A Legit Question

[MechAnt]

We are representative democracy. We vote for reps that will do shit for us.

Gore won more votes but Bush won because of the Electoral College. Bush won states with more electoral college votes as opposed to all the small little states that have very few which Gore won.

The Fed controls money supply, not the printing of money. That is the gov't.

[TheScotsman]

Not election by the people, but election by the courts. Serving a 5-year term would be catastrophic under the current system of appointment; it would give nearly every single president the ability to fill the entire supreme court with like minded judges. You'd have an undeniably fascist police state in 2 weeks.

And that would be different from our current fascist police state how?

Dist court judges are on the ballot, not for placement in office, but to be retained. I have long wondered why the supreme court doesn't follow a similar system, maybe based around a 10 year cycle.

Could you imagine the horror of a 100% GW supreme court?

If we had a democracy then the world would never have had the pleasure of GW for 8 years, it would be a completely different place!

[J-thehookaholic]

We are representative democracy. We vote for reps that will do shit for us.

Gore won more votes but Bush won because of the Electoral College. Bush won states with more electoral college votes as opposed to all the small little states that have very few which Gore won.

The Fed controls money supply, not the printing of money. That is the gov't.

I ask you this..... If the even if the Fed itself doesn't "print" the money, but controls the supply of it, and lowers the rate, requiring more money to be printed, is that not essiential the same thing in principle?

[jayson]

One thing you folks need to realize is that GW isn't the end of the line for blame. Both parties are equally at fault for the shit we are in.

[J-thehookaholic]

One thing you folks need to realize is that GW isn't the end of the line for blame. Both parties are equally at fault for the shit we are in.

I think I've been pretty consitentl in blaming the central banking system and congress's inability to excerise its consitutional powers and check an imperialistic presidency (the office, not the man) for our problems. The largest threat is the lack of any kind of challenge to the notion of signing statements and executive orders, which completely circumvents congress and the courts altogether, its a defacto dictatorship in that we have no say in those. I don't want detention centers on US soil, I don't a suspension of habeus corpus, I think its bullshit. You can't claim to be the leader of the free world and continually fuck the world over, it will bite you in ass. The sad thing is we pay for it in the end, out of pocket and sometimes with blood.

[gaia.plateau]

And that would be different from our current fascist police state how?

Dist court judges are on the ballot, not for placement in office, but to be retained. I have long wondered why the supreme court doesn't follow a similar system, maybe based around a 10 year cycle.

Could you imagine the horror of a 100% GW supreme court?

Right now you still mostly have freedom of speech, and even though they can, the government isn't snatching American citizens for detention/torture/etc. It would be different in that you would see those things getting much, much worse, among other unpleasant developments.

[gaia.plateau]

One thing you folks need to realize is that GW isn't the end of the line for blame. Both parties are equally at fault for the shit we are in.

I think that the major difference is that only one party is willing to realize that shit... and the other is perfectly content to go on proclaiming that everything is flawless and perfect.

[J-thehookaholic]

I think that the major difference is that only one party is willing to realize that shit... and the other is perfectly content to go on proclaiming that everything is flawless and perfect.

actually if you're talking about the dems, they became just as copable when they took impeachment off the table. Both parties serve the same interest, republicans have a socialists/comunist international policy which is to intervene every where they find an excuse for; the dems have a socialists domestic policy. When they comprise we end up with the worst of both. Thats we have military base around the globe; its not to protect my interest or your interest, its to protect Exxon's interests and Walmart's interest.

In 1980 I think it was, when we started aiding Iraq, Anwar Sadt declares that it was the beginning of the war for oil. Look what its brought us, rampant inflation, god knows how many casualities on all sides, the radicalization of the Middle East, a global war on "terror".... When will people wake up and look past the mainstream media and see whats really going on.

[gaia.plateau]

Living in a different country, I know what I read in the news and academic articles, and what I see on TV... from partisan media agencies, I see the American left wing frequently complaining about the problems in the US... and the right wing media frequently denying problems, and propagating the idea that to acknowledge problems is to be unpatriotic. The unanimity of people I discuss US politics with, from countries around the world, read and see the same thing.

[J-thehookaholic]

Living in a different country, I know what I read in the news and academic articles, and what I see on TV... from partisan media agencies, I see the American left wing frequently complaining about the problems in the US... and the right wing media frequently denying problems, and propagating the idea that to acknowledge problems is to be unpatriotic. The unanimity of people I discuss US politics with, from countries around the world, read and see the same thing.

I'm not even going to dispute that. The problem is though that no one does anything about.

[MechAnt]

We are representative democracy. We vote for reps that will do shit for us.

