|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
136.37.101.134
"No American freedom is ("was," my updating) currently at stake in Afghanistan. It is impossible to imagine an argument to the contrary, just as the war in Iraq was clearly fought for the interests of empire, the profits of defense contractors, and the edification of neoconservative theorists. It had nothing to do with the safety or freedom of the American people. The last time the U.S. military deployed to fight for the protection of American life was in World War II - an inconvenient fact that reduces clichés about "thanking a soldier" for free speech to rubble. If a soldier deserves gratitude, so does the litigator who argued key First Amendment cases in court, the legislators who voted for the protection of free speech, and thousands of external agitators who rallied for more speech rights, less censorship and broader access to media.
Wars that are not heroic have no real heroes, except for the people who oppose those wars. Far from being the heroes of recent wars, American troops are among their victims. No rational person can blame the soldier, the Marine, the airman, or the Navy man for the stupid and destructive foreign policy of the U.S. government, but calling them "heroes," and settling for nothing less, makes honest and critical conversations about American foreign policy less likely to happen. If all troops are heroes, it doesn't make much sense to call their mission unnecessary and unjust. It also makes conversations about the sexual assault epidemic, or the killing of innocent civilians, impossible".
Follow Ups:
the last justifiable war would have been Jan. 6th if the police would have sprayed everyone with water so we could gleefully watch the invaders die in ~45 minutes from hypothermia in 30 degree weather. that would have been completely justified and legal.
In a 3rd world country, maybe, but not here.......
Too much is never enough
Not everyone who joins the military is a "hero" or is in it simply "serve their country", although true heroes certainly exist.
Why might this be ? Because:- Military service for offspring is an honoraable form of "welfare" for some. Many of these welfare recipients are concentrated in the poorer rural areas of the USA (or "red states") where "patriotism" (either real or fake) is considered to be a cardinal virtue. Military service offers these kids a ready-made path (right after high-school, when some parents are anxious to quickly rid themselves of excessive financial burden !), so that they may take advantage of provisions like food, shelter, education, and work experience while on payroll - and all, with a sense of "pride" not available elsewhere in the welfare spectrum.
- Miltary service is a way to "prove oneself" before your onlooking peers. Especially in rural communities where no one admires a "pussy boy", and it is most likely that friends and family have also served in the military, you must serve too ! If you don't cave in to this extreme form of peer-pressure, you risk being permanently branded as a "pussy" and/or shamed forever amongst family and friends with few avenues of escape.
- Some who join are nationalistic bigots. They will welcome almost any excuse to kill anyone, anywhere in the world, that they seriously dislike or disagree with (for a wide variety of "serious" reasons - or even trivial ones).
Let it be said that some who naively put too much trust in government and unwittingly become embroiled in "un-heroic" wars might actully be true heroes. Because, sometimes, "It's the thought that counts.".
Edits: 12/16/21 12/16/21 12/16/21 12/17/21
First? I'm glad you aren't in charge of the military.
Next? Military is NOT the 'employer of last resort'. Last time I looked, about 1/6th (actually a little less) of the population would NOT be enlisted due to not being 'smart' enough. the limit is around IQ 83 or so......
Modern war requires some smarts, ability to think on your feet as well as the willingness to follow orders.
Finally? GI Bill accumulates funds or the ability to access funds to Further your education. Like College. Current trend might be to 'write off' huge amounts of willingly obligated debt, but at a soldier PRE EARNS this ability. And If you go into the military WITH a degree and qualify? You can get further educaiton in things you and I wouldn't ordinarily associate WITH military activities.
And lest you think they are all 'future' (pick your party), my experience has been that those I know are a wide cross section of beliefes (politically)
If I were being mean, I might note without proof, that for every nationalist Bigot in the military is an ANTI-Nationalist Bigot teaching college... But I can't support THAT any more than you can your origianl statement.
Too much is never enough
If you want to read about the current state of affairs on military power and its waste; whether it be in dollars, diplomacy or strategy, the war in Afghanistan is a reminder that the United States has accomplished very little when they invade a foreign state. Patton was a hero, Petraues slept with his biographer Paula Broadwell while on duty.
Edits: 12/16/21
We see similar exploitation of blue as we do with red, white and blue. It's all part of the divide and conquer strategy of the rich and powerful.
It's working.
And as such has little value. It's been devalued as a cliche'.
