Indefinite detention of "suspects" without charges or trial. Search and seisure of personal information without a warrent. Canada has nothing like this Konrad.
------------------
[url="http://www.alecm.com/"]Alec McClymont[/url]
"Something is only impossible until it's not."
Everyone asks; What can be done, what do we do? 3 simple things in order!!! Do not change or rearrange the order!
1. Vote and be heard by your representatives ie call write or just show up at town meetings!
2. After {which is the point we are at now} And only after, you and others can see that step one hasn't worked, Take to the streets in mass and protest "PEACEFULLY"!!! No one will listen to you if all you do is scream talk to the people tell them why you are protesting! Get the information out!
3. When all else fails and the Government still does not listen! Organize nation wide shutdowns and strikes. Call for impeachments of Government officials, file lawsuits, and have general unrest throughout the country! If this fails last step is to replace government!
This is suppose to be a Government for the People [b]BY[/b] the People, not against!
In all my years I have seen a definite decline in our political process and with each passing year it seems to get worse.
I have a really hard time putting up with promises made by politicians being broken every year! Better health care, Schools, less taxes, more jobs and on and on!
[b]Is It Not About Time To Hold These People Accountable?[/b] [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
Hmm... after reading through the links in Jake's post, I am less confident that I know as much about this issue as I thought I did. The presence of things like William Safire's article still lead me to be wary, but it's clear that I need more definite information before I can really speak out on this.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
[quote]Originally posted by jambo_jimmy:
[b]How can anyone under 40 be a conservative? The mind boggles...
Try living a little[/b][/quote]
Sorry if this gets a little long/harsh, but I've had one REALLLLY bad day so far, and I feel this needs an answer. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
How can I be conservative?
Let me put that another way:
How can I not let the "Big Daddy" government feed me, shelter me, and provide me with all my needs when I become to laze to work, decide to have premarital sex and wind up having a kid, and insist that I'm at the center of the universe?
Simple. I don't like big government. IMO the government is there to Protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens from foregn nations, and from ourselves. It is there to provide a simple set of rules, to protect the citizens from eachother. It is there to protect its citizens, but not to rule them.
I really don't like how large our government has become. I'm all in favor of taxes, taxes pay our military, provide our leaders with the nessasary living necessities, schools our children, provides support for hospitals, funds police and fire departments, etc. However, once the government gets as large as we have let it, our elected leaders begin to see that money as their own little piggy bank, and when it runs dry, they have only to raise the taxes. A big government gives our leaders a feeling of imunity for their actions, a feeling of absolute power. They can live carpe dium.
A small government cannot, the leaders elected 100 years ago had other things to worry about, the money from taxes went where needed, it wasn't waisted on welfare and medicare, etc. The leaders knew that they were elected, and for the most part kept the people's rights formost in their thoughts. Unfortually, now people don't know what they need. They see the government as free money, free drugs, etc.
Welfare allows people that are PERFECTLY able to get a job, to just stay at home and surf the net on their cable connection reclining on their leather sofa.
(I'm serious, I have met people that have manipulated the system to the extent that they paid 19$ a month rent for a four bedroom apartment. She drove a BMW, had all leather furniture, cable internet access, wire only designer clothing, etc. government paid for it all. is THIS where you want your taxes going?!?)
anyhoo, got a little off the main subject of how I can be conservative at under 40... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
lets see..
I also don't agree with Abortion, thats just messed up IMO, I mean, at two weeks you can already see the head, eyes, indevidual fingers...seriously, murder IMO.
Capital punishment, all for it. Definately do not want to pay to keep them in jail for fourty years and then let them loose on the street, 5 years, then fry 'em [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] (5 years to turn up new evidence is plenty these days).
basically, most my views are conservative in nature. and I really don't like big brother looking over my sholder all the time.
as they say "Give me liberty or give me death!"
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
There is a big difference between a financial/economic conservative, and a social conservative.
I'm a proud 22 year old financial-economic-government conservative. I believe in a mostly hands off federal government. I'm more liberal when it comes to social matters and maters at the local level. Yes I have some conservative social beliefs, but I believe in letting other people have their own choice - and thus deal with the benefits/consequences alone. I'm a Republican with a big 'R' and a libertarian with a little 'l' (Read that to mean pro-choice and equal opportunity Republican.)
