Anit-Patriotism

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:27 pm

[QUOTE=jopperm2]I honestly don't know if I want to completely get into all of this because these discussions tend to consume me. I think the system works very well. I don't think people can be trusted to direct govern themselves. Athenian democracy didn't work very well at all. People off the street simply cannot responsibly govern themselves. There would be enough pork barreling to make Tom Daschle blush. We cannot have average Joe people governing all over the place because they aren't smart enough or responsible enough(I know this is almost laughable considering how irresponsible many politicians are, including some I may have voted for) to make descisions for the country. I'll give an example. When I was in college I took a class called American National Government. During that class there was a discussion about social spending. One woman in the class, a student, about age 30.. She was complaining that if she were in office she would make it mandatory for states to provide child-care and health care for everyone. I had to explain to her that while these might be nice programs someone has to pay for them. I was single male with no children, no health problems. I worked 48 hours per week and went to school full-time. I needed every penny I made to pay for what I needed. I hadn't been to the doctor in probably four or five years. So I told her flat out that I refuse to pay even one cent for her because she can't keep her legs closed. People need to be responsible for their actions. I may have said this before, there are two types of people I can't stand, those that want a handou, and those that want to save the world. (And before fable calls me out, I am sloganeering now. This is an opinion thread though so I don't care. I'm worked up.

) I'm not sure if I want to add too much more to this without installing more heat sinks in my computer, but I did want to say something about the electoral college. It was mentioned that it should be abolished, but I have to disagree. It was established because the founding fathers did not think the populace was educated enough to be completely trusted with elections. I do think the populace is better able to make those decisions due to communication technology available today, but I think that same technology may see the electoral college playing a bigger role in the future. In todays world of media coverage and photo ops, a pretty face and a strong voice can go as far as a good budget plan and solid voting record. That trend, if it continues to get worse, could be a serious problem. Remember that Hitler's best political asset was he speaking ability. I think that educated electors need to be in place as a safeguard.[/QUOTE]

I never got around to responding to this, so here goes.

I'm not talking about snagging crack dealers or morons off of the street. I'm talking about the people that happen to live around you that simply try making a difference and could do some wonderful things given the opportunity to put their ideas into use. Unfortunately, I've dealt with local politicians who are simply looking for a high-paying job and a way to exercise their personal need for power-trips. IMHO a lot of the people that run for president are just rich men who are simply bored and looking for a step up from whatever it is they are doing. A prestige thing. Bush looking out for the good of the country? RIGHT. He's been incompetant his whole life. There should be checks in place to ban people who are running, despite a popular vote, who could do harm to the country.

Yes, the electoral college is in place, but if someone is running that is simply incompetant or a bad choice, they should be taken out of the race and replaced, period. Screw the votes of the ignorant masses, yank them out and replace them. Start the vote again with new runners and thats that. Whether or not those running for office are attractive or good speakers is in reality irrevelant to their job. Granted, public speaking is portion of the job, but I'd rather have someone that stutters and is shy and can do a good job than someone who's attractive and runs the nation into a depression or a war.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:33 pm

As for voting for the lesser evil etc. Looking back through history there have been plenting of minority parties that have been created JUST to oppose the majority party. (I'll get to examples if requested) They're purpose was to check the power of the majority so they didn't do something catastrophically stupid.

And they didn't succeed in the slightest, because in a US style, winner-take-all democracy, if you lose, you have no representation. Whereas in many European democracies, minority parties have considerable input in the formulation of policy because representation is based on the percentage of votes received.

So speaking hypothetically, if 49% of every state in the US were to have voted Republican and 51% voted for Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans wouldn't have a single Senator. And while this extremely unlikely to happen, it is symptomatic of the very great flaw in US democracy which renders it a joke, IMO.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 pm

[QUOTE=Ekental]@Chanak...
Certainly the war catalyzed the self-discrimination but it was happening long before that. People would talk about how messed up education, economy, and social security was. The "War on Terror" is simply a great excuse for all these complaints to come to head.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. The so-called War on Terror represents a foreign policy shift on the part of the U.S., one that is defintely for the worse in regards to foreign relations. The Bush administration uses bully tactics, ultimatums, and false claims (ones they even admit were bogus, mind you) to conduct this highly suspect global campaign. Treasure troves of Bush quotes are available on the internet on this topic - he is lampooned internationally over his conduct and that of his administration in general. Calling the War on Terror a great excuse to "complain about the country" doesn't make sense to me. How so?