Making oneself available for defense is a worthy endeavor, even though policy has misused these people. As someone who spent a few years in uniform, including Vietnam years, I feel that respect and 'thanks' are due. I cringe at these people being used for the Military Machine, but they are also available for justifiable use. The fact that we are still sovereign is because of that potential.
There are many roles in society that keep us intact and are worthy of respect. Let's keep it at that level.
about not only writing, but evil: he served as London's first police chief.
"I cannot conceive why he that has burned cities, wasted nations, and filled the world with horror and desolation, should be more kindly regarded by mankind than he who died in the rudiments of wickedness."
Those who worked AGAINST the wars are the true heroes.
I get your point but if you want to sell it here you better put a pro-American spin on it.
The family and friends of those who serve are full of pride and embrace the concept of the hero. It serves no real purpose, other than to divide, to demean them.
It works out well carrying out whatever agenda on the ground using the military at the same time creating friction/division within the public.
...nearly unanimous vote, little to no debate.
No money for health care, no money for paid family leave, but Congress has no issues giving Biden $25 billion more than he asked for.
Disgusting.
Both parties are in complete lockstep on everything important.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Edits: 12/16/21
deep divisions exacerbated by geography and race.
Manchin is just proving cover.
On every important issue, Republicans and Democrats are in 100% agreement. There's no civil war. Abortion and LGBT rights are just diversions that both parties use to keep people from realizing their pockets are getting picked.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Are you really unaware that there are plenty of people for whom things like abortion and LGBT rights are KEY issues that determine their votes? Trump won in 2016 with an extremely slim margin of votes. Had one issue anti-abortion voters not voted for Trump based on that one issue 2017-21 may well have been VERY different. Why the hell do you think Trump flip-flopped on that issue and others?https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914
You can't see the blatantly obvious differences between the parties regarding voting rights, civil rights, guns, the whole Biden agenda? The "progressives" like AOC are phonies? The lying hatchet men like Jim Jordan are not wildly different from Elizabeth Warren? You really can't see a difference - a REALLY IMPORTANT difference - between the 147 Republicans who voted against certifying the election (over 50% of Repubs in Congress) and Dems?
You harp on defense spending as if its the only issue that matters. At a time when one party is in the process of attempting to dismantle democracy and the other is trying to ensure its continuance how you can post this same rap over and over is beyond me. IMO the difference has never been more stark.
Edits: 12/16/21 12/16/21 12/16/21
You write as if "our democracy" is in danger from a particular political party, when, in reality, "we" lost "our democracy" decades ago, well before corporations became people.
Yes, I was happy that Brandon got us out of Afghanistan. And yet, now that we're out of that country, the military budget has INCREASED (to $778 billion for fiscal year 2022 by a vote of 89 to 10 - that's some great Democratic opposition there!) - and that figure doesn't even include off the books items. When the government "ends" a war, but increases the military budget, you know you're being scammed. (Or SOME of us know it anyway.)
Yes, I prefer Elizabeth Warren to Jim Jordan, but the fact is that SOMETIMES, Warren is wrong and Jordan is right. And I don't know why you brought up AOC - the fact is, she IS a phoney - running as a progressive and then coddling to mamma bear's wishes once she gets in to congress. It's people like you who are so into their own tribal view of things that you can't even conceive that issues and people can be other than black or white.
If the Dems are as pro-choice as you claim, why don't they increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court RIGHT NOW and pack it with abortion-rights-supporting justices? No - they'd rather have excuses as to why that can't do all the things they say they're in favor of. The Dems do nothing other than pay lip service to the issues you claim are so life and death. I'm very in favor of abortion rights myself, but I don't see the Dems lifting a finger to protect them right now. No, as I said, they'd rather have an "issue" to use in the next election than get anything actually done (except help the Repubs pass obscene defense budgets and more tax breaks for billionaires).
What you don't seem to understand is that the Dems don't care one bit about you - they DO care about their billionaire doners - AND THAT's IT. In time, maybe you will come to understand this.
The US does have actual progressives but not enough and they are stuck in the democratic party. The progressives have to vote on stuff they don't believe in because crumbs are better than nothing. I don't think that makes them sellouts because they have to get something done. AOC explains it here and she notes that it's about leverage on other things they need to get done. She wants Pelosi and Schumer out.
Here is an interview. She notes how weak the democratic party is and how under the corporate umbrella they are. And as she notes - if they get rid of a Pelosi - the replacement could be even worse as in more conservative.
If you watch the whole thing towards the end you can see Biden's conservative appointments - not a single one of them are progressives in any way.
