say, making bombs. Cause that would be bad. We should just give them some more attention. Nope not at all. I've got no problem with diversity; but I *do* have a problem with people who break our laws. You are correct I suppose that there isn't a precedent, but do we really need one? Just treat it like any other diaster, in fact maybe even treat it better than other diasters because it wasn't just some chance event, it was a direct and intentional attack. I am glad there was international outcry, but I'd have been happier if that was backed up with international aid to help us out. To the USA? We always end up just saying "Forget about it, you don't owe us anymore..." because they never come through. It happened after World War One, World War Two, and sporadically throughout the remainder of the time between now and then. Some countries genuinely couldn't pay it back. And some countries (like France, Britian, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belguim, etc, etc) were just counting on the debts be forgiven eventually. Being as we didn't make them ever pay back a dime of it, I think it is pretty much chalked up to the goodness of our hearts at this point.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 16, 2006 15:13:50 GMT -5
We discussed this before a little. The police or feds will keep an eye on tourists, to ensure they aren't doing anything illegal. Especially things like, let's just say, making bombs. Cause that would be bad. We should just give them some more attention. That sounds akin to me as things like security cameras. Because you'd be unlikely to be suggesting tourists be actually followed. Is that what you would be suggesting or am I way of the mark? Also, I personally don't think the intelligence gathering systems is the place of error. If you recall, the FBI and CIA even admitted to having knowledge that wasn't acted on by Bush... I don't want to go into that topic further, but intelligence gathering seems ok as it is, its acting on it thats the problem. Thats fine I can accept that, and it feels strange to me that there wasn't international aid in terms of monetary support. But I couldn't find evidence of that, so I guess i'll have to concede defeat there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_2#AftermathThats pretty interesting I find. Hadn't known that, to be honest. I know thats weak at best, but i've been looking for more for ages, and i've not found anything better admittedly. Will try again when I have more a head for it. I'll look again though. Maybe later tonight.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 16, 2006 22:55:09 GMT -5
That sounds akin to me as things like security cameras. Because you'd be unlikely to be suggesting tourists be actually followed. Is that what you would be suggesting or am I way of the mark? I was thinking a limited amount of actual following. Not much of course, that would be impossible. But perhaps if they head somewhere suspicious. Idk exactly how this would work. Perhaps that is true too. I don't doubt the incompetence of our "carry-out-ers." Check that off. Eh? I meant they never paid it back, like ever. I know they couldn't pay it back immediately, but their economies recovered soon enough. That'd be the time to start making payments. With interest. Neither did I, but it is fairly meaningless. So we got something out of a war in which we basically saved all of Europe. A few patents and inventions. We freed millions of people. We saved millions of lives. And we took a few patents. Anyone else think we may have still gotten a pretty raw deal? I'd hardly say that is proof we only help when there is something in it for us.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 17, 2006 14:14:51 GMT -5
I was thinking a limited amount of actual following. Not much of course, that would be impossible. But perhaps if they head somewhere suspicious. Idk exactly how this would work. I'd think that probably 99% of what could be suggested in the line of shadowing tourists like this i'd be calling invasion of privacy. Yeah, admittedly that was really weak evidence. In fact, it wasn't really evidence of anything. It was a misery in the way of a come back, truth be told. Luckily for me, I have more patience, and seemingly luck this time around. SourceAfraid I don't have time to look for other countries right now, or even to read all that article... Will do next time i'm around though.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 17, 2006 23:04:23 GMT -5
I'd think that probably 99% of what could be suggested in the line of shadowing tourists like this i'd be calling invasion of privacy. Being as they aren't citizens, they don't really have the same rights as we do. Heh, don't worry about it, they can't all be gems. I read the whole article. They have billions of dollars on top of that to pay off from WWI. That they seemingly just "forgot." And we gave them ridiculously low interest rates (although that matters not, and that was not meant to be a part of my agruement but rather just a personal opinion; just wanted to clear up possible confusion). Furthermore, in that article it said the same thing I did, the only nation to ever fully pay back the USA for the World Wars was Finland. And good for Finland. The rest, shame on them. But moreso, shame on us for allowing them to continously bite the hand that feeds them with impunity.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 18, 2006 6:08:04 GMT -5
Being as they aren't citizens, they don't really have the same rights as we do. I don't have anything else to argue here, but I sure as wouldn't go to a country with policy like this ;D Yeah, the debts as part of the World War I war effort seem to have been forgotten by them, indeed. I've been looking to try find out if other countries paid back debt for World War II, but to be honest, I couldn't even find out who else had gotten money back then, and who owes it now. Indeed, in regards to World War I, that is true.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 18, 2006 11:23:16 GMT -5
Yeah, the debts as part of the World War I war effort seem to have been forgotten by them, indeed. I've been looking to try find out if other countries paid back debt for World War II, but to be honest, I couldn't even find out who else had gotten money back then, and who owes it now. France, Germany, USSR, China, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Denmark, Norway. Try those to start.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 18, 2006 12:31:38 GMT -5
Ok, I have lost in respect to countries paying back their debts...