So many Americans have held the fallacious and blind notion for years that other nations take any opportunity they can to criticize the U.S. - they simply wait around for something to gripe about. I find it absurdly hypocritical that the power groups and the political party that holds to this spin feels free to criticize and self-righteously judge others by their own standards.

In the eyes of the world, and of many concerned Americans (myself included), it is not a matter of the U.S. responding to threats in other parts of the globe that is the problem. The problem is, the U.S. is obviously pursuing some sort of agenda other than maintaining the sovereignity of nations threatened by madmen or tyrants with plans of global domination.

There isn't one shred of proof unearthed that depicted Iraq as a threat to any other nation. They couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in Iran with their antiquated missile delivery systems. The Iraqi military was trashed after Desert Storm. Hussein had zero connections with Al-Queda. The Bush administration was caught lying on several occasions regarding their claims that Iraq had a nuclear program. President Bush has spent over $400 billion dollars wasting thousands of American lives on a lie. The UK has suffered right along with us. Perhaps this can help someone understand why many people the world over see Bush as the madman. The proof is before everyone's eyes.

dark_raven · Post by **dark_raven** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:37 pm

[QUOTE=Ekental]@Raven...
Im not sure I understand what you just said.. I never said that this forum has no good ideas. Politicians are not experts at everything collectively either. They're supposed to respond to public demand, each from his/her district (for senators and reps anyways)[/QUOTE]
and that is why i stated [QUOTE=dark_raven]i don't know if that agrees/disagrees/or is compleatly off of anything said on this thread... but thats what i think.[/QUOTE]

Macleod1701 · Post by **Macleod1701** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:09 am

[QUOTE=CM]A distinction i must make here is that when people refer to american most of the time they refer to the government and not its population. Atleast I attempt to make that distinction. I may loathe the actions taken by the US, but the average joe who shops at the local wal-mart can not be responsible if the govt decides to bomb Moscow. They vote for the people they feel are best for the job but they have no control over the actual decisions taken so they can not be held responsible. But they can be held responsible for their views. Say if someone votes for Le Pen or a neo-nazi party.[/QUOTE]

I beleive you're still living in the eighties, it's Korea or China that is more likely to be bombed than Moscow

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:59 am

@fable and others, I don't disagree with not voting for a candidate that you don't want in office. Nor do I believe that you should keep quiet just because you didn't vote. You likely would have had some of the same complaints about Kerry as Bush, so why would you want to vote for him?

Sorry about the blocky previous post, I broke it up a little for readability.

Also, I think it was Magrus that brought up wanting more everyday type people in office. You should become more active in local government. I'm not sure exactly where you live, but in my home district the people that were in office were farmers, teachers, and a few lawyers too like in washington. One of the big reasons that more people like that don't run for higher offices is that they can't afford it. It's expensive to run, and it doesn't pay very much. You also have to keep up two homes usually.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:15 am

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Also, I think it was Magrus that brought up wanting more everyday type people in office. You should become more active in local government. I'm not sure exactly where you live, but in my home district the people that were in office were farmers, teachers, and a few lawyers too like in washington. One of the big reasons that more people like that don't run for higher offices is that they can't afford it. It's expensive to run, and it doesn't pay very much. You also have to keep up two homes usually.[/QUOTE]

Thats not a bad idea, although with my history I doubt I'd be able to.

As for the fact most people in local politics don't run for higher offices for the sheer fact it's too expensive, I believe that is just wrong altogether. It should be the best possible person for the job being picked, period, not the best among those who can afford it. That was a good portion of my point I was trying to make in my earlier posts. I am sure there are plenty of people far more qualified out there to run this country that simply don't have the funds to make it into the highest offices of government, so they aren't there.