Biden beat all the progressives. Is it a big surprise that the guy everybody considered a moderate is not appointing many progressives?There are 225 Dems in the House and 50 in the Senate. There are 100 members of the progressive caucus, which means 126 Dem Reps and 49 Dem Senators are NOT.
It is the Republicans in Congress and Republican appointed SC Justices that ensured that money dominates politics in the U.S.
https://www.speaker.gov/issues/democracy-campaign-finance-reform-voting-rights
Edits: 12/18/21 12/18/21
. . . you're a happy camper! ;-)
And wise up: Dems do NOT want to get money out of politics. They're beholden to the same kinds of billionaires as the Repubs are - and they like it that way. Their "campaign finance overhaul" stunts are nothing more than theater for the masses. If you think otherwise, you're naive.
Hmm, what I'm linking doesn't quite fit your narrative. Remember when you said the Pentagon Papers was decades ago and its a totally different bullshit NYT now?The campaign finance bill Dems are putting together that I linked earlier doesn't fit into your narrative either, which is why you have to resort to calling it a "stunt".
Its just not worth rapping about these things with you because you are like a climate change denier that doesn't accept what's in front of your face. You are a prisoner of your dogma.
Edits: 12/19/21
. . . if the Dems actually DO get significant campaign finance reform instituted, I'll acknowledge that you are right on this point. Until then, I'll note that you're merely projecting when you talk about being "a prisoner of your dogma".
And, yes, it really is "a totally different bullshit NYT now" - you've just got blinders on (from all the propaganda you've imbibed), so you can't see it. BTW, now that the Durham indictments and arrests are proceeding, do you suppose that the NYT reporters will give back their Pulitzer Prizes for abetting the Russiagate conspiracy theory they were championing for over four years? And do you now see what the actual worth is of such prizes - created BY the elites FOR the elites - to push the billionaire elitist agenda?
who was arrested and for what?
Is CNBC (the first listing I found on Duck Duck Go) a good enough source for you?
"An analyst who contributed research to a dossier that detailed alleged ties between former President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 election was arrested."
ah, the double agent ... he'll sing like a mocking bird
if you're concerned, he'll be fine
it's his vocation
; )
why?
how about some fries with that nothing burger?
that's all you'll get out of this kerfuffle
; )
why you insist that YOUR 'Lamestream Media' sources have more ethos than others when you've charged that they're all ethically challenged is beyond me
actually I'll dissemble ... it's not beyond me, since you've feet of clay just as others have ... we needn't get into where or how they've originated but you bring your biases along when processing external & internal 'events' and our tendency so seek reinforcement for those corner and keystones of the persona we cultivate for ourselves makes it extremely difficult to drop those filters as we view the world around us
yet, as I read so many of your comments it's as if you're either unaware or forgot about this very human dynamic, have given up on critical self reflection, or decided to bring a cynical purpose along for the ride
leaving me to wonder if what I'm seeing is a singular or combined unconscious evocation or something with a purpose beyond personal expression ... not that my opinion should carry any weight with you
but my observations should
my thought is if you can readily answer this it is most likely the latter
. . . paranoid-inducing attempts on the part of "our" billionaire mainstream imperialist media to scare the bejeezus out of us over the latest foreign bogeyman.
I guess you could take that observation as a kind of compliment though! ;-)
And, yes, we all bring our own biases into our discussions. Does that mean we've given up on self reflection? As I read your posts, I struggle to find self reflection in them myself. Maybe I just haven't read a large enough portion of your "complete works". ;-)
'As I read your posts, I struggle to find self reflection'
that's already been done prior to committing anything to writing
by treading carefully nothing would hold up in court of course ; )
'haven't read a large enough portion of your "complete works"'
perfectly understandable since they're neither published nor compiled
enjoy!
His opinion should indeed not carry any weight with you Chris. He so far seems to be short on facts and evidence. Opinions with a bit of word salad thrown in.
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. "S'chn T'gai Spock --- "Or the one"
James T. Kirk
'He so far seems to be short on facts and evidence'
regarding what?
