How do we reduce, dismantle and effectively destroy the military-industrial complex?

[StrawberryClock]

Title says it all. Discuss or GTFO!

[Silverhandorder]

By realizing that both parties are in bed with it. Take away the power from politicians to steal our money to fund wars of aggression and you dismantle the industrial military complex.

[Vanno]

I believe a military-industrial complex to be inherently self destructive. As such, you just have to sit back, and it will eventually destroy itself.

[StrawberryClock]

I believe a military-industrial complex to be inherently self destructive. As such, you just have to sit back, and it will eventually destroy itself.

And in the process alienate the entire fucking world, cause untold misery to servicemen and civilians worldwide and here and fatten the pockets of the elites.

[Paralda]

And in the process alienate the entire fucking world, cause untold misery to servicemen and civilians worldwide and here and fatten the pockets of the elites.

Everybody wins!

[StrawberryClock]

Everybody wins!

Except the bottom 99.9%. Those poor bastards can suffer.

I am so fucking sick of uber-rich people who most of the time don't build shit all and inherit their secret clubs and moneys while having control over all of us common folks with their government/corporation symbiosis.

[Incanam]

How do we reduce, dismantle and effectively destroy the military-industrial complex?

Put the lime in the Coke-you-nut....

[verlox2]

We could pee on them.

[Silverhandorder]

Except the bottom 99.9%. Those poor bastards can suffer.

I am so fucking sick of uber-rich people who most of the time don't build shit all and inherit their secret clubs and moneys while having control over all of us common folks with their government/corporation symbiosis.

So stop voting them more power. Since they keep controlling the government cut the government out.

[Vanno]

And in the process alienate the entire fucking world, cause untold misery to servicemen and civilians worldwide and here and fatten the pockets of the elites.

That is an unfortunate part of the inevitable process.

[Qikdraw]

By realizing that both parties are in bed with it.

This is step one.

Step two is a number of things.
1) Get rid of 'cost plus' contracts. All they do is guarentee the taxpayer pays 20 times as much. (McCain is 100% right on this)
2) 100% military contracts built in the USA. (which is not currently the case)
3) No military contracts for companies behind in paying taxes. (many currently are and still get contracts)
4) No military contracts for companies that do any sort of offshoring or outsourcing.
5) No jobs for any politician that oversees the military industrial complex after they leave office. Nor for their aides.
6) No lobbying allowed from the military industrial complex.
7) Any business done outside America's borders have to be compliant with US labour laws and building codes.

Thats all I can think of at the moment.

[DocGonzo]

the Answer is so simple, and right in front of you all each and every day, my dear denizens of OT....so ...obvious, really

only one thing in the known Multiverse could possibly effectively destroy your target....

bewbz

[Razel]

The inevitable will have to happen. The only question is when and how many pussies will be standing around with their finger up their asses when it does.

[StrawberryClock]

Hah, the apathy of the common man has led to the downfall of the individual's rights!

[Silverhandorder]

This is step one.

Step two is a number of things.
1) Get rid of 'cost plus' contracts. All they do is guarentee the taxpayer pays 20 times as much. (McCain is 100% right on this)yes to that
2) 100% military contracts built in the USA. (which is not currently the case)Protectionism does not work.
3) No military contracts for companies behind in paying taxes. (many currently are and still get contracts)Yes
4) No military contracts for companies that do any sort of offshoring or outsourcing.Protectionism does not work.
5) No jobs for any politician that oversees the military industrial complex after they leave office. Nor for their aides.Does not work. They can easily use surrogates.
6) No lobbying allowed from the military industrial complex.No lobbying allowed while they are under contract.
7) Any business done outside America's borders have to be compliant with US labour laws and building codes.Yes

Thats all I can think of at the moment.

yah....

To add some of my own.

1) Only defensive spending.
2) No wars, no policing of the world.
3) Wrap up current wars withing 1 year and close down/sell all our bases around the world.
4) No foreign aid unless it is a natural disaster.

[Razel]

Hah, the apathy of the common man has led to the downfall of the individual's rights!

i think you mean freedoms but ok...

[verlox2]

i think you mean freedoms but ok...

Actually, I think it's freedoms have led to the downfall of the common man.

[Silverhandorder]

Actually, I think it's freedoms have led to the downfall of the common man.

That can not logically make sense.

[verlox2]

That can not logically make sense.

And anything that I say makes sense to begin with?

I could really care less about the industrial-whatever-whatchoomacallit. It's not really my problem. Time is like a river, and trash always goes down. Soon it will collapse, and we'll just have to start over, just as we have been doing for millenia.

[StrawberryClock]

i think you mean freedoms but ok...

We'll settle it by including the whole group of rights, liberty and freedom.

Its good to see everyone has common ground against the monstrosity that Eisenhower had warned us about.

[Silverhandorder]

And anything that I say makes sense to begin with?

I could really care less about the industrial-whatever-whatchoomacallit. It's not really my problem. Time is like a river, and trash always goes down. Soon it will collapse, and we'll just have to start over, just as we have been doing for millenia.

I kinda think this time around it wont be that bad either. We are gona go through a Rome like collapse as opposed to a Soviet one.

We'll settle it by including the whole group of rights, liberty and freedom.

Its good to see everyone has common ground against the monstrosity that Eisenhower had warned us about.

I rather stick to freedoms alone. Listening to socialists will have you including healthcare and welfare as a right. I much rather avoid that altogether.

[StrawberryClock]

I kinda think this time around it wont be that bad either. We are gona go through a Rome like collapse as opposed to a Soviet one.

Foreign invasion that causes widespread rape and loot? Fracture of the country into two parts and eventual civil war? Conversion to a new religion?

Sounds like my kinda collapse.

[verlox2]

Foreign invasion that causes widespread rape and loot? Fracture of the country into two parts and eventual civil war? Conversion to a new religion?

Sounds like my kinda collapse.

This is gonna fucking rock. Like that time I jumped off a bridge.....

*flashback*

AHHHHHHHHHHH, WHY AM I DOING THIS!! AHHHHHHHH

*flashback over*

Good times.

[Razel]

I'm going to keep saying this until people get it and i want you to do the same. It is absoultely critical that everyone understands this. You can say it whatever way you wish to people but it needs to be crystal clear where the problem is.

Always remember to look where the fundamental cause of a problem is.

When someone complains of a burning rash on their nuts what do you do? Do you give them some asprin and cream and tell them to hope it goes away or... do you find out whats causing the rash.

If someone gets banned from teh forumfalls whos fault is it? Brannocs of course :lmao: jk...

A. You CANNOT change policies without knowing the process. You dumb fuckers that blame parties should seriously counsider getting counseling because you ARE part of the problem. Policies are made by politicians, it is... their job and... they cannot 'fix' anything as they are mere puppets in the truest sense of the word.

B. Changing politicians solves nothing because they are bought and sold literally. Those who give them the most money influence them to implement policies that favor their special interests whether it be bankers, corporations, etc. The only way to ensure policies are not implemented is by completely removing corruption and special interest money from the system and those who support it.

C. Those who own the politicians are the elites, the multi-billionaires, the corporation owners, the bankers, etc and ARE the root of all the rest of the shit that flows down the hill.


I stated this in order of a way people look at it. They always see the policies and effects thereof first when in fact the problem starts with the C. the elites etc. To think you can fix any one of the other problems without fixing the fundamental problem is wasting everyones time so just fucking stop it already.

I don't give a fuck if your icecream falls off the cone and hits the pavement.... get a little wiser and try to figure out how to keep it from happening.

You want 'change', get rid of the shit thats causing the smell, however don't think for a second that there is one pile on the lawn because you'll find yourself knee deep in it. Don't think you can solve one problem by not addressing ALL of the problems and remember to keep focused on the primary one otherwise you end up playing their game.

Write this shit on a post-it and stick it to your foreheads if you have a difficult time remembering it.

Ya might say well thats all fine and good Raz but where do we start. Start by looking at the list of multi-billionaires in the u.s. and find which ones literally own the politicians and have foundations, non-profit orgs, and institutes for just that purpose.

Google is your friend fuckers. Now go forth and actually change something you whiney little bitches.


~Raz

[PainlessDeath]

Publicly funded campaigns.

[Silverhandorder]

Razel I agree with what you have to say. I don't see how one can go about C. without taking on B. You can't end elites power while politicians are doing all their dirty work. While there is a government the elites have power to control it. Actually they are a lot better at it then us. It is 1% of them organized vs 99% of us running around like headless chickens.

Only way to fight them at this point is on all fronts. We are in a proverbial corner. Any part of institution one attacks the other parts reinforces it. They have the intellectuals, the public and the government.

Attack the public and the statists in government and the intellectuals collude to discredit you. Change statistics or flat out lie. One example is the way unemployment rate is calculated.

Attack the government and everyone ignores you and calls you a nut for doubting our leaders purest intentions and intellect.

Attack the intellectuals the government favors and their is no end to false statistics.

So how can one win fighting on all fronts? By becoming organized better then them. The second this happens we win. Will that happen? Probably not. More likely the lies and corruption will kill the producer and bring the system down.

Publicly funded campaigns.
Solves nothing. It already exists and proves impossible to implement.

[PirateGlen]

rabblerabblerabble

Care to propose a superior alternative and the means to obtain it?

[Silverhandorder]

Care to propose a superior alternative and the means to obtain it?


Do you agree with him tho? I have no answers my self. However I know what does not work and will not attempt to work with failed strategies.

[Wolffen]

Ultimately worst case scenario? Civil war.

[Razel]

Razel I agree with what you have to say. I don't see how one can go about C. without taking on B. You can't end elites power while politicians are doing all their dirty work. While there is a government the elites have power to control it. Actually they are a lot better at it then us. It is 1% of them organized vs 99% of us running around like headless chickens.

Only way to fight them at this point is on all fronts. We are in a proverbial corner. Any part of institution one attacks the other parts reinforces it. They have the intellectuals, the public and the government.

Attack the public and the statists in government and the intellectuals collude to discredit you. Change statistics or flat out lie. One example is the way unemployment rate is calculated.

Attack the government and everyone ignores you and calls you a nut for doubting our leaders purest intentions and intellect.

Attack the intellectuals the government favors and their is no end to false statistics.

So how can one win fighting on all fronts? By becoming organized better then them. The second this happens we win. Will that happen? Probably not. More likely the lies and corruption will kill the producer and bring the system down.


Solves nothing. It already exists and proves impossible to implement.

Yes you have to take on b with c, just dont.... forget about c or you waste everyones time including mine. Once you do a little research on these fuckers you'll find very quickly just how intent they are at keeping in power regardless of the citizens. Citizens mean nothing to them, Profits on the other hand are everything.

I disagree that we are 'in a corner'. I don't like excuses, never have. Every time in my life someone told me something couldnt be done or that i couldnt do something proved them wrong. Don't be a fucken pussy on me you little shit. Don't fucking cry to me and say awww... its too fucking hard to stop whining dad.

By becoming organized better then them. The second this happens we win. There is your answer however i didnt like the following excuse you give Will that happen? Probably not. Excuses are a precurser of NOTHING on your part except whining.

[Razel]

Ultimately worst case scenario? Civil war.

worst case scenarios:

1. Civil war and most of the citizens die for nothing because the powers will still be in place.

2. The rest of the world gets pissed off enough to start nuking us, which may happen in any case.

[Razel]

Care to propose a superior alternative and the means to obtain it?

A good start is to do what they do but in a PROPER way. No reinventing of the wheel necessary as there are only a few hundred billionaires in the u.s. The many always outweigh the few. All we have to do is bring the citizens together. The greatest fear to them is when people work together in opposition in a moral way. The second you raise arms with weapons they win because you can be slaughtered.

[Silverhandorder]

Can't one be a pessimist while doing his best to succeed? My attitude towards politics is basically not going down without a fight.

[Razel]

Can't one be a pessimist while doing his best to succeed? My attitude towards politics is basically not going down without a fight.

Any wise leader uses words before committing his brothers to die. Fight with moral courage with your words while bringing the masses together and you WILL win. It is the only way you will know true Freedom for the masses.

The grease that spins the gears for the elites is their money and profits to their shareholders. The grease for the citizens should be moral integrity and a large group.

sumbuddy once said, if you dont have a solution to offer dont whine about something.

[PirateGlen]

A good start is to do what they do but in a PROPER way. No reinventing of the wheel necessary as there are only a few hundred billionaires in the u.s. The many always outweigh the few. All we have to do is bring the citizens together. The greatest fear to them is when people work together in opposition in a moral way. The second you raise arms with weapons they win because you can be slaughtered.

Sounds like your solution is to simply vote for other people. How disappointing.

[Slade Trillgon]

So stop voting them more power. Since they keep controlling the government cut the government out.

You can not just stop voting for them unless there are others to vote for :sly:

I believe, in the states, there needs to be some massive constitutional revamps such as massive adjustment to term limits. Something like one 6 year term for the president and no more then 2-3 terms for House and Senate seats. Get the indoctrinated elites out of their seats of power and bring the power back to the people. This concept is very basic but something that I think needs to be looked into.

Publicly funded campaigns.

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But unfortunately to many people are happy with the meager lives and do not want to be active. They want to go see the latest movie, watch the latest reality TV show, or come home and play a computer game. I am not toatlly guiltless either so do not think that.




I rather stick to freedoms alone. Listening to socialists will have you including healthcare and welfare as a right. I much rather avoid that altogether.

I get your distaste for helping others less fortunate then you but you constantly say these are not rights, so please list what you consider rights.

[Helgeran]

Bombs?

[Razel]

Sounds like your solution is to simply vote for other people. How disappointing.

You sound as if its not worth your effort. It all starts with one person, its as simple as that or as complicated as you choose to make it.

One of you on forumall can get this candle lit and here's how to do it.

Think of a name for an organization. Name it Citizens For Freedom for example. Choose a theme song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPbLrs1fQg4 This is a world wide problem as well so allow people from all over the world to participate in it. Setup a forum, make it legal organization and throw up a mission statement. There you go, simple as that. I'm sure one of you on forumfall can handle such a simple task?

Let me know who starts it and how it progresses. I'd be more than happy to participate in it as well. Go forth and 'change' something more than any politician ever will.

~Raz

[verlox2]

I'm going to keep saying this until people get it and i want you to do the same. It is absoultely critical that everyone understands this. You can say it whatever way you wish to people but it needs to be crystal clear where the problem is.

Always remember to look where the fundamental cause of a problem is.

When someone complains of a burning rash on their nuts what do you do? Do you give them some asprin and cream and tell them to hope it goes away or... do you find out whats causing the rash.

If someone gets banned from teh forumfalls whos fault is it? Brannocs of course :lmao: jk...

A. You CANNOT change policies without knowing the process. You dumb fuckers that blame parties should seriously counsider getting counseling because you ARE part of the problem. Policies are made by politicians, it is... their job and... they cannot 'fix' anything as they are mere puppets in the truest sense of the word.

B. Changing politicians solves nothing because they are bought and sold literally. Those who give them the most money influence them to implement policies that favor their special interests whether it be bankers, corporations, etc. The only way to ensure policies are not implemented is by completely removing corruption and special interest money from the system and those who support it.

C. Those who own the politicians are the elites, the multi-billionaires, the corporation owners, the bankers, etc and ARE the root of all the rest of the shit that flows down the hill.


I stated this in order of a way people look at it. They always see the policies and effects thereof first when in fact the problem starts with the C. the elites etc. To think you can fix any one of the other problems without fixing the fundamental problem is wasting everyones time so just fucking stop it already.

I don't give a fuck if your icecream falls off the cone and hits the pavement.... get a little wiser and try to figure out how to keep it from happening.

You want 'change', get rid of the shit thats causing the smell, however don't think for a second that there is one pile on the lawn because you'll find yourself knee deep in it. Don't think you can solve one problem by not addressing ALL of the problems and remember to keep focused on the primary one otherwise you end up playing their game.

Write this shit on a post-it and stick it to your foreheads if you have a difficult time remembering it.

Ya might say well thats all fine and good Raz but where do we start. Start by looking at the list of multi-billionaires in the u.s. and find which ones literally own the politicians and have foundations, non-profit orgs, and institutes for just that purpose.

Google is your friend fuckers. Now go forth and actually change something you whiney little bitches.


~Raz


Or.....we could just pee on them. That sounds good.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I believe, in the states, there needs to be some massive constitutional revamps such as massive adjustment to term limits. Something like one 6 year term for the president and no more then 2-3 terms for House and Senate seats. Get the indoctrinated elites out of their seats of power and bring the power back to the people. This concept is very basic but something that I think needs to be looked into.

That's a start. Make politicking a public service; not a career.

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't need money; public or otherwise. The whole point is to take the price tag off the office door, not change who pays the bill.

Remove campaign finances. Remove lobbying. Remove PACs.

Remove all the systemic means for wealth to buy political influence.

[DocGonzo]

oh my stars and garters...

i find myself agreeing with Razel in his last few rants...check my basement for pods

it's the money, someone mentioned term limits...those are a joke, it's the non-limited staffers who mostly go on as lobbyists...look at the figures


until and unless it becomes prohibitive for there to be professional lobbyists, and campaign contributions are limited to only legal voters in the jurisdiction under contention...there will be no progress, imo

[Aacevedo]

worst case scenarios:

1. Civil war and most of the citizens die for nothing because the powers will still be in place.

2. The rest of the world gets pissed off enough to start nuking us, which may happen in any case.

I think a secenario like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0O7_3o3BrI&feature=related) will happen sooner or later.

[Justinian]

Title says it all. Discuss or GTFO!

by reducing, dismantling and effectively destroying the federal government.

[Reckun]

gain the powah of bewbz

[Jezrith]

by reducing, dismantling and effectively destroying the federal government.

This. The tumor that is the M.I.C. is so far rooted into our federal government and has been for so long that it has become inoperable. At this point you can't tell where one begins and the other one ends. You could try keeping it cash starved, but with the ability to print their own money, that's hardly possible.

[Silverhandorder]

I get your distaste for helping others less fortunate then you but you constantly say these are not rights, so please list what you consider rights.

I like how I have to be for committing other people's money to qualify for being pro to helping the less fortunate. Plus considering I did not even mention cutting social programs in my first steps.

What I consider rights is life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What liberals forget is that these rights do not allow you to trample on others rights.

[Jezrith]

What I consider rights is life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What liberals forget is that these rights do not allow you to trample on others rights.

People also forget that word quite often.

[Silverhandorder]

People also forget that word quite often.

No I think they actually use that word to fit their own ideology :(.

[PainlessDeath]

Solves nothing. It already exists and proves impossible to implement.
How do you remember to breathe?

Be that as it may, it doesn't "exist".

The first goal of any politician is to get re-elected. To that end, it becomes necessary to acquire the money in order to fund their campaigns. If the majority of the money is coming from special interest groups or corporations, then any lack of public outcry means bills will get passed which may or may not be in the best interest of the people but are most certainly in the best interest of groups ponying up the cash.

Cut the cord that feeds the monster, then feed the monster yourself.

Term limits are not the answer. If implemented, you would have to enact a series of new laws regulating private industries like lobbying, staffers, or any other such position that is in place to help politicians with daily functions. Otherwise, you would have people with no experience surrounded by people who have been doing the same job e.g. Chief of Staff, who become the de facto decision makers.

[Silverhandorder]

Oh how wrong you are my mouth breathing friend. We have federal funding of candidates. However if you give public funding you must set limits or you will have every wako trying to be a politician. Creating a big burden and confusing the process. So they implement limits and conditions to how the money is given. The reason why you are not even familiar with the fact that we do have public funding means how little effect it has on politics currently. Making it have more of an effect does very little.

[PainlessDeath]

I guess I should have spelled it out for the short bus crowd.

ONLY public funds. No opting out for private funds. Candidates have no choice.

And before you start off on another excruciating tangent; of course there would be parameters for who would qualify.

Note: Instead of always being disagreeable and part of the problem, think.

[biggunsar]

(how do you destroy it?) you don't.
we all let it get too big.

[Slade Trillgon]

oh my stars and garters...

i find myself agreeing with Razel in his last few rants...check my basement for pods

it's the money, someone mentioned term limits...those are a joke, it's the non-limited staffers who mostly go on as lobbyists...look at the figures


until and unless it becomes prohibitive for there to be professional lobbyists, and campaign contributions are limited to only legal voters in the jurisdiction under contention...there will be no progress, imo

I thought getting rid of the lobbies was elementary so that is why I did not mention them.

I can not quite tell what you were implying with the comment "those are a joke". The staffers go on to be lobbyists and then solicite the long sitting representatives. Down with the days of a senator being in power for 40 years. That is a joke.

Are you saying that term limits are not a problem?

Also get rid of post service stipends!



I like how I have to be for committing other people's money to qualify for being pro to helping the less fortunate. Plus considering I did not even mention cutting social programs in my first steps.

What I consider rights is life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What liberals forget is that these rights do not allow you to trample on others rights.

I know that boards such as these make it difficult to truely understand ones angles or motivations and make honest discussion hard, but the way you rant it makes it seem like that their should be absolutely no broad based social aid programs. If that is not the case then my comprehension and your clarity need some work.

There in lies the problem what consitutues a right to life and the persuit of happiness. I say if you have a right to life, I believe that all non-adults have a right to some form a minimum health care. I do believe that all children, no matter their economic situation should be covered even if their parents are complete dumb fucks. Once they get to be an adult then get a job and pay for your own health care. A child should not be punished for their own parents ineptitude, they do not have any control over the situation.

[Badem]

just kick a woman in the cunt should work

[Jezrith]

I guess I should have spelled it out for the short bus crowd.

ONLY public funds. No opting out for private funds. Candidates have no choice.

And before you start off on another excruciating tangent; of course there would be parameters for who would qualify.

Note: Instead of always being disagreeable and part of the problem, think.

So I would have to finance the campaign of people I would rather see stabbed in the eye than hold a public office?

[Jezrith]

A child should not be punished for their own parents ineptitude, they do not have any control over the situation.

Should I be punished because their parents decided to have a child they could not take care of?

[Slade Trillgon]

Should I be punished because their parents decided to have a child they could not take care of?

Then they do not have a right to life?

[Jezrith]

Then they do not have a right to life?

Their right to life does not give them a right to my property, and you didn't answer my question...

[PainlessDeath]

So I would have to finance the campaign of people I would rather see stabbed in the eye than hold a public office?
Yes

Just like "you" "finance" roads you never drive on or any number of other things that "you" do not get an absolute direct benefit from. It's one of the benefits/costs of living in a society.

OTOH over the course of a few elections chances are good you would see a change in politics. More people might actually come out to vote. Minority views and special interest control might begin to wane.

Seems worth it to me.

[Jezrith]

Yes


Yeah, I'll pass.


Just like "you" "finance" roads you never drive on or any number of other things that "you" do not get an absolute direct benefit from. It's one of the benefits/costs of living in a society.


Actually its the cost of living in a particular society, a society where people feel its OK to play fast and lose with other people's money and use the threat of government violence to extort money from their neighbors. This is a recent development in the history of this "society".


OTOH over the course of a few elections chances are good you would see a change in politics. More people might actually come out to vote. Minority views and special interest control might begin to wane.

Seems worth it to me.

The only thing I see it doing is allowing incumbents to further homogenize the political process by controlling who is consider a "viable" candidate and who isn't, all at the expense of my pocket book.

[Silverhandorder]

I guess I should have spelled it out for the short bus crowd.

ONLY public funds. No opting out for private funds. Candidates have no choice.

And before you start off on another excruciating tangent; of course there would be parameters for who would qualify.

Note: Instead of always being disagreeable and part of the problem, think.
Government never ever fucked that up. Am I right or what? This would only give more tools to those in power to exclude newcomers.
I thought getting rid of the lobbies was elementary so that is why I did not mention them.

I can not quite tell what you were implying with the comment "those are a joke". The staffers go on to be lobbyists and then solicite the long sitting representatives. Down with the days of a senator being in power for 40 years. That is a joke.

Are you saying that term limits are not a problem?

Also get rid of post service stipends!

You do realize you talking to your representative is also a form of lobby. I rather not draw a distinction between two types of lobbying since that would leave out many exceptions, loop holes and has a great chance to backfire on us. Barack promised transparency and then prohibited lobbyists from asking where the money goes. So what did they do? They sent ordinary people to get these answers. So it did not effect the lobbyists and it also made the whole stimulus money situation more secretive.

I know that boards such as these make it difficult to truely understand ones angles or motivations and make honest discussion hard, but the way you rant it makes it seem like that their should be absolutely no broad based social aid programs. If that is not the case then my comprehension and your clarity need some work.

There in lies the problem what consitutues a right to life and the persuit of happiness. I say if you have a right to life, I believe that all non-adults have a right to some form a minimum health care. I do believe that all children, no matter their economic situation should be covered even if their parents are complete dumb fucks. Once they get to be an adult then get a job and pay for your own health care. A child should not be punished for their own parents ineptitude, they do not have any control over the situation.
Sure do w/e the fuck you want as long as you do not take other peoples money by force. Want to take care of the poor and make some type of social safety net? Have voluntary tax that will sponsor a civilian task force of volunteers. 50% of the country want to help the poor. That is a significant number of people. They all can donate a little bit of time to this and make it work.

The right to life does not override my right to liberty. In case of a child I can understand to make an exception. However this is still a confusing area. You see to save a life of a child I would donate my personal money. I am sure many would do so too. Can be done through voluntary tax that goes directly to the parents. Fuck we can call it a charity, revolutionary I know.

[PainlessDeath]

Yeah, I'll pass.



Actually its the cost of living in a particular society, a society where people feel its OK to play fast and lose with other people's money and use the threat of government violence to extort money from their neighbors. This is a recent development in the history of this "society".



The only thing I see it doing is allowing incumbents to further homogenize the political process by controlling who is consider a "viable" candidate and who isn't, all at the expense of my pocket book.
Damn, exactly how much is your tax burden? Must be substantial.

[Jezrith]

Damn, exactly how much is your tax burden? Must be substantial.

My full Federal tax burden for last year was just over $34,000. That might not seem like much, but I've averaged that much every year for the past decade. I try not to think about what I could have done in my life with ~$350,000...

[PainlessDeath]

Government never ever fucked that up. Am I right or what? This would only give more tools to those in power to exclude newcomers.


You do realize you talking to your representative is also a form of lobby. I rather not draw a distinction between two types of lobbying since that would leave out many exceptions, loop holes and has a great chance to backfire on us. Barack promised transparency and then prohibited lobbyists from asking where the money goes. So what did they do? They sent ordinary people to get these answers. So it did not effect the lobbyists and it also made the whole stimulus money situation more secretive.


Sure do w/e the fuck you want as long as you do not take other peoples money by force. Want to take care of the poor and make some type of social safety net? Have voluntary tax that will sponsor a civilian task force of volunteers. 50% of the country want to help the poor. That is a significant number of people. They all can donate a little bit of time to this and make it work.

The right to life does not override my right to liberty. In case of a child I can understand to make an exception. However this is still a confusing area. You see to save a life of a child I would donate my personal money. I am sure many would do so too. Can be done through voluntary tax that goes directly to the parents. Fuck we can call it a charity, revolutionary I know.
No they never fucked it up because we have never had it. So you are wrong. Shocking I know. The parties already exclude candidates where they can. Public campaign finance doesn't really address that particular problem.

And your percentages are wrong as well. A super majority of Americans (not 50%) have always supported welfare for unwed mothers and for children.

Your "volunteer" idea is a non starter. You see how hard your parents work to put food on the table and a roof over your head....

My bad, that line of reasoning falls outside your rant. Please excuse me.

[PainlessDeath]

My full Federal tax burden for last year was just over $34,000. That might not seem like much, but I've averaged that much every year for the past decade. I try not to think about what I could have done in my life with ~$350,000...

On behalf of all Americans, I thank you. Without your contribution this country would be a far worse place. You are a gentleman and deserving of the highest honor this country can bestow. That it has not seen fit to recognize your endeavors is an egregious error. So on behalf or my brethren, I apologize as well.

Better now? o.O

[Silverhandorder]

No they never fucked it up because we have never had it. So you are wrong. Shocking I know. The parties already exclude candidates where they can. Public campaign finance doesn't really address that particular problem.

You will compound the problem.

And your percentages are wrong as well. A super majority of Americans (not 50%) have always supported welfare for unwed mothers and for children.
Further proves my point.

Your "volunteer" idea is a non starter. You see how hard your parents work to put food on the table and a roof over your head....

My bad, that line of reasoning falls outside your rant. Please excuse me.

My bad I guess putting your money where your mouth is doesn't work when you can steal from other people.

[DocGonzo]

"steal from other people"??

like fraudulently taking their money with no intent on fulfilling the contract?

or working for the government and taking tax payer dollars and tax funded healthcare?

fucking hypocrite...

[Jezrith]

On behalf of all Americans, I thank you. Without your contribution this country would be a far worse place. You are a gentleman and deserving of the highest honor this country can bestow. That it has not seen fit to recognize your endeavors is an egregious error. So on behalf or my brethren, I apologize as well.

Better now? o.O

Include a check for a quarter million USD and it will be...


My bad I guess putting your money where your mouth is doesn't work when you can steal from other people.

It's funny how these same people will rant about how the Christian right try to impose their morals on the country but have no problem doing it themselves when it comes to their morals.

"steal from other people"??

like fraudulently taking their money with no intent on fulfilling the contract?


More like paying "protection" money.


or working for the government and taking tax payer dollars and tax funded healthcare?

fucking hypocrite...

Do the fundamentals of the argument change when I say it?

[Silverhandorder]

You would much rather see people against government be punished further huh?

You against government? Well hey then you should pass up on a good opportunity to make money! So if they make health care nationalized every doctor that voted against it has to give up his career? A private industry inspector can not apply to EPA just because they are the only ones that can do the function he used to?

You are full of shit. Learn what hypocrisy means.

[Slade Trillgon]

Their right to life does not give them a right to my property, and you didn't answer my question...

If you are not willing to take care of children that are born into situations that they have no control over then shrug your shoulders when they die due to their parents ineptitude then where is that childs right to life? I also do believe that there should be regulation on child bearing, but then again who are we to tell people what they can or can not do :rolleyes:

Yes I do believe that a society has a obligation to protect its youth period and point blank.

I also pay for people kids to go to school yet I do not have any myself and yet their parents get tax breaks for having kids. Why do I need to pay for that? Because I believe that it is societies obligation to make sure its people have the opportunity advance and to ensure that as many as possible do not fall through the cracks as possible. (The educatiuon system needs massive revamping also)

Silver's concept of charity is all fine and dandy, but that has been tried in the US history and it was not quite enough because it is way too easy to dissasociate oneself from the lower economic populations. What you do not see is easily written off and dissregarded until it smacks you in the face and then you cry about the consequences.

I have been paying taxes for 17 years now and quite honestly I live within my means and if those means provide a safety net for a few children less fortunate then me, I can swallow that. I also do many other things to help out also and I sure hope you do otherwise you are nothing more then a gready fucking bastard that wants more cake and table time.

If you can not swallow that and you really need that extra 20% income to live then so be it, we are both bitting the bullet now and I do not think making sure children have health care is a burden. Yes the fundamentals need to be ironed out better but that is part of the process.

So what would you really do with that extra 20% income? I am truly intrigued. I mean we have the time to sit abound and bullshit on a games off topic forum, so that confiscated 20% could not really be hurting you that much right? And trust me I have $5000 medical bill about to be slapped in my face in a few days so I sure as hell know what I could use it for, but I will not have to give up much to make the debt dissapear and I work for a non-profit making about what a teacher does.

[Silverhandorder]

I think Jezrith would agree with my answer.

I could care less how much you pay. The fact is you have no right to commit me to do the same. Regardless of how well intentioned the deed is.

Further more it is non of your concern what I would do with money had I not paid the tax.

[StainlessSteelRat]

I work for a non-profit making about what a teacher does.

Lucky you, teachers make good money.

[Slade Trillgon]

I think Jezrith would agree with my answer.

I could care less how much you pay. The fact is you have no right to commit me to do the same. Regardless of how well intentioned the deed is.

Further more it is non of your concern what I would do with money had I not paid the tax.

So do not come crying when the shit rolls onto your front porch.

Just saying.

So what are you willing to have your taxes pay for or are you not willing to pay any taxes?


Lucky you, teachers make good money.

Only becaue they get three months off a year :sly:

[DocGonzo]

Do the fundamentals of the argument change when I say it?

not at all, you i take "seriously" as a well thought out and reasonable position that you understand and comprehend before you begin typing

when it comes to Shitweasel...not so much on any of those counts...and his own admission of lying, fraud, breach of contract..as well as his "justifications" as to why that was ok tend to disqualify him...in my judgment, from worthwhile discourse until he moves out of mommies house, understands why breach of contract and fraud are wrong, and has to earn his own way for a few years

long running conflict with the boy...i do hope he eventually learns, but when he takes positions he doesn't understand...parroting what he heard on a youtube clip with no real comprehension or thought...and then espouses a position in conflict with his actual deeds and circumstances...

well, you get the idea...

i know much less about your circumstances, and don't really care...in our time discussing things you have shown yourself to be both thoughtful and reasonable...even when we disagree...and thus your statements get far more credence and weight, imo

[PirateGlen]

Why must every topic degenerate into a discussion on the morality of taxes. :(

[Razel]

oh my stars and garters...

i find myself agreeing with Razel in his last few rants...check my basement for pods

it's the money, someone mentioned term limits...those are a joke, it's the non-limited staffers who mostly go on as lobbyists...look at the figures


until and unless it becomes prohibitive for there to be professional lobbyists, and campaign contributions are limited to only legal voters in the jurisdiction under contention...there will be no progress, imo

Kind of shocking isnt it. I do try my best to look at things objectively. Neverthless at least there seems to be some good dialogue going on here instead of just slinging shit like monkeys.

I am however still waiting for a few of you to get your heads together and continue this discussion in a way that will have a real impact as i suggested previously. When someone starts such an organization, remember that this is a world wide problem so noone should be excluded from the discussions. Also try to put those in charge that keep the discussions open and objective.

Remember the objectives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEUE-wMQBv8&feature=related

[Qikdraw]

In an attempt to bring this back to topic... Silverhandorder's replies to my ideas in bold.

Step two is a number of things.
1) Get rid of 'cost plus' contracts. All they do is guarentee the taxpayer pays 20 times as much. (McCain is 100% right on this) yes to that
2) 100% military contracts built in the USA. (which is not currently the case) Protectionism does not work.
3) No military contracts for companies behind in paying taxes. (many currently are and still get contracts) Yes
4) No military contracts for companies that do any sort of offshoring or outsourcing. Protectionism does not work.
5) No jobs for any politician that oversees the military industrial complex after they leave office. Nor for their aides. Does not work. They can easily use surrogates.
6) No lobbying allowed from the military industrial complex. No lobbying allowed while they are under contract.
7) Any business done outside America's borders have to be compliant with US labour laws and building codes.Yes

1) Even republicans can come up with a good idea now and then...
2) Its not protectionism, its called military secrets. Why should we allow another country to help us defend ourselves?
3) I read an article about this a few years ago and government contracts and the IRS do not mix at all, the article said something like 300+ companies with military contrats are behind in their taxes, some owe millions. They do not see the system changing at all. Which is just stupid.
4) Its not protectionism. It actually follows 3 in its about taxes. Why should we give government contracts to companies who try and avoid paying taxes?
5) Which is why I added aides in that. So their surrogates cannot enter the private sector after doing their masters bidding.
6) Well the military industrial complex is always having military contracts, so I didn't think I needed to add only while they are under contract.
7) KBR and the deaths of US soldiers is exactly the reason for this.

I'll also add:

8) No private 'security' companies allowed. How many problems have we had with Blackwater (now Xe)? They have literally gotten away with murder and how does that reflect on the US? Mercenaries should never be used.

[Jezrith]

If you are not willing to take care of children that are born into situations that they have no control over then shrug your shoulders when they die due to their parents ineptitude then where is that childs right to life?


It is still there, it was just denied to the child by their parents; it wasn't denied to them by me or "society". I had no control over these children being born and therefore cannot have a responsibility for them or their rights. Also, just by virtue of being a child does not mean their rights automatically trump mine.


I also do believe that there should be regulation on child bearing, but then again who are we to tell people what they can or can not do :rolleyes:


You roll your eyes, but you are actually right. Pro-lifers feel they should be able to control child bearing as well.


Yes I do believe that a society has a obligation to protect its youth period and point blank.


Except for the fact that its not my youth, it isn't yours, and it isn't society's youth either. The child belong to the parents, not society. You want to help kids, great I applaud your compassion but who are you to force your morals on me? I'm willing to bet you get pretty pissed off when the Christian right tries to do the exact same thing with things like homosexual marriage, so why do you feel its OK for you to do it to other people?


I also pay for people kids to go to school yet I do not have any myself and yet their parents get tax breaks for having kids. Why do I need to pay for that? Because I believe that it is societies obligation to make sure its people have the opportunity advance and to ensure that as many as possible do not fall through the cracks as possible. (The educatiuon system needs massive revamping also)


I also think cheap education is a great thing as well, however I do not believe people have a right to it at the expense of the rights of another.


Silver's concept of charity is all fine and dandy, but that has been tried in the US history and it was not quite enough because it is way too easy to dissasociate oneself from the lower economic populations. What you do not see is easily written off and dissregarded until it smacks you in the face and then you cry about the consequences.


What data do you have to show that it was "not quite enough", bear in mind anecdotal evidence doesn't fly well with me.


I have been paying taxes for 17 years now and quite honestly I live within my means and if those means provide a safety net for a few children less fortunate then me, I can swallow that. I also do many other things to help out also and I sure hope you do otherwise you are nothing more then a gready fucking bastard that wants more cake and table time.


I pay taxes to help out, since I have to work 50-70 hours a week to maintain the life I want to live after my tax burden, there isn't time for much else.


If you can not swallow that and you really need that extra 20% income to live then so be it, we are both bitting the bullet now and I do not think making sure children have health care is a burden. Yes the fundamentals need to be ironed out better but that is part of the process.


If you don't think its a burden, than do it. Why do you have to force this belief on your neighbors?


So what would you really do with that extra 20% income? I am truly intrigued. I mean we have the time to sit abound and bullshit on a games off topic forum, so that confiscated 20% could not really be hurting you that much right? And trust me I have $5000 medical bill about to be slapped in my face in a few days so I sure as hell know what I could use it for, but I will not have to give up much to make the debt dissapear and I work for a non-profit making about what a teacher does.

Well actually, considering my tax bracket its more like 30% of my income, but I quibble. What would I do with the extra money? Crap, that can be a real long list. Let's see, I could have owned my own home, I could have financed the new company I want to start instead of having to look for investors. Instead of working a job I despise I could have spent more time writing the books I want to write, making the music I want to make, saw my family more often... yeah, I could have don a ton of things that are quite integral to my pursuit of happiness.

[Slade Trillgon]

It is still there, it was just denied to the child by their parents; it wasn't denied to them by me or "society". I had no control over these children being born and therefore cannot have a responsibility for them or their rights. Also, just by virtue of being a child does not mean their rights automatically trump mine.



You roll your eyes, but you are actually right. Pro-lifers feel they should be able to control child bearing as well.



Except for the fact that its not my youth, it isn't yours, and it isn't society's youth either. The child belong to the parents, not society. You want to help kids, great I applaud your compassion but who are you to force your morals on me? I'm willing to bet you get pretty pissed off when the Christian right tries to do the exact same thing with things like homosexual marriage, so why do you feel its OK for you to do it to other people?



I also think cheap education is a great thing as well, however I do not believe people have a right to it at the expense of the rights of another.



What data do you have to show that it was "not quite enough", bear in mind anecdotal evidence doesn't fly well with me.



I pay taxes to help out, since I have to work 50-70 hours a week to maintain the life I want to live after my tax burden, there isn't time for much else.



If you don't think its a burden, than do it. Why do you have to force this belief on your neighbors?



Well actually, considering my tax bracket its more like 30% of my income, but I quibble. What would I do with the extra money? Crap, that can be a real long list. Let's see, I could have owned my own home, I could have financed the new company I want to start instead of having to look for investors. Instead of working a job I despise I could have spent more time writing the books I want to write, making the music I want to make, saw my family more often... yeah, I could have don a ton of things that are quite integral to my pursuit of happiness.

Good points yet it sounds like you think you own nothing to society. I said 20% assuming that you were still willing to pay some taxes for certain things. So as I posed before.

What things are you willing to be taxed for or are you completely against the concept of taxes? I mean if we got rid of all taxes we would be rid of the military machine that the original topic was about but where would the funding for social services come from such as fire fighters, police, paramedics, coast guard, etc? Do you think that we could protect our borders with simple militias? Or do you think the private sector thinks that there is enough money in those areas to run them privately and without corruption also?

As for the numbers about charity not totally succeeding in the US I have no solid numbers at hand but I have pointed out the book How the Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis and that seems to be a fairly objective look at how a mostly completely deregulated free market system worked in the US. I do not find a single thing in that book hard to believe considering how greed works even in todays over controlled system.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Good points yet it sounds like you think you own nothing to society.

He doesn't.

How the Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis

Written in 1891

and that seems to be a fairly objective look at how a mostly completely deregulated free market system worked in the US.

I don't think it represents a deregulated market at all. It represents a time period when laws were not enforced and urbanization was new so consumer protection laws may not have been passed yet. Not to mention child labor laws.

[Kusghuul]

Rock n' roll, tank tops, bandanas, whisky, aviators and lots of W.A.S.P. solves pretty much anything

[Vanno]

My main objection to campaign finance reforms like public funding is, and I believe this was already expounded on, that is seems to contradict the spirit of representational government as well as free speech. I think a more practical solution is simply a much shorter election cycle of say maybe 2weeks to a month. This requires a much more focused campaign, and makes massive continued campaigning less necessary. To paraphrase, a campaign's costs increases directly in relation to its length. Shorten the campaign, decrease the costs and the playing field may be more level.

Furthermore, you could require liquidation of holdings for all public servants and include some sort of clause forbidding hiring of immediate family from large donors. Though I see the former solution as a bit difficult to track.

[Vanno]

The issue of taxes came up in this thread, as always we get some rather extreme and frankly inane/stale views on the matter. Yes, governments provide some very important services for the population they serve, and yes they need funding to provide that. I however, think taxation is an inefficient way of raising said funds. First and foremost, it doesn't pass the reveled preferences test, meaning taxes are almost always collected in a lump sum and then dolled out to programs that are assumed to be necessary. This is a completely backward way of doing things. Instead, I support fee for service systems, were every bureaucracy has to earn its salt and prove to be beneficial to the society.

For example, roads could easily be paid for, and often are with gas taxes, DMV fees, etc. Simply allowing the the populace to opt in or out of programs (unemployment, medicare) etc would be excellent. I guarantee, under this sort of system, it would be figured out very quickly what programs are widely beneficial and which aren't. What we have now is simply an untested government bureaucracy, untested in that the worth of it all is never really put to a excel or fail scenario.

Just an all encompassing cost-benefit analysis would be a great start. We will probably never see something like that though.

[PainlessDeath]

My main objection to campaign finance reforms like public funding is, and I believe this was already expounded on, that is seems to contradict the spirit of representational government as well as free speech. I think a more practical solution is simply a much shorter election cycle of say maybe 2weeks to a month. This requires a much more focused campaign, and makes massive continued campaigning less necessary. To paraphrase, a campaign's costs increases directly in relation to its length. Shorten the campaign, decrease the costs and the playing field may be more level.

Furthermore, you could require liquidation of holdings for all public servants and include some sort of clause forbidding hiring of immediate family from large donors. Though I see the former solution as a bit difficult to track.
How does the public footing the bill equate to a contradiction in representational government? That's an incredibly counter intuitive statement.

The point isn't really to "level the playing field" although there are probably plenty of Dems who would sigh in relief. The point is to move elections and votes away from special interest groups.

"Liquidation of holdings"? Alright, let's step away from the cliff. :)

[PainlessDeath]

For example, roads could easily be paid for, and often are with gas taxes, DMV fees, etc. Simply allowing the the populace to opt in or out of programs (unemployment, medicare) etc would be excellent. I guarantee, under this sort of system, it would be figured out very quickly what programs are widely beneficial and which aren't. What we have now is simply an untested government bureaucracy, untested in that the worth of it all is never really put to a excel or fail scenario.


How would programs like Food Stamps and social welfare plans "pay their way"?

[peekalo]

Title says it all. Tits or GTFO!

Fixed

[PirateGlen]

How does the public footing the bill equate to a contradiction in representational government? That's an incredibly counter intuitive statement.

The point isn't really to "level the playing field" although there are probably plenty of Dems who would sigh in relief. The point is to move elections and votes away from special interest groups.

"Liquidation of holdings"? Alright, let's step away from the cliff. :)

It contradicts the idea that people can use their money as a form of free speech. When I send money to a politician, it's a form of expression.

Special interest groups aren't the only ones with money. Not only that, but special interest groups are also composed of people.

[Razel]

The first step... before stripping away programs, throwing out the baby and the bath water etc is : to form an organization where everyone can participate in the process. Anything short of that being first on the agenda is a waste of internet space.

[PainlessDeath]

It contradicts the idea that people can use their money as a form of free speech. When I send money to a politician, it's a form of expression.

Special interest groups aren't the only ones with money. Not only that, but special interest groups are also composed of people.
As far as free speech goes, I understand the legal precedent. However, if you have $10 and I have a nickle, it's no longer a form of expression. It's a form of oppression.

And of course you know that your right to free speech is not absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Somebody might get hurt. During an election cycle, why should special interest groups be allowed to flood the air waves to the extent that none of the candidates messages get out? Is my leg more important than the country?

[Silverhandorder]

As far as free speech goes, I understand the legal precedent. However, if you have $10 and I have a nickle, it's no longer a form of expression. It's a form of oppression.

And of course you know that your right to free speech is not absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Somebody might get hurt. During an election cycle, why should special interest groups be allowed to flood the air waves to the extent that none of the candidates messages get out? Is my leg more important than the country?

Actually you are wrong. Besides all the reasons I brought up this is the most important one. A person with 10$ does not prevent you from expressing your self. You can do w/e you want with your nickle and your time. However the limitation on your freedom is that you can not infringe on the freedom of another individual. The fact that you can not see that is rather shocking. In this country we are all equal under the law, but most certainly we are not all equal to each other.

The reason we can't scream fire in a crowded place is because that is considered fraud and punishable by law.

[Badem]

THIS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8074028.stm) is what happens if the people try to fight against the machine

or its just tose KEeeeeRAZY russkies again

[PainlessDeath]

Actually you are wrong. Besides all the reasons I brought up this is the most important one. A person with 10$ does not prevent you from expressing your self. You can do w/e you want with your nickle and your time. However the limitation on your freedom is that you can not infringe on the freedom of another individual. The fact that you can not see that is rather shocking. In this country we are all equal under the law, but most certainly we are not all equal to each other.

The reason we can't scream fire in a crowded place is because that is considered fraud and punishable by law.

If you were half as smart as you thought you were, we could have some excellent discussions. Somebody should hire you as CEO of a Fortune 500 while you still know everything.

[PirateGlen]

As far as free speech goes, I understand the legal precedent. However, if you have $10 and I have a nickle, it's no longer a form of expression. It's a form of oppression.
How is it oppressive? If a message is unpopular does it really deserve the same amount of airtime as a more popular message?


And of course you know that your right to free speech is not absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Somebody might get hurt. During an election cycle, why should special interest groups be allowed to flood the air waves to the extent that none of the candidates messages get out? Is my leg more important than the country?
Interest groups are a collective of people. Razel's proposition would be considered an interest group. It's just a group of people with a refined agenda. Why shouldn't people be able to advocate for what they want?

[DocGonzo]

Interest groups are a collective of people. Razel's proposition would be considered an interest group. It's just a group of people with a refined agenda. Why shouldn't people be able to advocate for what they want?

i have no problem with people doing such...but i reject all forms of collectivism

hence, to me NO corporation should EVER be able to advocate to our elected officials, and if i had my way, only those who could legally vote for the official should be allowed to contribute or lobby said official

example - Scooter Libby would never be able to lobby anyone, since he is a convicted felon and thus cannot own a firearm or vote

i could lobby or contribute to my congressmen(for my district), both my senators or POTUS...but not for say, John McCain..since i do not live in Arizona

no corporation could ever lobby, or make campaign contributions...period

i can Dream, can't i?

[PirateGlen]

i have no problem with people doing such...but i reject all forms of collectivism

hence, to me NO corporation should EVER be able to advocate to our elected officials, and if i had my way, only those who could legally vote for the official should be allowed to contribute or lobby said official

example - Scooter Libby would never be able to lobby anyone, since he is a convicted felon and thus cannot own a firearm or vote

i could lobby or contribute to my congressmen(for my district), both my senators or POTUS...but not for say, John McCain..since i do not live in Arizona

no corporation could ever lobby, or make campaign contributions...period

i can Dream, can't i?

I'm not sure I can even be with you on the felons part. Suppose I'm a felon and I feel it is for an unjust law. Now I can't advocate for the change of this unjust law because I've violated it.

The idea of only allowing constituents do lobby, I like at first glance. However... the issue I see is in businesses that potentially serve such constituents not being able to offer their perspective on a law. Suppose there is a federal bill on regulating the size of widgets. Widgets 'R Us should be able to lobby a congressperson to inform them how such regulation would affect the price of widgets to their constituents.

[DocGonzo]

I'm not sure I can even be with you on the felons part. Suppose I'm a felon and I feel it is for an unjust law. Now I can't advocate for the change of this unjust law because I've violated it.

The idea of only allowing constituents do lobby, I like at first glance. However... the issue I see is in businesses that potentially serve such constituents not being able to offer their perspective on a law. Suppose there is a federal bill on regulating the size of widgets. Widgets 'R Us should be able to lobby a congressperson to inform them how such regulation would affect the price of widgets to their constituents.

if it is a individually owned company, then that individual can indeed lobby...but if it is a collective (corporation) then...sorry, no

to me, one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever, that has lead to a huge percentage of what is wrong with our system, was the 1890's decision recognizing a corp as a "person" when it came to their "rights", but still leaving in place the absolution of individual responsibility for it's actions

imo...since there are no "collective" Rights, just those of the Individual, then those Individuals who have interest can lobby...but not the corp or it's agents

as i said, it's just my view of it, your mileage may vary

[PirateGlen]

if it is a individually owned company, then that individual can indeed lobby...but if it is a collective (corporation) then...sorry, no

to me, one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever, that has lead to a huge percentage of what is wrong with our system, was the 1890's decision recognizing a corp as a "person" when it came to their "rights", but still leaving in place the absolution of individual responsibility for it's actions

imo...since there are no "collective" Rights, just those of the Individual, then those Individuals who have interest can lobby...but not the corp or it's agents

as i said, it's just my view of it, your mileage may vary

With regards to a corporation's legal responsability, there's been a huge shift since enron, but that's a very different topic from free speech. Why should a special interest group be able to pool assets to hire a lobbyist but a corporation cannot?

[DocGonzo]

With regards to a corporation's legal responsability, there's been a huge shift since enron, but that's a very different topic from free speech. Why should a special interest group be able to pool assets to hire a lobbyist but a corporation cannot?

is that group incorporated? if so, they cannot

if not, then they can indeed do so, to the appropriate official whom the individuals making up the group can vote for....and in that case, it is the individual doing so...there are no "collectives" in my scenario...

now, someone in the corp..who fits the criteria, can go and lobby on their own behalf...if that coincides with the corp (and it might..a worker wanting his job to stay, a manager wanting the business to do better so he does better, etc) that's one thing...it is a voter talking to his representative about his concerns

but that corp is NOT a voter, it is NOT an Individual with those "inalienable Rights"...and thus it should not be a part of our governing process, imo

[verlox2]

i have no problem with people doing such...but i reject all forms of collectivism

hence, to me NO corporation should EVER be able to advocate to our elected officials, and if i had my way, only those who could legally vote for the official should be allowed to contribute or lobby said official

example - Scooter Libby would never be able to lobby anyone, since he is a convicted felon and thus cannot own a firearm or vote

i could lobby or contribute to my congressmen(for my district), both my senators or POTUS...but not for say, John McCain..since i do not live in Arizona

no corporation could ever lobby, or make campaign contributions...period

i can Dream, can't i?

I actually agree with you. Lobbyists are the bane of our soceity, and they fuck every little think up they put their grubby littly hands on.

However, I think businesses should be allowed to make campaign contributions, how else is a candiate supposed to get sufficient funds?

I also agree with your state border thinng.

[PainlessDeath]

How is it oppressive? If a message is unpopular does it really deserve the same amount of airtime as a more popular message?


Interest groups are a collective of people. Razel's proposition would be considered an interest group. It's just a group of people with a refined agenda. Why shouldn't people be able to advocate for what they want?
Our voices are supposed to be equal (at least that is the lie we tell ourselves). But how are they equal if you are buying $10 worth of time and I can only afford .05 cents worth of time*?

Money is such an important element to the process that those with the most money get the most access. It's the nature of the beast to exert as much force as possible in order to better a specific position. So of course it becomes a tool of oppression.

I've never advocated that interest groups shouldn't exist. In fact, if money were taken out of the equation, these groups would have to stand on their Merit and not on their ability to raise money and influence candidates with same. To me, that doesn't sound so unreasonable.

I think in your mind, you think I am trying to limit free speech when I'm really trying to increase the number of voices that get to be heard. The current system actually limits speech.


*time meaning the ability to have face to face time or some other type of influencing mechanic

[DocGonzo]

second worst SCOTUS decision ever imo

money is NOT speech

[PainlessDeath]

second worst SCOTUS decision ever imo

money is NOT speech

I agree. I understand the abstractness of it. But in practical terms, it is just another tool to keep the common man on his knees in abject servitude.

[Silverhandorder]

I agree. I understand the abstractness of it. But in practical terms, it is just another tool to keep the common man on his knees in abject servitude.

A vote is a common man's way of keeping rich man on his knees in abject servitude. :rolleyes:



edit: Doc and Pirate do you guys ever think what type of machinery needs to be put in place to make what you propose a reality? Specifically putting limits on different types of lobbying and campaign contributions?

[DocGonzo]

yes..

can be passed with a simple majority

for enforcement it's really simple...i'd do the same with cops or any public servant

put a webcam and mic in their office, real time to the web..for cops, in their cars and their uniforms

to touch on P-Glen's concern for the corps...they can petition the appropriate committee in Congress, and request a public hearing for their concerns and interests...any not allowed to lobby due to the restrictions i suggest are more than welcome to follow such a path

let our elected officials actually have to do their jobs in public

oh yes, and bar ALL staffers from being able to work for ANY lobby purpose for 5 years after they leave the public payroll, elected officials are forbidden to ever lobby, military follows the same rule as staffers

[PirateGlen]

is that group incorporated? if so, they cannot

if not, then they can indeed do so, to the appropriate official whom the individuals making up the group can vote for....and in that case, it is the individual doing so...there are no "collectives" in my scenario...

now, someone in the corp..who fits the criteria, can go and lobby on their own behalf...if that coincides with the corp (and it might..a worker wanting his job to stay, a manager wanting the business to do better so he does better, etc) that's one thing...it is a voter talking to his representative about his concerns

but that corp is NOT a voter, it is NOT an Individual with those "inalienable Rights"...and thus it should not be a part of our governing process, imo

I think the issue of campaign finance reform is being inappropriately associated with lobbying. It's not the same and shouldn't be treated the same. I don't like the idea of any restrictions on people talking because it's just talking. It should be the role of the congressperson to decide what is or is not in their constituents best interest. And one of the issues with lobbying is that there's this idea that they will not receive the same funding if they do not vote as per the requests of different interests.

But I don't think that's a good reason to prevent people from talking to eachother.

[PirateGlen]

Our voices are supposed to be equal (at least that is the lie we tell ourselves). But how are they equal if you are buying $10 worth of time and I can only afford .05 cents worth of time*?

Money is such an important element to the process that those with the most money get the most access. It's the nature of the beast to exert as much force as possible in order to better a specific position. So of course it becomes a tool of oppression.

I've never advocated that interest groups shouldn't exist. In fact, if money were taken out of the equation, these groups would have to stand on their Merit and not on their ability to raise money and influence candidates with same. To me, that doesn't sound so unreasonable.

I think in your mind, you think I am trying to limit free speech when I'm really trying to increase the number of voices that get to be heard. The current system actually limits speech.


*time meaning the ability to have face to face time or some other type of influencing mechanic


But all views are not equal and they do not all deserve equal treatment. There was a similar argument that resulted in the flying spaghetti monster. One of the better campaign finance reforms was limitations on individual donations. This gives a better view on representational support.

I'd be in support of using the people's airwaves to give air time to qualified candidates, but I don't know if this would be significantly different from what we have now.

[PirateGlen]

second worst SCOTUS decision ever imo

money is NOT speech

Why isn't it or why shouldn't it be?

[PirateGlen]

edit: Doc and Pirate do you guys ever think what type of machinery needs to be put in place to make what you propose a reality? Specifically putting limits on different types of lobbying and campaign contributions?

What did I propose?

[PainlessDeath]

And I agree in spirit Pirate. But in terms of the real world the Rep is confronted with a choice of either seeing a group that has little to no money to contribute to his campaign or a group that has plenty of money to contribute. Which would he reasonably take?

Furthermore, let's say the Rep isn't corrupt in any way. He does what he honestly feels is best for his constituents specifically and for the nation, in general. Still he is looking towards re-election and needs funds. The group getting face time might have excellent points and real concerns but so might the group that has no funding. There chance of ever getting their views and opinions heard, goes way down.

I say let the incumbent do his job without having to worry about financing his next campaign. Wouldn't we at the very least get more bang for our buck?

[Silverhandorder]

Why isn't it or why shouldn't it be?

Money is money. It is a commodity that represents your productive power. It is nothing more than how many pigs a man can raise. How many brick a man can lay. So it can't be classified as speech because it is not speech.

Think of money as a number of hours a person works. A person can put 100 hours into a campaign or he can put a 100 dollars. Obviously a 100 hours is more valuable unless the person's productive potential per hour is under one dollar.

It is convenient too because a person can save up his potential is terms of money and contribute it all at once.

[Silverhandorder]

yes..

can be passed with a simple majority

for enforcement it's really simple...i'd do the same with cops or any public servant

put a webcam and mic in their office, real time to the web..for cops, in their cars and their uniforms

to touch on P-Glen's concern for the corps...they can petition the appropriate committee in Congress, and request a public hearing for their concerns and interests...any not allowed to lobby due to the restrictions i suggest are more than welcome to follow such a path

let our elected officials actually have to do their jobs in public

oh yes, and bar ALL staffers from being able to work for ANY lobby purpose for 5 years after they leave the public payroll, elected officials are forbidden to ever lobby, military follows the same rule as staffers
There is a way around all of your propositions. Criminals will break the law. If it is a corrupt official not looking out for his constituency he will do so even if you have cameras in his office. It is just easier to make it so they have well defined power. Like federal government not having the power to tell local government how to run it's industry, how to regulate it's banking and the list goes on. Does it make other problems? Yes it does. However amendment 1-10 provides every individual with enough protection to be able to defend them selves against an aggressive local/fed government.

[PirateGlen]

And I agree in spirit Pirate. But in terms of the real world the Rep is confronted with a choice of either seeing a group that has little to no money to contribute to his campaign or a group that has plenty of money to contribute. Which would he reasonably take?

Furthermore, let's say the Rep isn't corrupt in any way. He does what he honestly feels is best for his constituents specifically and for the nation, in general. Still he is looking towards re-election and needs funds. The group getting face time might have excellent points and real concerns but so might the group that has no funding. There chance of ever getting their views and opinions heard, goes way down.

I say let the incumbent do his job without having to worry about financing his next campaign. Wouldn't we at the very least get more bang for our buck?
But this is campaign finance reform, not lobbying. If you reform campaign finances you remove the bait from the lobbyist's hook. It gives opportunities for the congresspersons to examine the proposal on the merits rather than how much he stands to gain/lose in funds.

You're stepping on free speech to the ends which can be reached by other methods.

[PirateGlen]

Money is money. It is a commodity that represents your productive power. It is nothing more than how many pigs a man can raise. How many brick a man can lay. So it can't be classified as speech because it is not speech.

Think of money as a number of hours a person works. A person can put 100 hours into a campaign or he can put a 100 dollars. Obviously a 100 hours is more valuable unless the person's productive potential per hour is under one dollar.

It is convenient too because a person can save up his potential is terms of money and contribute it all at once.

You have a nasty habit of presenting false dichotomies in support of your position. The person is not limited to 100 dollars or 100 hours. He can do hundreds of hours or donate up to 2000 dollars. And he may not be able to do any hours depending on his circumstances.

Suppose he thinks someone speaks better than himself, should he not be able to pay another to speak on his behalf?

[PirateGlen]

There is a way around all of your propositions. Criminals will break the law. If it is a corrupt official not looking out for his constituency he will do so even if you have cameras in his office. It is just easier to make it so they have well defined power. Like federal government not having the power to tell local government how to run it's industry, how to regulate it's banking and the list goes on. Does it make other problems? Yes it does. However amendment 1-10 provides every individual with enough protection to be able to defend them selves against an aggressive local/fed government.

Those amendments had nothing to do with local our state governments for nearly 100 years.

It's pretty ignorant to think criminals will do the same crimes with cameras on them.

[Silverhandorder]

You have a nasty habit of presenting false dichotomies in support of your position. The person is not limited to 100 dollars or 100 hours. He can do hundreds of hours or donate up to 2000 dollars. And he may not be able to do any hours depending on his circumstances.

Suppose he thinks someone speaks better than himself, should he not be able to pay another to speak on his behalf?
Of course he can. Circumstances are none of our concern, or shouldn't be. The fact is a person should be free to do w/e he wants as long as he is not harming anyone. Me paying money to a person I want to win is not hurting anyone.

Those amendments had nothing to do with local our state governments for nearly 100 years.

It's pretty ignorant to think criminals will do the same crimes with cameras on them.

That is ignorant to say. If a local or state government violates my right to own arms the feds have to come down on it. If a local or state government comes to arrest me and does not let me face my accuser and then assigned torture for a crime of theft I can sure as hell will expect the federal government to intervene.

edit: Of course the crimes will be the same. The way they will go about fulfilling them will be off cameras negating the fact that we need cameras in the first place.

[Razel]

Airtime for politicians shouldn't have to be bought. It could be aired on pbs for example. To say its ok to buy politicians... i think you'd have to be inbred to suggest thats anywhere close to moral.

[PirateGlen]

Airtime for politicians shouldn't have to be bought. It could be aired on pbs for example. To say its ok to buy politicians... i think you'd have to be inbred to suggest thats anywhere close to moral.

Since the people own all the airwaves, I'd make the argument that they could be aired on all networks. The main issue would be in the details of how one determines who deserves air time.

[PirateGlen]

Of course he can. Circumstances are none of our concern, or shouldn't be. The fact is a person should be free to do w/e he wants as long as he is not harming anyone. Me paying money to a person I want to win is not hurting anyone.

Then how are you disputing the idea that money is free speech?


That is ignorant to say. If a local or state government violates my right to own arms the feds have to come down on it. If a local or state government comes to arrest me and does not let me face my accuser and then assigned torture for a crime of theft I can sure as hell will expect the federal government to intervene.

Try reading the amendments. They only applied to the Federal government untill the 14th amednment. And even then they have been selectively incorporated into the justice system.


edit: Of course the crimes will be the same. The way they will go about fulfilling them will be off cameras negating the fact that we need cameras in the first place.

It would be theoretically easier to prosecute if there are requirements that congresspersons keep records of their interactions with lobbyists.

[PainlessDeath]

But this is campaign finance reform, not lobbying. If you reform campaign finances you remove the bait from the lobbyist's hook. It gives opportunities for the congresspersons to examine the proposal on the merits rather than how much he stands to gain/lose in funds.

You're stepping on free speech to the ends which can be reached by other methods.

I don't believe I am, but we can agree to disagree.

[PirateGlen]

I don't believe I am, but we can agree to disagree.

Would you agree that if there is no monetary incentive for congresspersons to obey lobbyists, this would significantly reduce if not eliminate the harm caused by lobbyists?

[DocGonzo]

whew..lots of really good Stuff here, imo... Razel, it tempts me to start an online "think tank" to try and counter those that are destroying our shit to line their own pockets/gain Power...

I think the issue of campaign finance reform is being inappropriately associated with lobbying. It's not the same and shouldn't be treated the same. I don't like the idea of any restrictions on people talking because it's just talking. It should be the role of the congressperson to decide what is or is not in their constituents best interest. And one of the issues with lobbying is that there's this idea that they will not receive the same funding if they do not vote as per the requests of different interests.

But I don't think that's a good reason to prevent people from talking to eachother.

i am talking about lobbying and campaign finance at the same time, imo trying to deal with one and not the other is futile and one of the reasons all efforts so far in human history have been an abject failure... Kung Fu Shan (Confucius) came the closest so far, i think...

this also touches on Silver's objection that criminals will bypass the Law...well yes, that's why they are criminals...much of what i am objecting to is considered "legal"...see Sen Burress' current mess to scratch the surface of the scum that coats our politics

i agree that people talking to each other is good...all i am saying is that it should always be "on the Record" for everyone on the public payroll...all the time, no exceptions...for Security reasons, a reasonable amount can be stored and not released in real Time until after proper review

doing this makes ANY thing else criminal by definition and becomes an Enforcement problem for the Justice Department...but it's clear cut with the least amount of possible ambiguity and a fair level playing field where the Rules are known and all Dealings legal dealings above board in an objective manner subject to Review

a "Fair Witness" if you will (thanks, R.A.H.)

as for why money is not speech...epistemology and pretty simple...right on the money you get the Definition under our Rule of Law..."this Note is legal tender for all debts, public or private"

legal tender is not Speech in any way shape or form, the only thing even close is it's ability to settle Debt incurred from putting said Speech into media of some shape or form

this is one Razel touched on...the airwaves are Public Property...it's a fucking Sin and a large part of the problem that Candidates have to raise HUGE sums of money for media in their campaigns... legal candidates should be given equal sums of "media" credits, to use during their campaigns as they see fit...their strategy, not the size of their warchest, and the validity of their message, should be the key to their elections, imo

and Amendments 1-10 are vital, but there are plenty of Reasons the others are there as well, and they ARE the fucking Law...get over it, or get them legally repealed...but until you do, they are the Rules...

i miss anything?

[PirateGlen]

legal tender is not Speech in any way shape or form, the only thing even close is it's ability to settle Debt incurred from putting said Speech into media of some shape or form

So how does one draw the distinction between money being spent to sell a product vs money being spent to sell an issue? Why can't I spend as much as I want on airtime to convince people that the end is nigh?

[DocGonzo]

So how does one draw the distinction between money being spent to sell a product vs money being spent to sell an issue? Why can't I spend as much as I want on airtime to convince people that the end is nigh?

you as the Individual can, on the Record and as much as you want

my proposal is that those running for office get their air time (since the Public owns it) for free as part of the process...no need to raise $$ for it anymore

so those supporting a candidate can indeed spend their cash, recorded as theirs, for the candidates they can vote for...as i said, if you can legally vote, you can participate freely in any election you are able to vote in...this keeps the arena to ONLY the constituents of the Office under contention

hope that helps...

[Razel]

whew..lots of really good Stuff here, imo... Razel, it tempts me to start an online "think tank" to try and counter those that are destroying our shit to line their own pockets/gain Power...




I do sincerely hope one of you do, i'd be happy to help where i can without compromising my own position. I do think we can 'win' this thing if we get something going thats more fruitful than some random words on forumfall.

[PirateGlen]

you as the Individual can, on the Record and as much as you want

my proposal is that those running for office get their air time (since the Public owns it) for free as part of the process...no need to raise $$ for it anymore

so those supporting a candidate can indeed spend their cash, recorded as theirs, for the candidates they can vote for...as i said, if you can legally vote, you can participate freely in any election you are able to vote in...this keeps the arena to ONLY the constituents of the Office under contention

hope that helps...

So then... what prevents a candidate from outspending opponents for his own individual purposes?

[Qikdraw]

So then... what prevents a candidate from outspending opponents for his own individual purposes?

Jesus and the buring fires of hell for eternity.

[verlox2]

So then... what prevents a candidate from outspending opponents for his own individual purposes?

Nothing should. A canidate should be allowed to spend however much capital he has to use on advertisment. TV, radio, newpaper, signs on the road-side. It should be in his or her message out however he pleases.

Jesus and the buring fires of hell for eternity.

I think Moses ready to wallop him with a stick would work better.

[kylan]

Except the bottom 99.9%. Those poor bastards can suffer.

I am so fucking sick of uber-rich people who most of the time don't build shit all and inherit their secret clubs and moneys while having control over all of us common folks with their government/corporation symbiosis.

Ya. We owned you pretty good there didn't we. We like to just fuck with you poor folk and watch you struggle a bit.

Then I sneak in while your sorry ass is at work and fuck your wife.

Then I smoke a cigar and take a nap. Friday's are a bitch.

[Paralda]

You sound as if its not worth your effort. It all starts with one person, its as simple as that or as complicated as you choose to make it.

One of you on forumall can get this candle lit and here's how to do it.

Think of a name for an organization. Name it Citizens For Freedom for example. Choose a theme song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPbLrs1fQg4 This is a world wide problem as well so allow people from all over the world to participate in it. Setup a forum, make it legal organization and throw up a mission statement. There you go, simple as that. I'm sure one of you on forumfall can handle such a simple task?

Let me know who starts it and how it progresses. I'd be more than happy to participate in it as well. Go forth and 'change' something more than any politician ever will.

~Raz

Wolverines?

[Spades911]

I'm in the military, i'm sorry, but you can't stop it... Too many people.. too much money... too many people playing the game...

I just want you guys to know, as an IT in the Navy.. Our lap tops that are civilian "owned" and "operated" by a company called NMCI cost the tax payer three thousand dollars a year TO RENT a year! If someone wants to move a printer to another work station, it's not as "easy" as make it so.

You have to put in a request, it'll get approved in 6 months, (maybe), once it's approved it'll be another month until someone gets to it, and it'll just cost the tax payer over 300 dollars for someone to come over, literally move the printer from one desk, to another, throw a CD in, and install the software, pop a test page and leave.

If i wanted to take matters into my own hand, crack the password, move the printer over to the other work station, install the software and everything I need for it. My command can be fined up to ten thousand dollars for breaching contract.

We have these huge conventions on network security, yet 10 year old chinese hackers can get into our systems.

Just recently the Department of defense, banned the use of Thumb drives, since they are "easily" lost, and are easy to take information off of computers in a covert manner.

You want to know what the Department of defense didn't ban though? External hard drives, so instead of taking up to 8 gigs of information, a user can effectively copy an entire hard drive now and still put the external in their pocket. What's also quite hilarious, is that they banned the use of thumb drives in one day. So all the information that you may have had on your thumb drive, important documents, or etc. Will never be able to be seen again on your work computer, without you going home, and burning the documents you need onto a CD or a disk.

I can go on and on.... What it comes down too, is that no one gets the next rank by telling their superior that they are wrong..

If anyone has any questions i'll attempt to answer to the best of my ability, i'm out in the desert and know alot of the little retarded unclassified shit you can find out yourself by googling in the right places.

[Spades911]

worst case scenarios:

1. Civil war and most of the citizens die for nothing because the powers will still be in place.

2. The rest of the world gets pissed off enough to start nuking us, which may happen in any case.


I know its a stretch, but when it gets so bad that even the E1's see all the BS, I don't believe they'll be listening so much to their commanding officers if they were ever to order to attack their own civilian populace.

Enlisted are micro managers, many times overly emotional, base their attitude on perception not facts per say. (rough generalization), if those people see the BS, then it'll be hard to convince them to turn the gun on their own people they were sworn to protect.

That's one thing the government won't be able to do easily, the propaganda machine would have to run rampid to convince the military to kill civilians, but we know it'll probably won't be done in that fashion.

America will eventually fail (like all countries, the up's and down's), and it's sad, when we started becoming more and more socialistic, the more history i researched, the more questions I asked, the deeper I went into subjects, it all points right back to government.

It only took me 2 years in the military to see how terribly inefficient it is run. The sad part, is that the only efficient part of the military, are the people working in it.

[Razel]

Its not a hopeless cause spades. You better hope civilians give a shit, as they are the last shred of hope for you guys still 'in'. I'm one of those older soldiers which actually believe a citizen has certain duties just as a military man has to uphold the constitution. I'm retired army btw so yea i can imagine you'll see alot more waste, fraud and abuse if you hang around long.

On a point you made though, i doubt the govt would ever use the military against its own citizens, thats why they have blackwater and 50 some odd private corps to do their dirty work now. The ONLY reason they still use soldiers is because it gives them some kind of validity in wars but they are moving to completely privatising wars as well.

You'll find you'll be on a watch list after your service because of being a 'potential future terrorist', grats. The last thing the govt wants is any kind of moral convictions brought to the table.

[Spades911]

They just ended their contract with black water just recently, then again, i'm sure another merc organization (or the same) with a different name will probably take their place.

[Razel]

They just ended their contract with black water just recently, then again, i'm sure another merc organization (or the same) with a different name will probably take their place.

u has google use it but when i got out they offerd me an assload to snipe for two years, i however declined after i found blackwater had no rules so to speak and pretty much kill anything that moves including innocents when told to do so.

And to prove my point about civilians, if it had not been for a few complaining about their actions, the blackwater name would still be around however yes there are many that are still there and will gladly fulfill their contracts regardless of what name they are using today.

What it comes down too, is that no one gets the next rank by telling their superior that they are wrong..


I disagree 100 percent. I won't brag too much but i always had a pair of balls and spine when i was in and i was the last one standing on every occasion regardless of someones rank. That was however back when there were true leaders too before they started letting in anything that crawled from a gutter. How did i win my battles with 'superiors', i simply told the truth and stood up for myself without backing down.

those that fell on their faces during the process were

a corporal
3 sgts
1 first sargeant
1 sargeant major
a major, and one colonel.

I will say it again. The only way to beat anything with the establishment is by moral convictions and true leadership. Get enough citizens together with those standards and anything can be accomplished. Guns and violence is not the answer but will be a consequence if you don't do the right thing.

[Spades911]

In my chain of command, anyone who is E7 and above can get away with almost anything short of murder... (In the Navy E7 is basically officer status, they wear similiar uniforms and instead of a bar or star, it's an anchor)

I'm an IT, so I see all the dirt, I do the "dirt" reports. I've been at this one command for 3 years, I see people going to mast for being late to work (a couple hours), nothing else attached. He even called in prior to let them know (he had a big fight with his wife).

He got 60 days restricition, and 60 days half pay...

We have a O4 in bahrain who married another wife (he has two now, he had a wife in the states with 2 kids, and a Thai wife in Bahrain, no divorces, no anything). His Thai wife runs a prositute ring in Bahrain, they bring new girls from Thai (big felony here) he helps fund it all with his money and hers. The command turned a blind eye, until a warrent officer (in the Navy a warrent officer is only taken from the enlisted ranks, you can't just "become" a warrent), called him out on it, he went insane and talked shit to him in public.

The command only gets the O4 for "conduct un-becoming a gentlemen", an officer clause as you and I can see. The CO turned a blind eye, and placed him at another command for 4 months (because everyone knew), and then he transfered.


That is just one example... No matter how right you are, if you screw with the O4s and above in the Navy atleast, they'll watch each others backs all the way up to O5, the O6's and below have relieved some captains, but in the same manner in which our commands O4 was removed...

You may have had some badass experinces curb slamming people in the army, but I know for fact, that if i brought up something to my chain of command (I'm an E5), that it'll just depend on what rank he is, and thats the way it is (atleast now), in almost all branchs. The shit that happens out in Afghanistan and Iraq as you and I both know probably, is ridiculous..

But hey, different experineces, I wish I was in the service when you were..

[Monkeyninja]

Could get everyone to play darkfall, and either kill themselfs out of frustration or grind forever and ever and eveeeeeeerrrr. Im sure some would be able to break free and create a race of super robot to enslave/harvest our orgains to fuel there own evil robot version of darkfall though. So kinda a lose lose i guess.:ohno:

[Razel]

But hey, different experineces, I wish I was in the service when you were..

Just because time has passed doesn't mean we should throw out our principles or accept immorality as comfortable. People have become so scared to stand up for themselves or utter the word freedom its pathetic. I'm truly ashamed of the citizens for not standing for what they know is right and just. No one country has cornered the market on cowardice, we're all guilty. Where are the true leaders anymore? All we have are those which alternate their stances like paragraphs on a teleprompter.

[Spades911]

I'm not being a defeatest here... I know full well that things can change, when the Texas governer brought up ceding from the Union, I hope it would happen, and I would try to be the first person to sign up for the Texas military.. I loved it when everyone in the news media was saying how it was "treason".

Anything can happen... the constitution gave us the right to bear arms so that we can "force" things to happen.. The problem is, it's not "bad" enough yet for the average joe blow to step up.

I do believe that time is coming however...

[Razel]

You'll not 'force' the govt with weapons to do anything, you of all people should know that. You'll never hear me condone violence. The only way to have 'change' imo is taking the moral high ground. Any morality what-so-ever by the citizens will be far more than is displayed by the govt and is their greatest fear.

The real question is will citizens stand up for themselves as a group before some rogue country blows the fuck out of us, say... north korea, iran, china, russia etc. Even then what would someone dropping a nuke on us do? It really wouldnt change anything imo other than have a few people replaced to continue business as usual.

Remember that changing a few people without changing the policies is worthless.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Lots of good points all around.

- money is not speech
- campaign finance and lobbying are indeed separate but related

To touch on a few:

- public airways: every candidate should have a specific allotment of airtime across all networks for free as part of the networks FCC license; every candidate will participate in debates; the air time should be simultaneous and run back to back

- only individuals can make contributions and the amount is severely limited; i disagree w/ allowing unlimited individual funding for ads and the like, you still empower wealth and money becomes speech; require tax documentation for contributions be sent to the donors similar to a 1099 and make them tax deductible. Everyone will want their deductions so the campaign will be forced to declare appropriately.

- you can only contribute to those who would represent you

- term limits: it should not be a career

- no retirement plan: it's not a career

- no special insurance: it's not a career

- remove the perks: you are serving you country; how about some sacrifice just like the people you send to die in war

- same goes for staffers

- cameras seem a little extreme: i'd rather see individuals (constituents) given assured access and allow only constituents to have access; if you can't present your case well, find someone who agrees and can, not someone you have to pay

[DocGonzo]

ok...as for the perks...

the argument FOR them is that it helps to remove the need for corruption, if you make decent money, have benefits...a retirement, then you would not need the favors/jobs/gifts/cash that corruption brings

is it the right approach? i don't know...but something to be looked at for certain

as for unlimited money from the candidate themselves or a contributing individual...

my contention is that EVERY PENNY is recorded and made public, so if Jon D'oh get $10 million from a single contributor, everyone knows who bought him...if he gets elected, then obviously his constituents have agreed, if he spends his own money...same thing applies

just a Thought...

[StainlessSteelRat]

ok...as for the perks...

the argument FOR them is that it helps to remove the need for corruption, if you make decent money, have benefits...a retirement, then you would not need the favors/jobs/gifts/cash that corruption brings

is it the right approach? i don't know...but something to be looked at for certain

as for unlimited money from the candidate themselves or a contributing individual...

my contention is that EVERY PENNY is recorded and made public, so if Jon D'oh get $10 million from a single contributor, everyone knows who bought him...if he gets elected, then obviously his constituents have agreed, if he spends his own money...same thing applies

just a Thought...

I have no problem w/ them being adequately paid. That should be enough though. A retirement plan won't be necessary if you are only employed less than 10 years. 401Ks are available to anyone. They can buy blue cross health insurance just like the rest of us.

As far as Jon D'oh goes, I wouldn't have a problem w/ that if it weren't for our ignorant electorate. People may know (if they decide to look) who bought candidate X, but the buying doesn't stop w/ the candidates. The money being spent is effectively buying votes buy 'getting their message' out louder and more often than the other guys.

I'd rather equal airtime and let Jon D'oh donate as much of his time as he likes.

[DocGonzo]

I have no problem w/ them being adequately paid. That should be enough though.

As far as Jon D'oh goes, I wouldn't have a problem w/ that if it weren't for our ignorant electorate. People may know (if they decide to look) who bought candidate X, but the buying doesn't stop w/ the candidates. The money being spent is effectively buying votes buy 'getting their message' out louder and more often than the other guys.

I'd rather equal airtime and let Jon D'oh donate as much of his time as he likes.

sorry if i wasn't clear...this is going on the philosophy established that ALL the candidates get equal airtime and cannot spend funds on the public airwaves...but must live with their equal portion...they can spend it as they see fit for their strategic purposes

no, this money is about all the rest of the campaign except radio/tv...and yes, in our capitalist hybrid society it still is kind of "let the buyer beware", if a candidate can fool his constituents..he gets the job

now, if he keeps it is another thing all together

one thing i missed laying out in my rules for this previously...there is NO re-election campaign for incumbents - they get their media time like the rest of the candidates, but that is it

also, drawing the lines for districts and the rest...no more gerrymandering - ask MIT to write up a program taking in the census data for people, the physical map of the nation (down to streets, county lines etc)...and this program would draw the districts after every official census...period

that keeps in line with the Constitution, and removes any possibility of incumbent gerrymandering...another BIG fucking problem of our system

[StainlessSteelRat]

Yeah, I suppose I could agree w/ that. At least as a start to see how things progressed.

one thing i missed laying out in my rules for this previously...there is NO re-election campaign for incumbents - they get their media time like the rest of the candidates, but that is it

This seems a little unfair. But I'd give it a shot as well.

also, drawing the lines for districts and the rest...no more gerrymandering - ask MIT to write up a program taking in the census data for people, the physical map of the nation (down to streets, county lines etc)...and this program would draw the districts after every official census...period

that keeps in line with the Constitution, and removes any possibility of incumbent gerrymandering...another BIG fucking problem of our system

Huge yes here. Oldest, cheapist trick in the book for incumbent majorities. (And used by both.)

I always tend toward the 'throwing the baby out w/ the bath water' when it comes to dysfunctional gov't. If less extreme measures work, that's all that matters to me. ;)

[Razel]

sooo yea , blah blah fuken blah, anyone going to start up an organization or must i do everything myself as always?

[StainlessSteelRat]

sooo yea , blah blah fuken blah, anyone going to start up an organization or must i do everything myself as always?

I'm too cynical, never got elected class President. You do it. :P

On a serious note though, the fact that we, of forumfall, have reached a consensus on the general need for change if not in the specifics is quite telling.

[Qikdraw]

On a serious note though, the fact that we, of forumfall, have reached a consensus on the general need for change if not in the specifics is quite telling.

Telling? Not really. When you get right down to it and both sides have an honest discussion without talking points I've found there is a lot to agree on.

I used to work at one construction site where one of the builder reps was hard core republican and when we would talk politics he would start off with talking points, then he'd get serious. We found a lot of common ground.

I think everyone can agree that our politicians are out for themselves and their moneyed masters, we're just unsure how to change the system when the system is controlled by the corrupt.

[Qikdraw]

I have no problem w/ them being adequately paid. That should be enough though. A retirement plan won't be necessary if you are only employed less than 10 years. 401Ks are available to anyone. They can buy blue cross health insurance just like the rest of us.


A couple of questions here...

How long do you have to be a senator or congressman until you get full retirement?

Has anyone heard of 'kiting'? (spelling may be off) My neighbour claims that if you're in the senate or congress you can take out 0% interest loans, and are under no pressure to pay them back.

I donno if anyone has been looking at the dustup in England about the expense claims their MPs have been making. Porn videos and the like. Apparently there are all kinds of things they have been expensing, and all perfectly legal. Do we have anything similair here?

[Razel]

I'm too cynical, never got elected class President. You do it. :P

On a serious note though, the fact that we, of forumfall, have reached a consensus on the general need for change if not in the specifics is quite telling.

It is indeed. I'd personally rather not commit a major role in this simply because it puts me in a compromising situation. It would however be very easy to get off the ground.

I'd be more than happy to participate as mentioned previously however i'm not great with words if you haven't guessed already. I'm a good leader with a very large baseball bat and have an ability to bring people together if provoked and can offer oversight.

My only concern with an organization or 'think tank' of this nature is that the founders of which be held to the highest of moral standards seeking sound change in a proper way while keeping the big picutre in mind. I do believe it should also have world wide participation as it is a global problem.

Whats disappointing... is that with all these bright young people around, everyone seems to lazy, or don't wish to put forth the effort for whatever reasons. Must you all be followers?

[StainlessSteelRat]

A couple of questions here...

How long do you have to be a senator or congressman until you get full retirement?


There is no gov't funded retirement plan. 2 term limits and gtfo. Make your own 401K.

[Qikdraw]

There is no gov't funded retirement plan. 2 term limits and gtfo. Make your own 401K.

Two term limits? I think you're wrong in that. What about Sen Robert Byrd who had 9 terms? There are term limits on some things, but not on senate or congress. (I don't think, unless some states impose limits themselves)

Plus I found an article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-07-dayton-pension_x.htm?csp=34) that a one term senator was going to get a senate pension plan.

[PirateGlen]

Two term limits? I think you're wrong in that. What about Sen Robert Byrd who had 9 terms? There are term limits on some things, but not on senate or congress. (I don't think, unless some states impose limits themselves)

Plus I found an article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-04-07-dayton-pension_x.htm?csp=34) that a one term senator was going to get a senate pension plan.

This is what he wants, not what exists.