IMHO it would be worth it to go searching for people who seem like they would a wonderful job in congress or the supreme court, or as president or governer or what not. Snag those people and advertise them and let the people vote for them. Not have the rich pimp themselves out to the public because they have the cash to show up on tv and blow off a job to tour the US for support. These are people with their own, personal agendas for the most part aside from what job it is they are struggling to get. The people focused on their lower level political jobs are just doing their jobs. If they're any good at it, those are the people you want, people content to do what they have in front of them and focused on it.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:56 am

Keep in mind, your idea of a qualified person is not everybodies. For instance, there are people out there that would only consider people who vow to do these things:

Lower taxes.
Uphold the law of God as laid out in the Bible.
End Abortion NOW!
Execute all terrorists without appeal.
Invade Cuba, Iran, Korea, China, etc..

Those people have just as much right to be represented as you or I do.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:17 pm

See, one, HUGE problem I have with the U.S. government can be boiled down to something very very simple. Seperation of church and state right? Wrong. Pull out an American $1 bill, turn it over on its back and read it. "In God We Trust" right there on the bill. Ok, now, grab a penny, whats this? It's there too right over Lincoln's head! Oh, it's on the edge of the nickel, and under the chin of the guy on the dime, same with the quarter, and its chilling over the white house on the $20 bill too!

Now, my memory has taken a horrible turn for the worst over the past 5 years, but I do recall all throughout school that American's left Britain for religious freedom, and when they set up their own government, they made it a point to make it so people had their religious freedom and in doing so, decided the government wouldn't support any religion directly. Well, to me, everytime I pay for something, my currency makes those people hippocrites, along with the people in government today and all the way back to those founding fathers as well. "God" is related to religion, therfore it doesn't belong in anything produced by the government. Period. Why is it on my money? Am I the only one who's caught this or something since they started printing the stuff?

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:26 pm

Separation of church in state really has only ever meant one thing, that tax money doesn't go to sponsor one state-supported religion.

Religious freedom, to the founding fathers meant not being told by a government that they had to be one religion. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, this has always been a Christian nation.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:49 pm

Which happens to be quite offensive to me personally.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:08 pm

There is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing a righnt to not be offended.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:19 pm

@jopp & magrus: When you get right down to it, the problem is established power in high level government. I'm of the opinion that it really doesn't matter what candidate wins an election - it could have been Bush or Kerry, both are fakes in my eyes - the fact is they are part of a machine, a hungry, greedy and deceitful one that has the American public right where it wants it: mentally lazy and emotionally stirred up. Watching politicians manipulate the public is similar to how I imagine the crowds in Roman coliseums were played masterfully. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with fable: the system is a farce.

I'm of the opinion that the entire federal government should be put on trial for crimes against the American people involving cover-up, conspiracy, misuse of taxpayer's money (can anyone say rewarding Boeing a contract to make outdated aircraft when Airbus offered a better deal on more modern craft? Add to that the fact that Boeing was busted getting inside information from a government employee on another contract that they were partially awarded anyway depsite breaking the law to get it?????), unlawful search and seizure, denying citizens due process, violating states rights...I'm sure the list of charges could go on and on. While Presidents and their administrations have a part to play in all of this, I believe all parts of the federal entity share equal guilt with a special place reserved for those esteemed members of Congress. The document that would be used to convict them, of course, would be the Constitution.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:34 pm

@Chanak, Oh, I agree whole heartedly with you there. I actually got banned from my American Government class my senior year for being quite vocal about my views such as those. The system is broken IMO, although it does do a good job of getting done what the politicians in power want it to do.

Ekental · Post by **Ekental** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:33 pm

Hmm... it seems we're starting to finally polarize... wonderful

Anyways
@Chanak
On the Boeing issue while in recent years the company has been grossly mismanaged... I don't believe that you can just say that Airbus simply makes better aircraft. (A debate for another thread no doubt)

Your suggestion to put the entire federal government up for trial seems overly excessive. Certainly there are politicians (Delay...) that are likely guilty of some of these crimes... however saying that they all are is false. (Unless you can give me a list of all of them and tell me a crime).

I don't think the entire government is soley in place for massive conspiracies where they can abuse people's rights... the notion is ridiculous (and only heightened by some bad [and good] movies

As for criticism to the US. I never said other nations wait for the US to do something wrong so they can complain. Im saying that there were complaints well before the vaunted "War on Terror". While it is true US policy changed when Bush came into office... That can be said about many presidents, it's certainly not a precedent.

As for the war (this is again another thread [to be rehashed]) while I agree it was a mistake I believe that you have not bothered to put in the other side of the story here. At least acknoledge them...

@Fable
I dislike that part of the system as well... however I was referring to parties formed soley to counteract the majority (they had no ideals besides that). They wielded enough power to prevent major catastrophes from occuring. Though keep in mind now some states are revising their law so the system is based on % rather than winner take all.

@Raven
Okies srry for the repeat then

@Magrus
People who do not have the money to run for public offices can apply for federal money... I understand that this is a paltry sum against the often times party controlled or senator controlled PACs that give candidates money. However a cunning politician should have no trouble raising money for their campaign if their well liked enough (And maybe even if they aren't).
As for people who do not choose to run for higher offices even though they quite obviously have the talent... That is their choice... what if they feel like they simply like where they are?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:43 pm

@Fable
I dislike that part of the system as well... however I was referring to parties formed soley to counteract the majority (they had no ideals besides that). They wielded enough power to prevent major catastrophes from occuring.

I honestly can't think of any. The closest example that comes to mind is Teddy Roosevelt's Bullmoose Party, founded to counter the Republicans under Taft, that Roosevelt said was betraying his principles. The vote split, and the winner, Wilson, was a bigot and half-mad during his second term.

Though keep in mind now some states are revising their law so the system is based on % rather than winner take all.

I think it's only two states, thus far, and applies only to the Senate. We can gladly revisit this when at least forty states have moved to this system, and it applies to both the Senate and House of Representatives.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:12 pm

I'm not a fan of some of the situations that our winner-take-all system creates, but I don't want a system like many Eupopean countries use either. Most of Europe is a political mess that accomplishes just as little as we do, or minorities have too much power.

I don't think the government has large scale corruptions as you have said, Chanak, but I do agree that a lot of people have done questionable things. I don't see how that is any different than any other government though. Lying to the people is what governments do. Sometimes, I think, those things need to be done in order to accomplish things.

What do you think the goals of the crooked government are? I'm not really too far off from what you think. I just don't think it is as big of a problem as you make it out to be.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:07 am

Whatever else governments-in-power may choose to say in public, their first instinct and law is always their own self-perpetuation. To that end, those who threaten this self-perpetuation are either carefully marginalized, or treated as part of a black-hearted enemy, in league with the worst perceived threats to social order. Castro's Cuba sees its own social dissidents in this fashion, and the PNAC crew in the White House, beginning with their first taste of power under Reagan, have always seen those who didn't follow the neo-con way in the same manner. According to them and their followers, Kerry wasn't simply a presidential contender. He was morally and ideologically unsound, therefore corrupt, and supported by enemies of the state even if he wasn't an enemy, himself.

Tower_Master · Post by **Tower_Master** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:55 pm

[QUOTE=fable]Whatever else governments-in-power may choose to say in public, their first instinct and law is always their own self-perpetuation. To that end, those who threaten this self-perpetuation are either carefully marginalized, or treated as part of a black-hearted enemy, in league with the worst perceived threats to social order. Castro's Cuba sees its own social dissidents in this fashion, and the PNAC crew in the White House, beginning with their first taste of power under Reagan, have always seen those who didn't follow the neo-con way in the same manner. According to them and their followers, Kerry wasn't simply a presidential contender. He was morally and ideologically unsound, therefore corrupt, and supported by enemies of the state even if he wasn't an enemy, himself.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more with your post, Fable. How many times must we elect a president for their first term, only to have it (feel like) it's wasted away trying to assure a second? Oh, and in response to what you said a WAAAYS back, about not voting, I'd have to concur. When neither candidate inspires any trust in you, there's absolutely no reason to try and aid either one. Didn't know that thing about Wilson being a bigot, though. Any thoughts on where I could learn more about that?

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:34 pm

I agree, that is a driving factor. What is this PNAC you speak of? It sounds familiar, but the name doesn't come to mind. I'm not a neo-con follower, but I also think Kerry is morally and ideologically unsound.

@TM, some say changing the presidential term to 6 years would accomplish more, what do you think about that?