I've addressed your diatribes on mega dosing vitamins and horse past ingestion in real time as they were made including links & quotes
as prior stated, I'm not starting all over again with you on those subjects since your position is intransigent and any commentary offered falls on deaf ears [not just mine, anyone's!] throwing you into a frenzy of repetitive posts of all that came before ... I'd just rather not try and ice-skate uphill
now, I do understand that your intention is to offer a public service in your own way out of a sense of community [at least I think I understand] but your tendency to get 'your back up' and lash out at those who aren't 100% down with the concepts and positions you've staked out makes for a, shall we say, less than inviting opportunity for meaningful dialogue
because it simply isn't there on the one way street of your messaging
other than that, I think you're basically a splendid fellow with a quirky sense of humor and life experiences and competence in certain areas of audio that are worth reading about
therefore, when I see you post undue 'butt hurt' comments directed towards me they only elicit a rueful smile and shake of the head; there he goes again like Don Quixote thinking anyone who disagrees with him is a windmill inviting a joust
peace man, enjoy your winter solstice holiday if that's what you do
or Merry Christmas if you're so inclined
and regards,
Like AOC said - if America were any other country she would not be in the same party as Joe Biden.The USA has at least 4 parties but they suck it up and have to join with whichever party is closest to their own which is why many "real" Republicans or Regan Republicans flipped their vote to Joe Biden. Obviously, AOC and Bernie and some others are closer to Biden than a Trump. Joe Manchin is a paid-off corporatist - he's in no way anywhere close to a progressive. He's what is called a DINO along with Sinema who has lost many of her supporters and upper-tier activists who helped get her elected.
The problem in the US as I see it living in countries that actually give a shit about the people is that because the Biden democrats do NOTHING to help their people (other than helping billionaires make more money) is that people don't actually vote FOR Joe Biden - they voted against Trump. That's a problem because in 4 years people tend to have the memories of goldfish and will forget and not come out in numbers and will allow the next Republican wannabe fascist to take over. Heaven help you if you get a fascist with a brain and who can actually speak English properly.
When Bernie Sanders won those early primaries the Democrats circled the wagons real fast. People running for the presidency quickly dropped out of the race and went on TV to support Biden real fast to throw their votes to him. They had to protect their corporate owners.
Free medical care has never been about the cost of medicare - most companies would save a LOT of money if they are no longer on the hook for providing medical to employees - many business owners who have actually studied the costs to their business are backing single payer schemes Sanders has proposed.
No! The REAL problem for corporations is that if a person gets free family medical is that employees will no longer be under the thumb of tyrant business owners. People stay at shit jobs they hate because if they leave they lose their medical. In Canada, if I quit any job I can still get cancer treatments - if I get a new cancer every year for 20 years there is no pre-existing condition - it's 100% free even if all the operations and drugs run a BILLION dollars - it's covered. If my boss is a dickhead I can quit. I do not have to suffer for 5 years for such a scumbag. And if the boss knows he holds the power of life and death over your family - well he has more power to be a dickhead to you. Power corrupts absolutely.
The rest of the first world citizenry has figured this out and are successful countries where there are lots and lots of millionaires and the people have more social benefits. A lot of Americans know this - perhaps because they have lived and travelled abroad and seen first hand the benefits.
Bernie's Home State see what Bernie is about and their citizens elect him all the time borders Canada. The people in that state of Vermont probably travel to Canada a lot on camping trips - look around and think WTF we should do that. And they should. If America adopted the Canadian Medical system America would be able to do it better and include more because the economy is so much larger in the US and there is deeper medical infrastructure already in place.
If I were American I would be in the camp voting for Biden only because the other option was a $^&@wit.
This edit was shortened.
Edits: 12/18/21
nt
The fact is though that, with the Democratic majority in the House being so small now, AOC and "The Squad" could hold up "important" (i.e., important to the billionaire mega-donors) legislation in the House just as much as Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema regularly do in the Senate. The Squad could hold the legislation up (by threatening to vote against it) until they get something in return. They could do this - but they seem to be afraid to, and maybe with good reason, since Pelosi controls the distribution/allocation of Dem national campaign funds, and she could withhold these funds from those who don't toe her line. And of course, no re-election campaign money. . . no re-election.
nt
"Trump won in 2016 with an extremely slim margin of votes."All I can say is, thank goodness we didn't have Hillary as Prez!!
****
We are inclusive and diverse. But dissent will not be tolerated.
Edits: 12/17/21
have for president an ignorant, semi-illiterate narcissistic sociopath of bullying, Mob-boss mentality who not only has no experience with, or knowledge of public policy, but, much worse even, no INTEREST in it, versus HRC, who has a vast knowledge of, and experience with, public policy. Listening to interviews with her, I am struck by her extensive and rational grasp of the issues facing us. Regarding your preference, something simply doesn't compute here.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
Well MWE since he rarely answers questions I'll answer it for. Yes, and you left out racist, misogynist, rapist, and traitor, but I forgive you.