Gore won more votes but Bush won because of the Electoral College. Bush won states with more electoral college votes as opposed to all the small little states that have very few which Gore won.

The Fed controls money supply, not the printing of money. That is the gov't.

I ask you this..... If the even if the Fed itself doesn't "print" the money, but controls the supply of it, and lowers the rate, requiring more money to be printed, is that not essiential the same thing in principle?

Bascially there is close to a set money supply which the fed controls. The Federal Reserve Bank basically holds all the money of the nation loaning out to all the other banks of the nation at a certain interest rate. This is the interest rate which we hear so much about. The banks, in order to make a profit, give out loans at a slightly higher price. Currently the interest rate is 3%. Banks will turn around and give out loans for 3.25% or something. With lower interest rates, banks demand more money from the Fed because of increased demand for loans at the lower interest rates from banks. The money supply doesn't change, just how it's distributed. This is an example of classic economic forces involving the Fed. The only time the printing happens is when there is a Moneterist as the Chairman of the Fed. The first and most likely only time we had a Moneterist as chairman was right before Greenspan in the early Regan years. The Moneterist policy calls for an increase in money supply (albeit a small one) every year. With this we are able to increase the supply which in turn will lower interest rates naturally because of less demand because of the lower rates and larger supply rather than have it forced down like Bernanke is doing now. The economic boom that Clinton had and some of the great gains we had in the last 8 years was partly from the great policies of the Moneterists. With Moneterists, there is always a huge drop in the economy but then a great economic gain in time. Sounds great? It is. However, it's never gonna happen again because the average person does not know these facts. So, no. The Fed DOES NOT print money PERIOD. They are not the reason for inflation.

It is said the President of the US is the most powerful man in the world. The second most powerful? The Chairman of the Fed. The slightest change is felt throughout the world.

[Bulldog_916]

The only time anything gets done for better or worse is when there is a 1 party govt. Democratic majorities in congress and a Democrat president or Republican majorities in the congress and a Republican president. Nothing of substance happens when both parties hold a check or a balance. Beneficial or malevolent programs, laws, or policies get delayed by partisan pussy-footing when there's a dual party govt. So nothing gets done. I'm more of a fan of Democratic run govt. But there's still some of me that's conservative too.

[AKammenzind]

The only time anything gets done for better or worse is when there is a 1 party govt. Democratic majorities in congress and a Democrat president or Republican majorities in the congress and a Republican president. Nothing of substance happens when both parties hold a check or a balance. Beneficial or malevolent programs, laws, or policies get delayed by partisan pussy-footing when there's a dual party govt. So nothing gets done. I'm more of a fan of Democratic run govt. But there's still some of me that's conservative too.

Eh, either way we lose... I'd like to be left alone to move to the lovely Kingdom of Screwtherestoyinz, population: me.

[J-thehookaholic]

The only time anything gets done for better or worse is when there is a 1 party govt. Democratic majorities in congress and a Democrat president or Republican majorities in the congress and a Republican president. Nothing of substance happens when both parties hold a check or a balance. Beneficial or malevolent programs, laws, or policies get delayed by partisan pussy-footing when there's a dual party govt. So nothing gets done. I'm more of a fan of Democratic run govt. But there's still some of me that's conservative too.

Eh, either way we lose... I'd like to be left alone to move to the lovely Kingdom of Screwtherestoyinz, population: me.

Sadly given the way this country has been run during the bush administration, while the republicians had control of congress..... I wouldn't be too surprised to see the dems pull the same stuff of just jamming laws through without any debate. Which I have a major problem with. We need more than 2 parties, 3 won't even cut it, I think there needs to at least be a handful of parties. Oh and heres a thought... Maybe, just maybe everyone should get the same amount of coverage and actually asked questions during a debate *cough* Ron Paul. * sorry, those damn allegries even effect your typing now. I think everyone should have publicly financed campaigns, no lobyists allowed to serve on those campaigns, every candidate gets X number of advertising minutes on each station. I think the debates should be town hall style with real people asking the questions and no pre screening. and they shouldn't be allowed to dodge the question, I'm tired of this softball shit. And if you blink like 20 times in 5 seconds you should be kicked off for lying, b/c thats exactly what you're doing. Edited March 1, 2008 by J-thehookaholic

[ryno]

I dont have too much too add, but I do beleive they it is shitty how the media shows us just what we want. Anyone heard of Ron Paul? Well, he is IMO, the best canidate for president right now and you never hear about him. Its all Hillary vs. Obama and McCain vs. Huckabee. They leave out Paul because he sits there and tells it how it is, and how he wants to fix it. He's not out to win everyone over, but he has some great ideas. He wants the government involved alot less in many things, and hates the federal reserve. I'd say look him up and see what you think, he def. has my vote.