Trying to think where else we stand now, in terms of what we need to clarify... Hm. I'll be back later on, probably.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 19, 2006 10:39:18 GMT -5
Ok, I have lost in respect to countries paying back their debts... Trying to think where else we stand now, in terms of what we need to clarify... Hm. I'll be back later on, probably. Sounds good. We can bring up other issues if you want, but I prolly won't be on the right for most other things. You can suggest some and I'll be happy to write my opinion on it and we can continue this
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 21, 2006 7:45:54 GMT -5
Just for the sake of continuing this... What is your opinion on the drugs issue? Legal/illegal/anything else you feel on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 22, 2006 12:03:31 GMT -5
Legal, with age restrictions of course. I believe all drugs should be legal, but there should be laws for use just like there are for alcohol and tobacco. No doing drugs and driving, no being intoxicated in public, etc. But in my opinion, as long as you aren't harming anyone else, do whatever you want.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 23, 2006 11:32:32 GMT -5
Legal, with age restrictions of course. I believe all drugs should be legal, but there should be laws for use just like there are for alcohol and tobacco. No doing drugs and driving, no being intoxicated in public, etc. But in my opinion, as long as you aren't harming anyone else, do whatever you want. It feels like ages since I was here, but it was yesterday. Anyway, yeah, I agree with you on that.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 23, 2006 22:14:57 GMT -5
Hmm, perhaps we do gun laws? I say ban all guns and crackdown on anyone in possession of a firearm. Hunting? Ban that too.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 24, 2006 9:13:04 GMT -5
Well, looking at the American Constitution, the right to bear arms is there, so i'd say either that, or the destruction of every gun on the planet, which is an impossibility.
I'm as against guns as the next guy, and I think heavy security measures to get guns, and I mean heavy[/i].
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jun 24, 2006 11:42:03 GMT -5
Well, bearing in mind the Constitution, I would say we would have to allow gun ownership by militias. But no one else has such protection. I think we could control guns if we tried. Although with the NRA running around... that will never happen.
Your thoughts on hunting?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jun 24, 2006 14:03:56 GMT -5
Well, bearing in mind the Constitution, I would say we would have to allow gun ownership by militias. But no one else has such protection. I think we could control guns if we tried. Although with the NRA running around... that will never happen. Your thoughts on hunting? The right of the people to bear arms mentioned seems seperate to the Militia. As for hunting? Certainly not for sport. Don't really have any firm thing other than that.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Jun 24, 2006 14:24:14 GMT -5
I know your not asking me what my stance is on hunting, but I think it can be a great thing, if done in moderation. Its a great sport, in my opinion. As long as your not being cruel to the animal, like letting it bleed to death, or torturing it. If its still alive after you shoot it, shoot it again, this time in the head.
As for banning guns from the general public, I say nay, well just find another way to kill each other. Hands can be used as weapons, chairs can be, broken peices of wood, home made bows and arrows, knives, cars, basically, anything can be. Why ban one weapon, when their are a thousand other that can be used almost as easily? I say we force mandatory training with weapons upon the people, this way, their wont be so many civilian casualties in gang shootouts, their wont be so many kids blowing their friends heads off by accident. Also, impose a law forcing people to keep thier weapons locked up, in a place that thier children, or other people children cant get to.
|
|