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. "S'chn T'gai Spock --- "Or the one"
James T. Kirk
djt, the very personification of goodness. Should be obvious to everyone.
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. "S'chn T'gai Spock --- "Or the one"
James T. Kirk
Rick,
I read your words about 'one party is in the process of attempting to dismanle democracy' and the 'other trying to ensure its continuance'....
And for the LIFE OF ME, can't figure out which is which.....
Both partys believe ONLY in the continuence in power. Both believe in the end justifying the means.
NEITHER follows the Constitution.
And? BTW, we don't have a 'democracy'.....that's more publicity. We DO have a form of Republic but even that's up for grabs....
You might best think of Democracy as two Wolves and a Sheep discussing what's for Lunch....
I'd personally be in favor of shooting most of the 'leaders' in Washington to Mars on a one-way trip.
Too much is never enough
'NEITHER follows the Constitution'
bs
I don't hear any laughter.
To elaborate? You follow provisions which FAVOR you at the moment and are prepared to abandon that postion the instant you see advantage in another position....
Nobody established a Principled Position. The owners of the process treat politicians as fungible assets.
Too much is never enough
I am down with your cynicism but it's misplaced, particularly in generalities
On a posting website, I'm not going to write a 5000 word dissertation.
Of necessity, ALL (or nearly all) discussion / arguement (in the logical sense) is simplified.....I don't think what I or YOU, for that matter, write, as a substitute for thinking and LOOKING for yourself.
Yes, I am a cynic. I may have noted this before, but sometimes I even overshoot to SARCASM.
so without elaboration, someone may make a simple statement. If you are following along, you KNOW this is over simple and perhaps even general, to some degree.
But I stand by my contnention that the country would be better off if some 'modifications' to the system had NOT occurred. Like the Presidential 2-fer, which has the effect of setting up th VP to be president for another 2 terms. Maybe expand the 2-term limit to VP,, too? And I' have to think more about the direct election of Senators.
And look what is under consideration NOW? NON-Citizens get the right to vote? How does that work?
Enjoy......
Too much is never enough
nt
That's OK. I personally see the scam of party politics. neither party is the party of 'democracy'
Neither party impresssed me with conviction to principle except as I already noted.
Too much is never enough
Well said.
Personally, I hope for a day when the two parties in the USA are led by Biden (Democrats)(not including Manchin DINOs) and opposed by AOC/Bernie Sanders types (Progressives).
If these two parties were your two parties the rest of the world wouldn't think your country a backwater horror show (Trump the world's laughing stock who was buddy-buddy and touting foreign dictators).
There should not be a debate about universal healthcare - the debate should be how to operate it. There should not be a debate about whether climate change is real but how to tackle it.
I still say America should separate - let Trumpland have Trump on the coins and bills which is what his supporters want. I think the above really would solve your problems. Not really sure what Canada would gain but if you throw in the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders - I'd sign off on it. Oh and no guns.
d
Nt.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
Biden is playing games with the spending bill, enjoying a prat fall along with the 47 or so Dem Senators that support it, you're seriously wrong.
There are Grand Canyon-sized divides in this country and the parties reflect them. The enemy of the good is the perfect, i.e. Obamacare. Not perfect, but a damn bit better than before, if you're not wealthy. Environmental issues: sustainable energy improvements. And attempts at increasing IRS enforcement. I could go on to most major issues.
If you think Trump and his followers are indistinguishable from mainstream Dems and Obama/Biden folks, well, you're just plain wrong. You think the SCOTUS would be deciding issues the way they are if Merrick had been appointed?There is a razor thin legislative majority for Dems, almost always when they have one. The problem is, partly, the Electoral College and the make up of the Senate--- both have given FAR outsized power to minority positions. We're left with two steps forward, one step backward. Sometimes, it's the reverse...
Edits: 12/16/21
What do you think of the amendment allowing for direct election of Senators?
I'll leave it to you to check out the previous method.....
Too much is never enough
can I answer? good ... it makes for a more representative government
the old way embodied too much of the 'old boys club' ways of doing things
the school of thought that the voters aren't educated enough to vote their own interests was a feature baked into the Constitution and the 17th Amendment sought further rectification of this concept, since it's a school of thought from a time of highly stratified social and educational status during the times in which the document was framed
with regards,
isn't the House Of Representatives enough for the people while treating the Senate as an American 'House Of Lords'?