There is only one mater where I am not an economic conservative: that's the environment. I'm in favor of non-disruptive environmental regulation by the federal government. Markets fail when it comes to taking into account the toll things like SUV's have on the planet, the government needs to step in and correct that market failure. If there is a good alternative like a sport wagon with snow tires, and you are not a farmer or construction worker, while you should still have the privilege too if you choose to buy a SUV you should be heavily taxed. That tax money should go into funding research on clean air power production and mass transit to make up for the pathetic need to make up for a flat chest or small male genitalia. No regulation or tax would be created that would restrict productivity and therefor damage the chance of a breakthrough in technology, however if there is a better alternative and you buy a more damaging product you should pay for that choice.
That said, yes, young, and for the most part conservative.
[quote]Originally posted by Randy:
[b]The US public who stayed home and didn't vote, the public who think that Bush is some kind of everyman saint, the public who ignored radical right wing and elite, mega-wealth corporate influences, the public who shoved their heads in the sand while castigating those who were sounding the alarm by calling us paranoid conspiracy nuts - all deserve what they get. Unfortunately, I get to live under Bush's imperialistic administration too. If I suddenly disappear, it's probably because I'm willing to publicly dissent on my [url="http://www.sierratel.com/randyl/SoapBox3.htm"]Soapbox Website.[/url][/b][/quote]
Randy, I only read a very small part of your Soapbox website, but I want to say that I really enjoyed reading that and agreed with every single word. I'm very delighted to see that there are still people who can think on their own and who are not scared to bring out the truths and say critics of such important issues out loud publicly. I will definitely go back to read more later on. Thanks very much for the link.
The Republican party has ceased to hold true to any real conservative values. Conservatives are supposed to be pro-free market, not pro-megacorporation. All of you who are bitching about MicroSoft and their unethical business practices and then voting for the Republicans need a taste of the reality sandwich. Clinton's administration was trying to reign in the shit that companies like M$ pull to put the competitiion out of business. The Bush administration quietly made a deal and M$ is back to their old tricks.
Deregulation is something touted by Republicans as the way to make the economy grow. Bullshit. Deregulation means that companies get to screw their customers and employees harder than ever. It means rollbacks on environmental policies, worker saftey, and protection from price gouging.
The Republicans are not for less intereference with your personal life. They want to restrict your personal choices in sexual activities, birth control, religion, speech, reading, viewing, and listening. Senator Lieberman may be in favor of a rating system for video games and restricting M-rated games from being sold to minors, but it was a conservative judge who ruled that video games are not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, said judge is a cousin of Rush Limbaugh. He only viewed four games before making this wonderful ruling, too!
[url="http://money.cnn.com/2002/04/30/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/"]http://money.cnn.com/2002/04/30/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/[/url]
One of the big things that Bush lauded about his tenure as Texas Governor was tort reform. This is ridiculous for two reasons: Tort reform means that you can't get much money from suing a big corporation that screws you over, kills your family, etc; and the legislation was oringinally proposed by Anne Richards, his Democratic predecessor.
The only real freedom the Republicans claim to be protecting is gun ownership. Fine. I don't think taking guns away from people is going to do any good myself, but the Democrats are NOT trying to do this. Republicans are using this single issue as a scare tactic. Sensible restrictions on what type of weapons may be produced or purchased just makes sense. Do any of you really want to walk out of your front door to be confronted by a gang war with streetsweepers?
So open your eyes, all you claiming to be conservatives! Your appointed government is stipping away your rights to free speech, privacy, religious freedom, and making the government BIGGER to do so!
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
[quote]Originally posted by AnlaShok:
[b]The Republican party has ceased to hold true to any real conservative values. Conservatives are supposed to be pro-free market, not pro-megacorporation.
[/b][/quote]
The Dems are also pro megacorp. (Remember Clinton trying to make a worldwide bank system? and COMPLETELY shut down small community banks?)