[J-thehookaholic]

This goes with what I've been saying about the fed and the lack of real democracy. Whether you believe it or not, it does make you stop and think a bit.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/paul...sshairs119.html

[jayson]

I dont have too much too add, but I do beleive they it is shitty how the media shows us just what we want. Anyone heard of Ron Paul? Well, he is IMO, the best canidate for president right now and you never hear about him. Its all Hillary vs. Obama and McCain vs. Huckabee. They leave out Paul because he sits there and tells it how it is, and how he wants to fix it. He's not out to win everyone over, but he has some great ideas. He wants the government involved alot less in many things, and hates the federal reserve. I'd say look him up and see what you think, he def. has my vote.

He already got mine.

[J-thehookaholic]

just another thing to think about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy

[TheScotsman]

Living in a different country, I know what I read in the news and academic articles, and what I see on TV... from partisan media agencies, I see the American left wing frequently complaining about the problems in the US... and the right wing media frequently denying problems, and propagating the idea that to acknowledge problems is to be unpatriotic. The unanimity of people I discuss US politics with, from countries around the world, read and see the same thing.

So very spot on.

Damn, I am agreeing with Gaia, Obviously I need a drink.

It's gone a step past the right making like all is well, they have just chosen to ignore every problem they can. We get helicopter shots of a semi jackknifed in the middle of North Dakota, but it's against presidential mandate for a news camera to photo flag covered coffins coming of transports from the mid-east. We get hours of sham-news about some meaningless silliness, all the while no anchor will mention the Dow taking a swan-dive into the septic tank. The leftie-news is no better, nothing but BS catch-phrases, buzzwords without a true plan backing them, and mocking, never a helpful actual idea, and an obvious reluctance to listen to any point other than their own, and a willingness to keep repeating a lie in the hopes it becomes truth. Hell, not like it matters anyway, the average American votes either on party-lines, or by what a candidate looks like... seldom having a clue past either.

[J-thehookaholic]

That drives me nuts that the don't show the coffins. It says something that these young men and women who lay down their lives are paid mere lip service and not honored in showing the sacrifice they have made. Its pure cowardice.

[gaia.plateau]

Anyone heard of Ron Paul?

He wants to pull out of the UN... which would almost certainly result in unmitigated global chaos with the state of things right now. Such a crazy bastard.

Also, look at Britian after WW2, and their policy of isolationism; their economy just continued to stagnate and grow increasingly poorer, while the rest of Europe prospered through economic accords and trade agreements. A policy of isolationism would be catastropic for the US at this point.

(Keep in mind, just about every Canadian wants Ron Paul to win nonetheless... whereas every other candidate wants to intensify NAFTA, which fucks us royally, Paul wants to withdraw from it completely. So I'm arguing against my own national interests ) Edited March 2, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[J-thehookaholic]

Anyone heard of Ron Paul?

He wants to pull out of the UN... which would almost certainly result in unmitigated global chaos with the state of things right now. Such a crazy bastard.

Also, look at Britian after WW2, and their policy of isolationism; their economy just continued to stagnate and grow increasingly poorer, while the rest of Europe prospered through economic accords and trade agreements. A policy of isolationism would be catastropic for the US at this point.

(Keep in mind, just about every Canadian wants Ron Paul to win nonetheless... whereas every other candidate wants to intensify NAFTA, which fucks us royally, Paul wants to withdraw from it completely. So I'm arguing against my own interests )

Its not about isolationism, its about soveriegnty and not subsidizing everyone and taking care of ourselves first. Read his book about foriegn policy and trade. Its basically a collection of speaches, but it sheds a lot of light on things and shows how fucked up alot of our policies are. Edited March 2, 2008 by J-thehookaholic

[gaia.plateau]

Its not about isolationism, its about soveriegnty and not subsidizing everyone and taking care of ourselves first. Read his book about foriegn policy and trade. Its basically a collection of speaches, but it sheds a lot of light on things and shows how fucked up alot of our policies are.

You tried that after WWI... remember how that ended? (WWII)

As shitty as the UN's and NATO's track records are, the pretense of collective security is better than nothing, and collective security just doesn't work with a major power outside the system. Ron Paul's vision of an isolated America might work for you during his 4-year presidency, but it's short sighted. He wants America to immediately pull out of the mess in the Middle East that it created - Iraq will become a total bloodbath, Iran will solidify power, and in all probability Israel will nuke someone (with luck, Pakistan/India/Russia/Iran(?)/North Korea(?)/China won't nuke back). How long do you think it will take for a 2nd and 3rd 9/11 to happen? Without the UN, China will likely reclaim Taiwan and Russia will likely reclaim its old satellites. You'll see a new full-out great powers system likely comprised of the US, China, Russia/India(?), the EU, and the radical IVO-controlled Middle East - do we really want to go back to the 1850s?