Once the Freebies started, the 'educated voter' became a minority while voting for 'stuff' became the norm which persist to this day....
Too much is never enough
'voting for 'stuff''
it's as if you're saying that voters shouldn't expect any return on their investment as citizens & taxpayers. so what should we expect?
In an IDEAL State, the government should stick to its Constitutionally Mandated powers. the 9th and 10th Amendements would actually be respected.
Money NOT collected as taxes are retained, generally, by the people, who also generally, best use them......
States will than ALL vary in the amount collected, industry IN the state and what we call 'programs'. Other opportunities would also vary, including HEALTH system and Education.
Washington's farewell address had an admonishment to stay the heck OUT of most foreigh affairs. How's THAT working out?
People would than TEND to vote with their feet, going to places which MOST agree with their personal thoughts about how much government they want, need or desire.....with availablilty of work or constructive employ being near the top of any list.
return on Investment? the Government? In ONE thought? What ever gave ANYBODY such a wacky idea? Please see the brief video linked.......Milton Friedman talking about 'the 4 ways to spend money'....
There are TWO major philosophies on this issue.
1. Governemnt generates surplus money to itself THAN pushes services DOWN to the populace
2. Populace in some fashion demands services from the government. The 'pull down' part of the theory.
The St. Louis Fed has a wonderful article with this as the subject......But YOU are gonna have to look it up for yourself....
Too much is never enough
yeah, I heard you the first time, it's all broken and rigged because people vote for stuff and you've basically repeated that premise without closing the deal by making an argument to make a point or answer my question
I'll read it again tomorrow maybe I missed something ; )
VERY complicated problem.
Starts with modifications to the constitution and than ignorming the rest....or large parts thereof.
Did you listen to the Friedman vid? Just a couple minutes.
And of course, people vote for 'stuff'. Free this or that and by George, let's tax the RICH and while we're at it? Free College. Free Medical. All rights and few obligations.
All the while running up a debt in the Trillions....
the current system is an UNSUSTAINABLE MODEL.... the goal might be restated as a wish to Maximize Opportunity which improves the lot of most people. I reently saw an advert which resonated. In it? They said that ABILITY was pretty much evenly divided in the human race while Opportunity certainly Was Not.
Too much is never enough
ah ... there it is! your point = 'all rights and few obligations'
when citizens pay their taxes and participate in democracy they've met their obligations ... not just fed & state taxes, there's hundreds of taxes at point of sale, registrations, tolls, fees for this that and the other thing ... but citizens rights aren't 'pay as you go'
the Constitution states that there's inalienable rights elucidated therein
children are protected under the document despite nothing thrown into the kitty by them as a for instance, even if their guardians can't pony up
and yes it's a thorny issue because of this caveat
however, 'we the people' recognize certain intrinsic rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and protected by 'the state' as defined from the local level to the federal level ... and only the state can remove those protections, and of equal importance, fine tune them in keeping with the 'spirit' of the Constitution, not just the literal written word ... and so recognizing it as a 'living' document that might need to evolve, amendments are provided for to accomplish this
of course there's a system in place to make those things happen
part of that system is electoral in nature requiring participation to work
which brings us back to my question: what expectations can the voter have by participating in that process and how can those be guaranteed?
without relitigating the particulars of what's in place now, how should it be? reviewing your posts you seem to be arguing that the system really should be 'pay as you go' without accounting for those disenfranchised by that very system ... doesn't this dial things back a few hundred years?
there may be [there are!] interest groups wagging the dog of the system and skewing it towards those special interests, but it's definitely not those with the most need of what it's supposed to be protecting
I did check your links and have seen the concepts committed to writing too
they're points along the circumference of a circular argument as far as answering the very basic question I tabled
in any event this thread is tiptoeing around civics as politics so I'll step off here and leave it be as food for thought, not a call out of anyone's particular viewpoints
best regards,
So? the ENTIRE social contract boils down to a financial transaction?
EVERY right has a corresponding obligation. I can't offhand thing of a right 'without limit'
You name it. Driving? Property ownership? Even firearms. All maybe to one extent or another an exerciseable right, but ALL have obligations, too......
My rights end at your nose....that sort of thing...
Is that a Civics Lesson? Just might be!
I'm NOT going to go over the rest of your post on a point-by-point basis, because it would be impossible for me in a reasonable length to put it all in order....
special interests alone deserve a serious conversation
Too much is never enough
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: