The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Why couldn't it?Abidesi said:
Do you agree with KuKluxKlan ?
- Thread starter Garbarsardar.jr
- Start date
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
Of course they could but they shouldn't be...
I despise the KKK- for their racist views, their "claiming" Christianity, their usage of the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of hate...it goes on. I'm from the "back country" of the South- Selma, AL, also referred to as "Hate City, USA"- and I've never seen any KKK member around. Not any stupid enough to admit to it, anyway. 
However, I am conservative and hold conservative views on homosexuality, abortion, and what-not.
However, I am conservative and hold conservative views on homosexuality, abortion, and what-not.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
"The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation."
Whatever this is true or not, the United States have a long tradition about welcoming people no matter from where they come from. That's how the nation had been built and that's what makes it so strong. So I totally disagree.
"The recognition that America was founded as a White nation."
Same thing.
"Repeal the NAFTA and GATT treaties."
Tell that to all the Americans who became multi-millionaire in the 90's (under Clinton I recall you).
"Put America FIRST in all foreign matters"
I agree. That's quite obvious actually and I hardly see how anyone serious could disagree with that. I guess the only disagreement is on the way how that objective is fullfilled. I personally consider Bill Clinton made a lot more for the citizens of the United States than George W. Bush for instance.
"Stop all Foreign Aid Immediately"
The US is the nation giving the less of all donors already. But worst than that, the problem is the way that aid is given. In most of case, US foreign aid are just an almost ostentatious corruption of foreign dictatorships. I'm not sure such an idea is well thought by the KKK. If the US stops to corrupt Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, those regime will fall... which wouldn't be at the advantage of the US.
I won't go further because I've just realized there are tons of things to answer to. As a general statement, KKK positions are poorly thought, not really smart.
Whatever this is true or not, the United States have a long tradition about welcoming people no matter from where they come from. That's how the nation had been built and that's what makes it so strong. So I totally disagree.
"The recognition that America was founded as a White nation."
Same thing.
"Repeal the NAFTA and GATT treaties."
Tell that to all the Americans who became multi-millionaire in the 90's (under Clinton I recall you).
"Put America FIRST in all foreign matters"
I agree. That's quite obvious actually and I hardly see how anyone serious could disagree with that. I guess the only disagreement is on the way how that objective is fullfilled. I personally consider Bill Clinton made a lot more for the citizens of the United States than George W. Bush for instance.
"Stop all Foreign Aid Immediately"
The US is the nation giving the less of all donors already. But worst than that, the problem is the way that aid is given. In most of case, US foreign aid are just an almost ostentatious corruption of foreign dictatorships. I'm not sure such an idea is well thought by the KKK. If the US stops to corrupt Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, those regime will fall... which wouldn't be at the advantage of the US.
I won't go further because I've just realized there are tons of things to answer to. As a general statement, KKK positions are poorly thought, not really smart.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Pasi Nurminen said:
No, it doesnt. That just sounds like American-bashing to me.
Amenhotep7
Spartiate
@All Catholics here-
I myself am a Catholic, so don't get me wrong when I say I agree with them on just two, very common sense standpoints. They're fundamentalist *****es.
I myself am a Catholic, so don't get me wrong when I say I agree with them on just two, very common sense standpoints. They're fundamentalist *****es.
Archer 007
Rebirth
Esckey said:
Shoudlnt America put itself first?
Iggy
Deity
The KKK like most extremist groups through a few milder and popular policies into their manifesto, these are usually along the lines of:
Our country comes first and punish people who commit crimes against "decent" folk.
These guys playing at being God's stormtroopers with their burning crosses and wearing pillow cases on their heads is luckily something you do not tend to come across in the UK.
Our country comes first and punish people who commit crimes against "decent" folk.
These guys playing at being God's stormtroopers with their burning crosses and wearing pillow cases on their heads is luckily something you do not tend to come across in the UK.
Evertonian
Bluenose
Garbarsardar.jr, another greath thread 
Apologies for the length of this post, but I wanted to try to answer in detail.
America has had the tremendous benefit of influences from all corners of the globe, to reject large parts of it is just mean-spirited.
And as for this
Do they not know that everyone who doesn't get it dies?
(1) native americans.
(2) mixed race people. Or even people who aren't even mixed race but who's ancestors didn't all come from the same place (ie most Americans).
(3) you're talking about so many people moving, that the US workforce would be more than decimated, adding to the other economic problems.
Overall comments: This programme attempts to be populist, but is self contradictory, incoherent and inconsistent. But its over-whelming and unifying theme is mean-spiritedness. If an attempt were made to impliment it, it would be a disaster for America and the world.
Whew! Thanks for reading
Apologies for the length of this post, but I wanted to try to answer in detail.
Others know more about the history of the founding of the United States than I do, but I thought the separation of Church and State enshrined in the US constitution was a deliberate recognition that the State of America was not to be tied to any particular religious denomination.Garbarsardar.jr said:
Well if you are talking about signatories on the constitution, as Immortal pointed out, they are all men, they are also all dead. Are we to conclude that America was founded as a nation for dead people using the same logic?
America has had the tremendous benefit of influences from all corners of the globe, to reject large parts of it is just mean-spirited.
When countries trade, and particularly when they start to trade, there are short term dislocation costs, that tend to hit particular groups disproportionately hard. However, in the long run there is no question that in MOST circumstances trading is mutually beneficial and helps all parties to the trading agreement. It sounds like they don't understand the circumstances that make trading agreements worthwhile, so I certainly don't trust them to understand when they are not.
Not quite sure what they are getting at here. America surely does benefit from some of its alliances and co-operation with other countries, such as it is. Are they proposing to abandon all pretence of multi-lateralism? If so it would be disastrous for the US and the rest of the world.
An especially mean-spirited policy, that betrays a complete misunderstanding of the nature of American power in the world.
This would be counter-productive. Constructive engagement is much more effective than this type of bullying stance. However I do agree with the statement in the parpagraph explaining this policy that the US government should be aggressively researching renewable energy sources. See link in my sig for why
Every single US president and every single US Vice President has been a white male. Look at the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies, what proportion are white males. It is just not ture that there are equal opportunities in US society for minorities. The evidence is in the statistically imbalanced outcomes. Therefore affirmative action programmes are a necessary evil to resolve this.
The implication that they are going to shoot people who are trying to get in? Like the Berlin wall but in reverse
Well, everyone has their own view on this issue, and there's another current thread for those who wish to debate it, but my own view is that there are too many guns in the US, not too few, and it is to easy to get hold of a gun, not too difficult.
If they stopped after three words "Actively promote love" I could agree with it. As it is what they say makes no sense. What is unique about american culture isn't that it is European. That's what makes European culture unique. What makes US culture unique and so valuable, and so attractive, is the influences on it from all corners of the globe.
This policy isn't entirely without merit in theory for reasons I don't have time to go in for now. However as an actual policy to be implimented now it is hard to think of something more designed to send the US into a depression that would make people say the great depression was a blip. Currently foreigners own 35% of GDP of US assets more than are owned by US citizens abroad. This policy would mean the dumping of assets on the US market on an unprecedented scale. Think of the treasury bills held by Asian central banks, for example. If these got dumped on the domestic market you'd better get ready for interest rates of 50%, 100%, who knows how high, the sky's the limit.
Another dreadful and mean-spirited policy. How are people meant to eat. Lets starve anyone who's taken drugs to death so that the number of addicts is reduced.
Again this is not completetly without merit, however if combined with the proposal to outlaw foreign ownership of US assets described above, it is likely to lead to a crisis of confidence in the currency, something akin to the crisis of confidence in the Mark in inter-war Germany.
I think the obsession of the political classes with a balanced budget is a shameful con perpetrated on the American people. If the US government budget is in surplus, and there is no foreign trade, it necessarily means the private sector is either borrowing money or liquidating savings to pay for it. It is like an individual taking out $10,000 on a credit card, putting it in the bank, and then saying they are prudent because they have $10k savings.
Every government's goal should be to provide better education for its population. However the detail of this policy betrays its real purpose which is to remove so-called 'humanist' influence. Not the most pressing problem facing America's schools I wouldn't have thought, and a recipe for replacing scientific rigour with superstition and nonsense.
I support a progressive tax system because I believe it maximises human happiness. I cannot support this flat income tax proposal. However it is preferable to taxing consumption which hits poor people hardest, as they spend the highest proportion of their incomes.
I'll leave this hot topic alone, as everyone has their own view about this. If you really want to go over all the arguments related to this topic, you can look up the old abortion thread, from a couple of months back.
No, a dreadful policy, with huge scope for abuse. In any case the state shouldn't be in the business of killing off its own citizens.
Extremely mean spirited policy. Seeking out people to bully. Imagine being gay and then this getting passed, you'd feel so threatened.. Dreadful.
Another very mean spirited policy. At least lepers used to wander about with bells! And do only infected people get to work in these hospitals? And they restrict contact, so you can't even see members of your own family? And why? Because you are ill! Appalling
And as for this
Do they not know that everyone who doesn't get it dies?This contradicts so much of what has gone before. 2 quick examples. Even if you are a white Christian american, you can't live where you want if you are forced to live in one of their prison hospitals. Also, you can't sell to who you want if they live overseas, since foreigners aren't allowed to own US assets under their program.
This is ludicrous. Some points:
(1) native americans.
(2) mixed race people. Or even people who aren't even mixed race but who's ancestors didn't all come from the same place (ie most Americans).
(3) you're talking about so many people moving, that the US workforce would be more than decimated, adding to the other economic problems.
Well, I do believe that everyone who wants to work should be able to work, so this position isn't miles away. But this seems at odds with their earlier emphasis on the family. Anyone who is staying at home to raise kids for example, probably 'could' work, so this policy would mean they had to? If it says what it means they would.
Disagree with this, as the government should be protecting children where required.
If you have a debt, and you have an asset that can pay that debt, and you still refuse to pay it, you should be forced to pay it. Especially if it is your taxes, the most important contribution most people make to the society they live in.
Are they saying they'd stand by this, when states started deciding to legalise homosexuality, for example, or saying that Aids patients didn't have to stay in prison hospitals? Yet another part of the programme that is inconsistent with other parts
The detail of this promises that American troops will only defend american borders. To some extent there is a case that the presence of American troops in so many countries around the world has increased resentment of America. However if the other parts of this programme were implimented America would be a complete pariah state anyway.
I do agree with this, although it is at odds with some of their earlier policies. For example, what about a veteran who fails the drug test for their welfare money? What about a veteran who 'can' work but who chooses not to? What about a veteran with Aids? Are they to be locked in a prison hospital? What about non-white veterans, and those who are not happy with the Klan's programme? Are they to be 'voluntarily repatriated' or are they to be looked after.
Overall comments: This programme attempts to be populist, but is self contradictory, incoherent and inconsistent. But its over-whelming and unifying theme is mean-spiritedness. If an attempt were made to impliment it, it would be a disaster for America and the world.
Whew! Thanks for reading
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
What you gotta ask is how they define "European" culture. There's certainly countries in Europe that I perceive as more culturally distant form Sweden or Germany than the US. Some serious gerrymandering would be in order to produce a definition of "European culture" that includes Sweden, Portugal, Albania and the Ukraine, but not the US.
Where I come from, a "balanced" budget means one that has neither a deficit or a surplus. Is that otherwise in the US?
Evertonian
Bluenose
Fair point, my bad.The Last Conformist said:
If it was exactly balanced then it isn't so bad, but often balanced budget policies allow for surpluses.
But I was trying to say a government budget deficit is actually a good thing, because it implies private sector savings.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
How is a budget deficit good? You'll have to pay sooner or later, or be unable to borrow anymore. (Assuming a lack of the kind of political circumstances that allowed Ottoman Turkey to default on its debt seven times in the 19th C and still go on borrowing.)