Paul is a self-styled Libertarian that doesn't understand Libertarian principles (this is a good thing, but still makes him unstable), or today's realities of the global "free market" (specifically the necessity of foreign invasion, subversion and control). 20 years ago, before Reagan, and in a reality where Truman never existed, I think that Paul might have been the ideal leader for you... but today in a corporate-led globalized world, he's simply the wrong medicine for a tumultuous ailment.

[J-thehookaholic]

Its not about isolationism, its about soveriegnty and not subsidizing everyone and taking care of ourselves first. Read his book about foriegn policy and trade. Its basically a collection of speaches, but it sheds a lot of light on things and shows how fucked up alot of our policies are.

You tried that after WWI... remember how that ended? (WWII)

As shitty as the UN's and NATO's track records are, the pretense of collective security is better than nothing, and collective security just doesn't work with a major power outside the system. Ron Paul's vision of an isolated America might work for you during his 4-year presidency, but it's short sighted. He wants America to immediately pull out of the mess in the Middle East that it created - Iraq will become a total bloodbath, Iran will solidify power, and in all probability Israel will nuke someone (with luck, Pakistan/India/Russia/Iran(?)/North Korea(?)/China won't nuke back). How long do you think it will take for a 2nd and 3rd 9/11 to happen? Without the UN, China will likely reclaim Taiwan and Russia will likely reclaim its old satellites. You'll see a new full-out great powers system likely comprised of the US, China, Russia/India(?), the EU, and the radical IVO-controlled Middle East - do we really want to go back to the 1850s?

Paul is a self-styled Libertarian that doesn't understand Libertarian principles (this is a good thing, but still makes him unstable), or today's realities of the global "free market" (specifically the necessity of foreign invasion, subversion and control). 20 years ago, before Reagan, and in a reality where Truman never existed, I think that Paul might have been the ideal leader for you... but today in a corporate-led globalized world, he's simply the wrong medicine for a tumultuous ailment.

1) The cause of WWII has more to do with huge financial burden the allies slapped on Germany, we made them pay for everything, which led to the collapse of the mark, which led to Hitler using Jews as scape Goats and Hilter comming to power. I highly doubt than an international body would have done much to stop Hitler since everyone wanted to look the other way and did till Poland.


2) Iraq is a complex one, while I don't think we should be in the middle of a civil war and meddling in their internal politics, we do have responsibility to rebuild as we said we would. Militarily we should get out, if they want to kill eachother so be it, I'm tired of seeing our men and women comming home because they got caught in someone eleses civil war. We tired that once in Vietnam, it didn't turn out to well. they used the domino theory there and all of asia didn't go to shit.

3) Having survived 9/11 I think Bin Laden has a legitimit gripe about some of our policies, I don't agree with his tactics of blowing up civilians. How would you feel if you had the Russians or Chineses building bases in your country and telling you what to do? I'd be a little pissed off too. They hate us b/c we're over there propping up brutual regiemes so we save a nickel on a gallon of gas and dictate to them what to do.

4) Isereal does not need our military or financial support, they're quite capable of taking care of themselves.

5) The UN and NATO are a joke, the only purpose they serve is to bring about a one world government. and we've been giving up our national sovereignty to those two bodies. No one pays their fare share in either one and I'm tired of money being taken out of my pocket for it.

6) It really isn't short sighted. Its a return to the policies that founders of this country touted and worked well for us. What we're doing now is exactly what the founders said not to which is get entangled in a web of alliances and meddle in other countries affairs. We should not be the world's policemen. Edited March 2, 2008 by J-thehookaholic

[gaia.plateau]

Its not about isolationism, its about soveriegnty and not subsidizing everyone and taking care of ourselves first. Read his book about foriegn policy and trade. Its basically a collection of speaches, but it sheds a lot of light on things and shows how fucked up alot of our policies are.

You tried that after WWI... remember how that ended? (WWII)

As shitty as the UN's and NATO's track records are, the pretense of collective security is better than nothing, and collective security just doesn't work with a major power outside the system. Ron Paul's vision of an isolated America might work for you during his 4-year presidency, but it's short sighted. He wants America to immediately pull out of the mess in the Middle East that it created - Iraq will become a total bloodbath, Iran will solidify power, and in all probability Israel will nuke someone (with luck, Pakistan/India/Russia/Iran(?)/North Korea(?)/China won't nuke back). How long do you think it will take for a 2nd and 3rd 9/11 to happen? Without the UN, China will likely reclaim Taiwan and Russia will likely reclaim its old satellites. You'll see a new full-out great powers system likely comprised of the US, China, Russia/India(?), the EU, and the radical IVO-controlled Middle East - do we really want to go back to the 1850s?

Paul is a self-styled Libertarian that doesn't understand Libertarian principles (this is a good thing, but still makes him unstable), or today's realities of the global "free market" (specifically the necessity of foreign invasion, subversion and control). 20 years ago, before Reagan, and in a reality where Truman never existed, I think that Paul might have been the ideal leader for you... but today in a corporate-led globalized world, he's simply the wrong medicine for a tumultuous ailment.

1) The cause of WWII has more to do with huge financial burden the allies slapped on Germany, we made them pay for everything, which led to the collapse of the mark, which led to Hitler using Jews as scape Goats and Hilter comming to power. I highly doubt than an international body would have done much to stop Hitler since everyone wanted to look the other way and did till Poland.

We'll agree to disagree then (I'm going on the literally dozens of books and academic articles I've read on the subject, my imminent BA in International Conflict and Co-operation, and 2 classes devoted specifically to the history of conflict in Europe).

The economic factors behind Germany's mobilization to war are just that. Global attitudes toward war and absolutely atrocious statecraft were much more to blame. The League of Nations (and it's brainchild, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928) was arguably the institution most detrimental to peace, which was its mandate, in the history of the world (the World Bank and IMF might give it a run for its money though). The main reason for the failure of the League was that the US was outside of it, making it illegitimate. Now, that's fine- the imperative of state sovereignty means you didn't have to, and WW2 turned out spectacularly for you in a certain way of thinking. The point is that now you depend on collective security for your survival, and just like the democratic states of Europe in 1939, if collective security fails now you'll be the one to feel the ultimate brunt of it in the late-post modern era.

2) Iraq is a complex one, while I don't think we should be in the middle of a civil war and meddling in their internal politics, we do have responsibility to rebuild as we said we would. Militarily we should get out, if they want to kill eachother so be it, I'm tired of seeing our men and women comming home because they got caught in someone eleses civil war. We tired that once in Vietnam, it didn't turn out to well. they used the domino theory there and all of asia didn't go to shit.

They want to kill each other because they live in a culture of violence, the seeds of which were planted by the Brits in 19th century and watered and fertilized by Reagan in the 80s. It was a powderkeg, but a contained one, until the Coalition of the Willing dropped a few matches into it. If Ron Paul had his way and pulled your forces out, you would see an international fallout that would make you look fondly back to 2004-8 when, relatively, you had a shining international reputation. Not to mention the millions of dead Iraqis, a great percentage of which would likely be innocent Kurds.

4) Isereal does not need our military or financial support, they're quite capable of taking care of themselves.

5) The UN and NATO are a joke, the only purpose they serve is to bring about a one world government. and we've been giving up our national sovereignty to those two bodies. No one pays their fare share in either one and I'm tired of money being taken out of my pocket for it.

You're not seeing the point... the UN means and is representative of collective security, which means that if any nation aggresses against another, all other nations will defend the aggressed-upon. Now whether this works, or whether what we really have is selective security, thinly disguising a continued Great Powers system, is another topic of discussion. The point is that it's a hell of a lot better than what we had before, when war was generally considered to be a political instrument.

It's not about Israel needing the US's protection, it's about the states involved (Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, potentially Pakistan and others) needing at least the pretension to collective security to keep one another from blowing the hell out of the Middle East. Even if you don't care about the hundreds of millions of lives at stake, its the warlords that would pick up the pieces, and they could very possibly still be willing to aggress against the Westerners that oppressed them for over a century.

6) It really isn't short sighted. Its a return to the policies that founders of this country touted and worked well for us. What we're doing now is exactly what the founders said not to which is get entangled in a web of alliances and meddle in other countries affairs. We should not be the world's policemen.

No one wants that, but you can't sit outside the circle commanding the largest military on the planet; that makes you the world's bully. There are a lot of policies that you had in America in the 1700s... one was shitting in the bushes and wiping with pinecones. Another, as you may recall, was an absolute aversion to standing armies. Those both worked well then. It's one thing to stay out of countries affairs, it's another to pretend to do this while continuing to exploit the political and economic resources of the Global South and while continuing to use the most technologically powerful military on earth to your own purposes as the international order crumbles.