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
[quote]Originally posted by PJH:
[b] Randy, I only read a very small part of your Soapbox website, but I want to say that I really enjoyed reading that and agreed with every single word. I'm very delighted to see that there are still people who can think on their own and who are not scared to bring out the truths and say critics of such important issues out loud publicly. I will definitely go back to read more later on. Thanks very much for the link.
[quote]Originally posted by A2597:
[b] The Dems are also pro megacorp. (Remember Clinton trying to make a worldwide bank system? and COMPLETELY shut down small community banks?)
[/b][/quote]
There were things Clinton did whith which I disagree. I loathe the WTO agreements allowing all the big companies to close US factories and move them to India, China, Mexico, etc.
When all the big companies lay off a large portion of their workforce, everybody loses because too few people are making enough money to buy their products.
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
A2597
Couldn't be in more agreement with you brother!!! j/k
I just got and watched the movie 1984 with Richard Burton and I can't see Homeland defense will come to that level of control. Without different perspectives and plans of attack and eveyone thinking the same way the terrorists would win. To think that a terrorist nuking would make an area unuseable in hundreds years or more can not be allowed to happen at any cost. I hope Homeland Defense Dept. is enough to stop these pigs for doing more damage. One other thing, the decision to detain people without due process might have saved lives in the long run. Who is willing to let them go free at the risk of hundreds of lives? Who would sign the release??? They won't be around to arrest if the commit anouther 9/11 since they like going out in a blaze of glory. To get political and say the Republicans are to blame is mute. 8 years of a President taking care of is own needs and desires is the real crime. Because look who suffurd in the end anyway. Governer Clinton left NYC 2 days before the attack, I will always wounder if he had advanced knowledge of what was going to happen. But then again that is a mute point too.
[quote]Originally posted by AnlaShok:
[b] I loathe the WTO agreements allowing all the big companies to close US factories and move them to India, China, Mexico, etc.
When all the big companies lay off a large portion of their workforce, everybody loses because too few people are making enough money to buy their products.
[/b][/quote]
Anla,
Sorry to get off topic here, but which WTO agreement allows large companies to move their factories off shore? I believe that is a right they have had for many years.
Actually I think in many cases it is beneficial that a manufactured product is made where it can be made with the with best quality at the least cost. Social and environmental issues aside (that’s another discussion), moving a factory to an area where the labor is less expensive helps a couple groups:
First it helps those who need the jobs the most (where the labor is cheap) by providing work and additional income. With income comes an improvement in housing, health and education.
Second, it helps the general consumer by increasing the buying power of their dollar. Look at the large number of things that are in your home that you were able to get without spending as much as someone 50 years ago. This allows you to spend money on other more expensive "luxury" items, such as computers, nice furniture, and tools.
Spending you money where you get the most value (i.e. it cheapest for the quality you want) is efficient use of your money, and creates a more efficient economy.
Finally, one more point and then I will get off my soap box and we can go back to the topic at hand. People have a tendency to blame large corporations for certain ills as if those corporations were making choices for themselves as an entity, but there is something driving almost every big corp: Shareholders. Anyone with a 401k or a mutual fund is part of this group and is responsible for the way large companies act. I am talking about legal actions such as the movement of jobs to cheaper labor markets, or to lay off workers not things like corruption and scandel.
[quote]Originally posted by PSI-KILLER:[b]One other thing, the decision to detain people without due process might have saved lives in the long run. Who is willing to let them go free at the risk of hundreds of lives? Who would sign the release??? They won't be around to arrest if the commit anouther 9/11 since they like going out in a blaze of glory.[/b][/quote]
You can't view it that way PSI-KILLER. You must view it the other way around.
I'd like to remind you, that you can't arrest and hold people under custody if you just [b]think[/b] that they [b]might[/b] do something. It's arbitrary and even criminal activity and abuse of power and it is wrong. You must keep all the people equal in front of the law and innocent until proven otherwise.
If somebody has done something and/or is suspected of something (and there must be a good reason to suspect!), then you have to prosecute him from that and gather evidence. If you do otherwise, then you are violating your own laws and principles.
I see your point but its a different world. To be proactive may set risks but to wait till an attack where 1000's more might die, how is that being proactive? How is that even ethical? Wait for the crime then arrest doesn't seem right when dealing in national security matters.
[This message has been edited by PSI-KILLER (edited 11-27-2002).]
If you're willing to throw away the rights of even one person in order to feel safe, then you're spitting in the face of what America and the concept of freedom stands for. To do so is not only against the American constituion (as well as those of many other nations), but it is an act of fear, and worst of all, cowardice.
Read the quotes I posted.
------------------
[url="http://www.alecm.com/"]Alec McClymont[/url]
"Something is only impossible until it's not."
[quote]Originally posted by Bekenn:
[b]"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
--Winston Churchill
Apparently, I don't have heart. Oh, well.
[/b][/quote]
naahhh, it just means our brains matured faster. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
[quote]Originally posted by PSI-KILLER:
[b]I see your point but its a different world. To be proactive may set risks but to wait till an attack where 1000's more might die, how is that being proactive? How is that even ethical? Wait for the crime then arrest doesn't seem right when dealing in national security matters.[/b][/quote]
That's the way it should be PSI. That's the risk people have to take. There are numerous risks in the world which you can't simply eliminate, but which you can only try to prevent the best way you can within the generally accepted and moral rules. There's no different world.
Like I said you can not know if somebody is really going to do something and even if you knew, that still doesn't give you right to take away his/her freedom, or punish him/her in any other way either. You can act only after somebody has actually done something, not a second before. [b]You can't punish as a precaution[/b].
There's a reason why courts require evidence and investigation before possible sentence and punishment, no matter how certain someones guilt would seem to be to everyone else. It's because it's the right thing to do and any other way would be the wrong way. That's the way it is and must be. It's a very simple and clear case.
Trying to prevent anything from happening, or somebody doing something in other ways beforehand is entirely another matter.
To be locked down and always under suspicion in my own Country? Is that any better than being controlled by another?
A jail is a jail no matter where or what you call it.
And no where in our constitution does it give the Government the power to spy and use the military on it's own people.
Yes maybe we are living in "DIFFERENT TIMES"
but that gives them no right to destroy my rights. How long before this Homeland Defence starts using this information it gathers to enforce there will on others through bailmail and decite?
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
Argone, I agree with every ethic in your last post. However, I'm no longer certain I understand what this Homeland Security bill is. I've seen some credible sources saying it's a 1984 situation; I've seen other credible sources saying that, by and large, the new law doesn't authorize the government to collect new information about us. Those bits of the bill that I have actually read (I'm not about to read all 480-some-odd pages of it) don't authorize dramatic changes in how information is collected, though I have seen quite a bit in the bill changing how information is shared between departments. I'm no longer sure that the Homeland Security department constitutes any kind of privacy risks -- though I'm equally unsure that it's benign.
The only thing I am sure of is that I reacted prematurely earlier in this thread. Let's try and find out what this bill actually does before going off on a rampage.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
Comments
Indefinite detention of "suspects" without charges or trial. Search and seisure of personal information without a warrent. Canada has nothing like this Konrad.
------------------
[url="http://www.alecm.com/"]Alec McClymont[/url]
"Something is only impossible until it's not."
1. Vote and be heard by your representatives ie call write or just show up at town meetings!
2. After {which is the point we are at now} And only after, you and others can see that step one hasn't worked, Take to the streets in mass and protest "PEACEFULLY"!!! No one will listen to you if all you do is scream talk to the people tell them why you are protesting! Get the information out!
3. When all else fails and the Government still does not listen! Organize nation wide shutdowns and strikes. Call for impeachments of Government officials, file lawsuits, and have general unrest throughout the country! If this fails last step is to replace government!
This is suppose to be a Government for the People [b]BY[/b] the People, not against!
In all my years I have seen a definite decline in our political process and with each passing year it seems to get worse.
I have a really hard time putting up with promises made by politicians being broken every year! Better health care, Schools, less taxes, more jobs and on and on!
[b]Is It Not About Time To Hold These People Accountable?[/b] [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
[b]How can anyone under 40 be a conservative? The mind boggles...
Try living a little[/b][/quote]
Sorry if this gets a little long/harsh, but I've had one REALLLLY bad day so far, and I feel this needs an answer. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
How can I be conservative?
Let me put that another way:
How can I not let the "Big Daddy" government feed me, shelter me, and provide me with all my needs when I become to laze to work, decide to have premarital sex and wind up having a kid, and insist that I'm at the center of the universe?
Simple. I don't like big government. IMO the government is there to Protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens from foregn nations, and from ourselves. It is there to provide a simple set of rules, to protect the citizens from eachother. It is there to protect its citizens, but not to rule them.
I really don't like how large our government has become. I'm all in favor of taxes, taxes pay our military, provide our leaders with the nessasary living necessities, schools our children, provides support for hospitals, funds police and fire departments, etc. However, once the government gets as large as we have let it, our elected leaders begin to see that money as their own little piggy bank, and when it runs dry, they have only to raise the taxes. A big government gives our leaders a feeling of imunity for their actions, a feeling of absolute power. They can live carpe dium.
A small government cannot, the leaders elected 100 years ago had other things to worry about, the money from taxes went where needed, it wasn't waisted on welfare and medicare, etc. The leaders knew that they were elected, and for the most part kept the people's rights formost in their thoughts. Unfortually, now people don't know what they need. They see the government as free money, free drugs, etc.
Welfare allows people that are PERFECTLY able to get a job, to just stay at home and surf the net on their cable connection reclining on their leather sofa.
(I'm serious, I have met people that have manipulated the system to the extent that they paid 19$ a month rent for a four bedroom apartment. She drove a BMW, had all leather furniture, cable internet access, wire only designer clothing, etc. government paid for it all. is THIS where you want your taxes going?!?)
anyhoo, got a little off the main subject of how I can be conservative at under 40... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
lets see..
I also don't agree with Abortion, thats just messed up IMO, I mean, at two weeks you can already see the head, eyes, indevidual fingers...seriously, murder IMO.
Capital punishment, all for it. Definately do not want to pay to keep them in jail for fourty years and then let them loose on the street, 5 years, then fry 'em [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] (5 years to turn up new evidence is plenty these days).
basically, most my views are conservative in nature. and I really don't like big brother looking over my sholder all the time.
as they say "Give me liberty or give me death!"
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
I'm a proud 22 year old financial-economic-government conservative. I believe in a mostly hands off federal government. I'm more liberal when it comes to social matters and maters at the local level. Yes I have some conservative social beliefs, but I believe in letting other people have their own choice - and thus deal with the benefits/consequences alone. I'm a Republican with a big 'R' and a libertarian with a little 'l' (Read that to mean pro-choice and equal opportunity Republican.)
There is only one mater where I am not an economic conservative: that's the environment. I'm in favor of non-disruptive environmental regulation by the federal government. Markets fail when it comes to taking into account the toll things like SUV's have on the planet, the government needs to step in and correct that market failure. If there is a good alternative like a sport wagon with snow tires, and you are not a farmer or construction worker, while you should still have the privilege too if you choose to buy a SUV you should be heavily taxed. That tax money should go into funding research on clean air power production and mass transit to make up for the pathetic need to make up for a flat chest or small male genitalia. No regulation or tax would be created that would restrict productivity and therefor damage the chance of a breakthrough in technology, however if there is a better alternative and you buy a more damaging product you should pay for that choice.
That said, yes, young, and for the most part conservative.
[b]The US public who stayed home and didn't vote, the public who think that Bush is some kind of everyman saint, the public who ignored radical right wing and elite, mega-wealth corporate influences, the public who shoved their heads in the sand while castigating those who were sounding the alarm by calling us paranoid conspiracy nuts - all deserve what they get. Unfortunately, I get to live under Bush's imperialistic administration too. If I suddenly disappear, it's probably because I'm willing to publicly dissent on my [url="http://www.sierratel.com/randyl/SoapBox3.htm"]Soapbox Website.[/url][/b][/quote]
Randy, I only read a very small part of your Soapbox website, but I want to say that I really enjoyed reading that and agreed with every single word. I'm very delighted to see that there are still people who can think on their own and who are not scared to bring out the truths and say critics of such important issues out loud publicly. I will definitely go back to read more later on. Thanks very much for the link.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/icons/icon14.gif[/img]
- PJH
Keep up the good work! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
Deregulation is something touted by Republicans as the way to make the economy grow. Bullshit. Deregulation means that companies get to screw their customers and employees harder than ever. It means rollbacks on environmental policies, worker saftey, and protection from price gouging.
The Republicans are not for less intereference with your personal life. They want to restrict your personal choices in sexual activities, birth control, religion, speech, reading, viewing, and listening. Senator Lieberman may be in favor of a rating system for video games and restricting M-rated games from being sold to minors, but it was a conservative judge who ruled that video games are not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, said judge is a cousin of Rush Limbaugh. He only viewed four games before making this wonderful ruling, too!
[url="http://money.cnn.com/2002/04/30/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/"]http://money.cnn.com/2002/04/30/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/[/url]
One of the big things that Bush lauded about his tenure as Texas Governor was tort reform. This is ridiculous for two reasons: Tort reform means that you can't get much money from suing a big corporation that screws you over, kills your family, etc; and the legislation was oringinally proposed by Anne Richards, his Democratic predecessor.
The only real freedom the Republicans claim to be protecting is gun ownership. Fine. I don't think taking guns away from people is going to do any good myself, but the Democrats are NOT trying to do this. Republicans are using this single issue as a scare tactic. Sensible restrictions on what type of weapons may be produced or purchased just makes sense. Do any of you really want to walk out of your front door to be confronted by a gang war with streetsweepers?
So open your eyes, all you claiming to be conservatives! Your appointed government is stipping away your rights to free speech, privacy, religious freedom, and making the government BIGGER to do so!
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
[b]The Republican party has ceased to hold true to any real conservative values. Conservatives are supposed to be pro-free market, not pro-megacorporation.
[/b][/quote]
The Dems are also pro megacorp. (Remember Clinton trying to make a worldwide bank system? and COMPLETELY shut down small community banks?)
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
[b] Randy, I only read a very small part of your Soapbox website, but I want to say that I really enjoyed reading that and agreed with every single word. I'm very delighted to see that there are still people who can think on their own and who are not scared to bring out the truths and say critics of such important issues out loud publicly. I will definitely go back to read more later on. Thanks very much for the link.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/icons/icon14.gif[/img]
- PJH
[/b][/quote]
Thank you, PJH. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[b]I think it's a great site also!
Keep up the good work! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
Thank you, Argone. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] Tell other people about it.
[b] The Dems are also pro megacorp. (Remember Clinton trying to make a worldwide bank system? and COMPLETELY shut down small community banks?)
[/b][/quote]
There were things Clinton did whith which I disagree. I loathe the WTO agreements allowing all the big companies to close US factories and move them to India, China, Mexico, etc.
When all the big companies lay off a large portion of their workforce, everybody loses because too few people are making enough money to buy their products.
------------------
AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
Sidhe-1
Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
"FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
Couldn't be in more agreement with you brother!!! j/k
I just got and watched the movie 1984 with Richard Burton and I can't see Homeland defense will come to that level of control. Without different perspectives and plans of attack and eveyone thinking the same way the terrorists would win. To think that a terrorist nuking would make an area unuseable in hundreds years or more can not be allowed to happen at any cost. I hope Homeland Defense Dept. is enough to stop these pigs for doing more damage. One other thing, the decision to detain people without due process might have saved lives in the long run. Who is willing to let them go free at the risk of hundreds of lives? Who would sign the release??? They won't be around to arrest if the commit anouther 9/11 since they like going out in a blaze of glory. To get political and say the Republicans are to blame is mute. 8 years of a President taking care of is own needs and desires is the real crime. Because look who suffurd in the end anyway. Governer Clinton left NYC 2 days before the attack, I will always wounder if he had advanced knowledge of what was going to happen. But then again that is a mute point too.
"Those who choose security over freedom deserve neither."
------------------
[url="http://www.alecm.com/"]Alec McClymont[/url]
"Something is only impossible until it's not."
[This message has been edited by Slade (edited 11-27-2002).]
[b] I loathe the WTO agreements allowing all the big companies to close US factories and move them to India, China, Mexico, etc.
When all the big companies lay off a large portion of their workforce, everybody loses because too few people are making enough money to buy their products.
[/b][/quote]
Anla,
Sorry to get off topic here, but which WTO agreement allows large companies to move their factories off shore? I believe that is a right they have had for many years.
Actually I think in many cases it is beneficial that a manufactured product is made where it can be made with the with best quality at the least cost. Social and environmental issues aside (that’s another discussion), moving a factory to an area where the labor is less expensive helps a couple groups:
First it helps those who need the jobs the most (where the labor is cheap) by providing work and additional income. With income comes an improvement in housing, health and education.
Second, it helps the general consumer by increasing the buying power of their dollar. Look at the large number of things that are in your home that you were able to get without spending as much as someone 50 years ago. This allows you to spend money on other more expensive "luxury" items, such as computers, nice furniture, and tools.
Spending you money where you get the most value (i.e. it cheapest for the quality you want) is efficient use of your money, and creates a more efficient economy.
Finally, one more point and then I will get off my soap box and we can go back to the topic at hand. People have a tendency to blame large corporations for certain ills as if those corporations were making choices for themselves as an entity, but there is something driving almost every big corp: Shareholders. Anyone with a 401k or a mutual fund is part of this group and is responsible for the way large companies act. I am talking about legal actions such as the movement of jobs to cheaper labor markets, or to lay off workers not things like corruption and scandel.
Thats my two cents, for what it worth
Jake
--Winston Churchill
Apparently, I don't have heart. Oh, well.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
You can't view it that way PSI-KILLER. You must view it the other way around.
I'd like to remind you, that you can't arrest and hold people under custody if you just [b]think[/b] that they [b]might[/b] do something. It's arbitrary and even criminal activity and abuse of power and it is wrong. You must keep all the people equal in front of the law and innocent until proven otherwise.
If somebody has done something and/or is suspected of something (and there must be a good reason to suspect!), then you have to prosecute him from that and gather evidence. If you do otherwise, then you are violating your own laws and principles.
- PJH
[This message has been edited by PSI-KILLER (edited 11-27-2002).]
Read the quotes I posted.
------------------
[url="http://www.alecm.com/"]Alec McClymont[/url]
"Something is only impossible until it's not."
[b]"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
--Winston Churchill
Apparently, I don't have heart. Oh, well.
[/b][/quote]
naahhh, it just means our brains matured faster. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
[b]I see your point but its a different world. To be proactive may set risks but to wait till an attack where 1000's more might die, how is that being proactive? How is that even ethical? Wait for the crime then arrest doesn't seem right when dealing in national security matters.[/b][/quote]
That's the way it should be PSI. That's the risk people have to take. There are numerous risks in the world which you can't simply eliminate, but which you can only try to prevent the best way you can within the generally accepted and moral rules. There's no different world.
Like I said you can not know if somebody is really going to do something and even if you knew, that still doesn't give you right to take away his/her freedom, or punish him/her in any other way either. You can act only after somebody has actually done something, not a second before. [b]You can't punish as a precaution[/b].
There's a reason why courts require evidence and investigation before possible sentence and punishment, no matter how certain someones guilt would seem to be to everyone else. It's because it's the right thing to do and any other way would be the wrong way. That's the way it is and must be. It's a very simple and clear case.
Trying to prevent anything from happening, or somebody doing something in other ways beforehand is entirely another matter.
No one can start playing "God".
- PJH
A jail is a jail no matter where or what you call it.
And no where in our constitution does it give the Government the power to spy and use the military on it's own people.
Yes maybe we are living in "DIFFERENT TIMES"
but that gives them no right to destroy my rights. How long before this Homeland Defence starts using this information it gathers to enforce there will on others through bailmail and decite?
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
The only thing I am sure of is that I reacted prematurely earlier in this thread. Let's try and find out what this bill actually does before going off on a rampage.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!