While We Wait: Part 5

[Symphony D.]

We can send either of these countries in question, or any other country in the world, for that matter, back to the 3rd century via air raids. Let their own populace do the rest.

Uh huh, because the United States Air Force isn't suffering from extreme airframe burnout, like the F-15C and earlier frames which all have structural weaknesses, and Congress isn't doing stupid crap like dialing back the numbers of F-22s it will receive or getting rid of the new tankers (thanks McCain!) it needs to actually project power globally. USAF also didn't enter both of these wars after a 12-year stint in Iraq policing the No-Fly Zones which had a seriously deleterious effect on our force cohesion and capability! Nope! Nevermind that whole Bosnia "Air War" thing either!

We have not been running our Air Force for 18 years without a break (since the Gulf War!) or anything. Not at all. Communist lies!

If that were true, and we hadn't been, I would agree with you that it's a valid strategy. But we have, and so it isn't, and so we can't do that, and the only thing of substance you could possibly argue that we could use to threaten people with would be our (highly depleted) nuclear arsenal.

Oh, hey, threatening to nuke a bunch of despotic stinking corpses off the face of the earth... hrm, that sounds familiar...

 

[Disenfrancised]

So we don't want to spend money on something the constitution allows us to... Defense.... But we're DEFFINETLY ok with spending money on socialised medicine... Something the Constitution must have forgot to put in.

Probably something to do with them living in a century where you were damn lucky to make 50?

remake the world in America's image

Been done - but some people don't like the results of all these silly little countries trying for the ideals of that American narrative with their silly 'self-determination', 'dignity', and 'not being colonies'.

 

[Amon Savag]

McCain's not threatning to nuke anyone. Our Air Force is still quite capable, no matter what you may think, of blowing any country's infrastructure back to the third century. Sure, it may be STAGNATING in power, but it's power, range, or influence is not shrinking.

 

[silver 2039]

You really think that you can bomb Iran and North Korea and those countries will just leave it at that?

 

[Symphony D.]

McCain's not threatning to nuke anyone. Our Air Force is still quite capable, no matter what you may think, of blowing any country's infrastructure back to the third century. Sure, it may be STAGNATING in power, but it's power, range, or influence is not shrinking.

Amon, I live in an Air Force family. I would have joined the Air Force if not for an injury in Basic Training. I keep up with the Air Force Magazine. I know a damn sight more about it than you do. And I'm telling you right now that it is in decay and that Robert Gates's directive to the Pentagon to focus all effort on small-scale terrorist wars is not helping. I am telling you that we do not have the airpower to commit to three to four additional wars, and we will not for the foreseeable future.

If you choose not to believe me fine, good for you, you can wallow in your ignorance. But I am telling the truth, and I am telling you that without ground power and without air power, the only thing we have left to threaten people with right now is nukes, and those don't make for good threats unless you want to send some seriously negative signals.

 

[Amon Savag]

Probably something to do with them living in a century where you were damn lucky to make 50?

Don't give me that crap!

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
(Thomas Jefferson refuting the Karl Marx philosophy from he who has to he who doesn't. Which is basically what proponents of socialised medicine believe. Since I can't take care of my responsibility to provide my family with appropriate health care, it's the responsibility of government to take the money from the rich to give it to me, so now I can pay for it, AND KEEP MY 3 CELL PHONES! )

"The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and it's foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all it's subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson
(This pretty much shores up my oppinion on the matter. The Federal government can take care of defense and foreign affairs. Let my state mandate socialised Health care, if it wants... This gives ME more control over my health care system.)

He also has a quote that I can't find, that says "When people find that they can vote themselves money, it will be the death of our republic" paraphrased.

Basically, Disenfranchised, the founding fathers understood what government's roll should be. They understood that a government that has the power to give you something, has the power to take it away. They understood that giving the FEDERAL government that type of power is a VERY BAD thing. I DO NOT MIND people advocating for ******** crap like that on a state or local level. The federal government should be kept in charge of stuff that the constitution allows it to, however.

Don't tell me they didn't understand what they were talking about. If you, like almost all other europeans, are alright with handing power to the government, GOOD FOR YOU. I'm not!

 

[Symphony D.]

Thomas Jefferson refuting the Karl Marx philosophy from he who has to he who doesn't.

...

Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826)
Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818–March 14, 1883)

Yeah, look at Thomas Jefferson beat up young Marx for his ideas from the future. Like, whoa.

Basically, Disenfranchised, the founding fathers understood what government's roll should be. They understood that a government that has the power to give you something, has the power to take it away. They understood that giving the FEDERAL government that type of power is a VERY BAD thing.

You are aware of the fact there existed Federalists and antifederalists, right? That the Federalists wanted a large and strong federal government, and the antifederalists wanted strong states? That George Washington and John Adams were basically Federalists? That so was Alexander Hamilton? And that Jefferson was antifederalist? James Madison, who wrote the underpinning of what developed into the Constitution, was also an antifederalist?

So, you are aware that your representation of what the Founding Fathers thought, citing only Jefferson, is thus immensely skewed, and the Constitution was a compromise? No? Please go take a civics class. I mean it's pretty obvious by now you're extremely libertarian, but seriously, don't make up history because of it.

 

[silver 2039]

And holding a document written 200 years ago as the word of god is somewhat foolish as well.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Don't give me that crap!

Crap? They lived at a time when healthcare was ineffective and a tiny fraction of your income. The possibility of having the capabilities to provide what we have today simply did not exist - there was no way they could judge on the utility of pooling a good with a non-elastic demand.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
(Thomas Jefferson refuting the Karl Marx philosophy from he who has to he who doesn't. Which is basically what proponents of socialised medicine believe. Since I can't take care of my responsibility to provide my family with appropriate health care, it's the responsibility of government to take the money from the rich to give it to me, so now I can pay for it, AND KEEP MY 3 CELL PHONES! )

The Founding Fathers had many opinions as previously noted, and what's wrong with a mobile phone?

"The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and it's foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all it's subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson
(This pretty much shores up my oppinion on the matter. The Federal government can take care of defense and foreign affairs. Let my state mandate socialised Health care, if it wants... This gives ME more control over my health care system.)

Because people aren't bound to their states with the speed of a horse cart any more, people move around a lot. And thats before you get into the cost saving of national systems - one of the major points of a UHC rather than oodles of private entities.

He also has a quote that I can't find, that says "When people find that they can vote themselves money, it will be the death of our republic" paraphrased.

He also said some stupid crap, and people have been able to vote themselves money for a while now and America is still there.

Basically, Disenfranchised, the founding fathers understood what government's roll should be. They understood that a government that has the power to give you something, has the power to take it away. They understood that giving the FEDERAL government that type of power is a VERY BAD thing. I DO NOT MIND people advocating for ******** crap like that on a state or local level. The federal government should be kept in charge of stuff that the constitution allows it to, however.

The found fathers borg like unitary will aside, states and counties can be just as petty, corrupt and oppressive as a federal government (but with more folksy charm dontchakno'), with federal institutions like the Supreme Court also existing to protect people from the States. In a big interconnected world you need interacting bodies on all levels.

Don't tell me they didn't understand what they were talking about. If you, like almost all other europeans, are alright with handing power to the government, GOOD FOR YOU. I'm not!

Thats nice, I'm glad you live in fear of your own government. I choose to hand over power to public bodies so that efforts can be combined to do the things I couldn't alone, something greater than me. That power comes from the public and can be taken away again.

 

[Kozmos]

These last few pages are simply comedy gold. I'm not simply chuckling or laughing a little on the inside. I am roaring with laughter. Lucky, Amon, please keep up providing us material. Seriously I havent laughed like this since the last George Carlin special.

 

[Amon Savag]

While america's still here even though we've been voting ourselves money for a while now. Our REPUBLIC is slipping away. We're slowly making a socialism, if you haven't noticed. And Osama is an arbiter of the fast route to socialism, while McLame is an arbiter of the slow route. Therefore, I support McLame... Hopefully he can buy us who hate socialism time enough to effectively combat it.

 

[Symphony D.]

Our REPUBLIC is slipping away. We're slowly making a socialism, if you haven't noticed.

What. Man, that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown of Britain's Labour Party, raging Stalinsts they are!

You are aware that any form of government at all is socialism, right? Your Social Security? Socialism. Medicare? Socialism. Public Libraries? Socialism. Roads? Socialism. Defense spending for collective security? Socialism. Government is the subversion of the individual for the social good. That's what it is, it's what it does. How far it should go is a matter for debate. Unless you're revealing yourself as an anarchist here, you already support socialism. There is nothing preventing a Republic from coexisting with a Socialism, particularly as republicanism is a form of installing government and has little to do with how it operates, which is where socialism is chiefly concerned.

The Founding Fathers were not so idiotic as to believe their system of government was the best and good forever, amen, hallelujah, peanut butter. America was designed as an experiment. If the experiment runs better with some socialist elements, that's the way it goes. So far, it has.

 

[Luckymoose]

*steps away from Amon*

 

[Amon Savag]

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms." James Madison, who would obviously disagree with Osama's stance on gun control.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin
(This quote can be used to further my argument that socialised medicine is a bad thing on a federal level, due to the fact that we WILL be surrendering our liberty, as all other nations that have socialised medicine have done, in return for the safety of "guaranteed" health care, that may not be of our choosing.)

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!- Patrick Henry (AMEN!)

McLame-Palin 08, because War truly is better than Socialism.

 

[Symphony D.]

So I guess my question is Amon, why do you support the United States at all when it already restricts you so heavily and is never, ever going to be a Libertarian state, Ron Paul be damned?

I mean, by your little quotes there, and with the way this country lords its domination over the rest of the world, shouldn't it be like, your mortal enemy or something? Because if you'll notice it's gone back on pretty much every single one of those quotes. Between things like the USA PATRIOT Act, Alien and Sedition Acts, the New Deal, and so on, this America isn't the America all those people advocated.

I happen to like this America better but apparently you don't, so why are you supporting it all?

 

[Kentharu]

lol... Amon...

 

[Amon Savag]

The experiment was doing pretty good, untill the civil war, when states rights were trampled on after lincoln got ass-assinated. Now state government is pretty much just provincial, with no real sovereignty. Now we don't have the experiment. We have a national government that's slowly taking our freedoms one at a time. You're contributing to the problem by giving so much power to one political party, you understand? Who's going to oppose the Democrats when they own all 3 branches of our government? There will be noone. Our government was not set up to be overtaken by what WILL be an oligarchy.

I'm not advocating Anarchy. I'm advocating the style of government that our founding fathers set up. One that limits the power of the federal government, and keeps power LOCALISED in state and local levels, because you and I have MUCH more power at these levels than at the federal level.

That being said, the federal government does have a few rolls it needs to play, and those rolls have been outlined in the constitution. To say that we're living in an experiment is wrong. We WERE living the experiment. And thanks to the overpowering of state governments by our federal government, we're living as a european "democracy" which is why our government sucks so bad right now. President's approval is abysmal, but what about congress? The congress is elected by you and I, but their approval rating is 13% today. Back in the days when the government was more pure, it wouldn't matter if the national congress sucked, because most of our issues were taken care of at the state and local levels.

 

[Luckymoose]

This could hurt John McCain politically.

 

[Amon Savag]

So I guess my question is Amon, why do you support the United States at all when it already restricts you so heavily and is never, ever going to be a Libertarian state, Ron Paul be damned?

I mean, by your little quotes there, and with the way this country lords its domination over the rest of the world, shouldn't it be like, your mortal enemy or something? Because if you'll notice it's gone back on pretty much every single one of those quotes. Between things like the USA PATRIOT Act, Alien and Sedition Acts, the New Deal, and so on, this America isn't the America all those people advocated.

I happen to like this America better but apparently you don't, so why are you supporting it all?

You are one of the 13% of people who appreciate our legislative branch at this point, I guess.

The country's great. The government sucks. That's why it needs to be re-federalised. Neither of these candidates are advocating this position, but McLame's less of a big government candidate than Osama.

If anyone hasn't realised, our government was set up to suck. 3 branches were set up to be constantly at war with eachother so that nothing happens. This was so that government wouldn't restrict people's freedom. At the same time, back in them days the PEOPLE didn't vote for president and congress and senate... Our state legislatures did. This means that they didn't have to pander to the voters. Unfortunately that's what we have nowdays. The experiment was sound. What we have post-civil war is shite. I thank you for citing the new deal and all those other deals the national government has set up as examples of how the federal government has screwed the american people with their ineficiency, and constnatly pandering to votes.

 

[Symphony D.]

Who's going to oppose the Democrats when they own all 3 branches of our government? There will be noone.

Who opposed the Republicans when they owned all three branches? No one, apparently. I mean: where were you?

I'm not advocating Anarchy. I'm advocating the style of government that our founding fathers set up.

Once again, some of them set up. Please stop twisting history to your own personal beliefs. I will call you on it every single time.

That being said, the federal government does have a few rolls it needs to play, and those rolls have been outlined in the constitution.

Because, Neverwonagame3, the Constitution is so easily modified and those gosh-darn Founding Fathers were just so smart they thinkified a lot and could see the whole future, dontchakno.

To say that we're living in an experiment is wrong. We WERE living the experiment.

Maybe the more likely explanation is you just refuse to accept the results of the experiment because they don't fit with your personal belief as to what the results should be.

The congress is elected by you and I, but their approval rating is 13% today.

I guess the idea of voting for somebody who doesn't screw you over is too advanced.

Back in the days when the government was more pure, it wouldn't matter if the national congress sucked, because most of our issues were taken care of at the state and local levels.

And still are. It's just that this is a global era of nations, and it requires a strong national level government to compete in such an arena, not a coalition of disparate states. For all you seem to enjoy complaining about "European democracy" you seem to have no trouble advocating America revert to a bunch of bickering little territories that never agree on anything--like the European Union. Oh the irony, you need a knife to cut it.

The country's great. The government sucks. That's why it needs to be re-federalised. Neither of these candidates are advocating this position, but McLame's less of a big government candidate than Osama.

Which is why he proposed an additional $300 billion bailout at the debate two nights ago... to boost it up to a $1 trillion bailout. Because he's a smaller spender.

Also, I think you mean de-federalized. Also, we use Z's in "ize" and "ization" here in America.

At the same time, back in them days the PEOPLE didn't vote for president and congress and senate... Our state legislatures did. This means that they didn't have to pander to the voters. Unfortunately that's what we have nowdays.

Electoral College says what. Candidates have always pandered to the people, despite the fact the popular vote has never meant anything. Where did you learn history? Must've been that durned federal government slashing the funding of wherever you were educated what made you like this. It's a plum shame.