Evertonian
Bluenose
A budget deficit isn't always good, but in the present US situation it definitely is. I'll try and explain why.The Last Conformist said:
If we think of a nation's economy, agents within the economy have both income and expenditure. Now, if we leave aside international trade for a minute, the aggregate amount of income and expenditure must be the same.
For example, my employer pays me, that's income for me and expenditure for my employer. I pay my taxes, that's expenditure for me, and income for the Government. The Government builds a hospital, that's expenditure for the government, and income for the builders working on it. I go to the supermarket and by food, that's income for the supermarket and expenditure for me.
Now, we can divide the economy up into 2 sectors, the government sector, and the private sector. And we know that a surplus means income is greater than expenditure, a deficit means income is less than expenditure.
So if one sector is in surplus, the other sector MUST be in deficit.
However we've been ignoring international trade which also impacts on this analysis. When a nation spends more on imports than it receives for its exports it has a balance of payment deficit. This is the situation in the USA right now. This must be paid for, by one or both sectors being in deficit.
Now, which sector is better to be in deficit? Well if you have a private sector deficit, it means that either houselholds or corporates are spending more than they earn (sound familiar? it was happening a few years ago when the US had budget surplus). Given households and companies sometimes go bankrupt lenders charge a 'risk premium' which means the interest rate they pay is higher because of the risk they'll default.
However if the Government can issue sovreign debt (debt in the currency it controls) then it pays a lower interest rate, because if it controls the currency as a last resort it could monetize its debt (say Treasury bills had the status of US dollars) and thus default is impossible.
So given that the US runs a Bo P deficit of 5% of GDP, either the Government or the private sector mus be running a deficit to pay for it. If its the Government the economy pays a lower rate of interest to service its debt. And also the Government is much less likely to engage in a retrenchment that adversely hits income for other agents in the economy. (eg households might get frightened by huge debts, and cut their spending by 15%, but political constraints stop the government doing the same).
Hope this explanation is understandable, I'm happy to clarify any points if I've not been clear.
Inhalaattori
Emperor
There should be no USA, the Whore of Babylon, more evil than evil. Western culture is pure **** as a whole, but US culture is more **** than ****.
- US will destroy world with unreasonable consuming, environment destroying, fanatical humanis (which means uderrating all other forms of life)...
- US has already destroyed peoples brains around the world with greed, capitalism, pop music, christian fundamentalism, stupidity, professional sports , drug- culture and all that other **** we really dont need.
- Us has already gave us many unhealty things like fast food, coca cola and all that other **** we really dont need.
...So calling US as " The Evil Empire" is only option.
America belong to Native Americans.
Get that white **** out of there!
Kill those white devils!
:devil2:
Moderator Action: 3 days. col
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
- US will destroy world with unreasonable consuming, environment destroying, fanatical humanis (which means uderrating all other forms of life)...
- US has already destroyed peoples brains around the world with greed, capitalism, pop music, christian fundamentalism, stupidity, professional sports , drug- culture and all that other **** we really dont need.
- Us has already gave us many unhealty things like fast food, coca cola and all that other **** we really dont need.
...So calling US as " The Evil Empire" is only option.
America belong to Native Americans.
Get that white **** out of there!
Kill those white devils!
:devil2:
Moderator Action: 3 days. col
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
BassDude726
It's Just a Phase
I smell a troll....
I'm not even going to dignify your stupidity with a response.
Well actually I am... I think ethnocentrism like yours is far more likely to destroy the world than America is. Hypocrite.
I'm not even going to dignify your stupidity with a response.
Well actually I am... I think ethnocentrism like yours is far more likely to destroy the world than America is. Hypocrite.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Inhalaattori said:
Where do you propose the Hispanics go?
You are as bad as the Klan. Most Americans have mixed origin inlcuding people with 'Native American' blood. There isn't a homeland, since they have multiple origins.
edit: oh wait, you are advocating the complete destuction of a people based on race. How fascist of you...
BassDude726
It's Just a Phase
Zarn is right... I myself happen to be a small part Native American, so by your logic Inhalaattori, I have every right to be here even though I am a "white devil."
