Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Old 26th Jan 2011, 06:33
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 809
Jane-DOH

Its my impression that the panel is "supposed" to make judgments on their guilt, much like a jury or panel judges if choose to opt out of the jury system.

Its my impression that armed forces personnel take their duty seriously, and to imply that they would convict someone even if they new they where innocent is a slight towards them.

There are bad ones, just as there are in civy street, same as there are crooked judges etc. The only real difference is the rules of evidence from what I can see. This compensates for the perps being caught in places which are not conducive to normal criminal evidence collection.

I would love to see a copper trudging though the mountains of Afganistan with there little finger print kit.
rh200 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 12:28
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 62
Posts: 1,463
Jane:

I was about to respond to:-

On the other hand: Taking people, jailing them indefinitely without right to counsel or any means to challenge their detention (which was common practice at Guantanamo bay, and has been ruled as unconstitutional, is now being done at Bagram), then putting them through a kangaroo-court proceeding to ensure a conviction regardless of actual guilt is a morally repulsive process; it is a process that should be abandoned.
But I see that rh200 has quite adequately addressed my concerns with:-

it seems you don't have much respect for the men and woman who choose to put their lives on the line for you.
I believe that everyone here, serving and ex, will be equally insulted by your implication that they would not do their utmost to ensure that your "Kangaroo Court" would be carried out in such a fashion as to uphold the honour and integrity of the Armed Forces.
Airborne Aircrew is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 13:28
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 80
Posts: 63
Thumbs up arguments without wheels, slip sliding on that 'slippery slope'

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Conventional war requires sovereign states fighting each other with organized forces that follow those written conventions cited above. Al Queda chooses to NOT subscribe to any of those conventions, they are not a sovereign state. Having failed to qualify as soldiers, they forfeit their protections.<---------- Having unilaterally declared war on the West, they cannot be criminals,-----------> as they are not violating criminal statutes, they are committing acts of war and targeting civilians.
Cicero would have called them a scourge against humanity and had them hanged summarily. We should have the same moral courage and clarity*.
wwwheeeeeee! get your "Jet Blasted Argument Roller Coaster (tm) today!"



Notwistanding the obvious question, as in "Who the **** is Cicero and why should we care what he called what?" but we already did that "Moral Clarity/Summary Hanging" thing back in the "Good Olde Days" when we hanged nigras, Injuns and rustlers alike, all from the same tree,by golly!
Ahhh, when EveryMan had his woman, (and every woman was a Colt45! yeehaw!)
tailstrikecharles is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 15:03
  #364 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
simples

Maybe not. There is a creepy element to the "action" overseas. No War exists, yet we use our sworn men and women to pursue and kill people who technically are merely "Plotting" to kill us. More like a group of would be Hinckleys than an army, plotting insane attacks is vile, but unless and until they occur in our Homeland, one very real question remains. Failing a Flag, and acting without identifying characteristics as the "enemy" does, gives our military incredible latitude to decide tactics, weaponry and other rather important and lethal considerations. Drones, House to House, etc. It is especially alarming that we/they have established a freefloating zone of terror that has petrified entire cities. The "Buzz Bomb" for instance was not ballistically successful, but created a terror quotient people to this day will speak of with fear. The Stuka had a menacing Siren on it to terrify those it did not directly kill.

It is a question of Scale as well as strategy. It is increasingly difficult to identify the ones we eliminate overseas such that any success at prevention of Homeland terror is prevented. The Nexus was always tentative. In different ways, we embarrass our fighting Men and Women by our need to constantly package and promote our very presence in disputed territories.

We need, as before, to get the US Citizen on board, or risk allowing neo-McNamaras to personally direct our Trillion Dollar Defense machine. As we migrate Easterly, it is looking like one goal may be to isolate China from any Southward aspirations. Fighting indigenous people, partisan and neutral alike, is not without comparison in our History. We embarrass ourselves, and our entire Country, in the subterfuge of "Protecting our Homeland" with our "Projection of Power" in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Old 26th Jan 2011, 15:14
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 69
Posts: 554
I get up at 5 am each morning and Senora Lars is not long after me and is getting the kids ready for school.

I was drinking my coffee and watching the State of the Union Speech.

Our 5 year old said:

"Daddy, that man talking too much".

Fighting indigenous people, partisan and neutral alike, is not without comparison in our History.
Indeed, Sir.

One of the longest wars in the history of the USA was when it decided to conquer the place I call home.
larssnowpharter is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 15:29
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
As a effort to explain libertarian political thought, The Stranger gies far

What do you call a man you never met?* A stranger.

What are you morally forbidden to do to a stranger?* You may not murder him.* You may not attack him.* You may not enslave him.* Neither may you rob him.

What are you morally required to do for a stranger?* Not much.* Even if he seems hungry and asks you for food, you're probably within your rights to refuse.* If you've ever been in a large city, you've refused to help the homeless on more than one occasion.* And even if you think you broke your moral obligation to give, your moral obligation wasn't strong enough to let the beggar justifiably mug you.

Notice: These common-sense ethics regarding strangers, ethics that almost everyone admits, are unequivocally libertarian.* Yes, you have an obligation to leave strangers alone, but charity is optional.

One last question: What fraction of your "fellow citizens" have you actually met?* Virtually zero.* The vast majority of your countrymen are, in fact, utter strangers to you.*** When you tell your kid "Don't take rides from strangers," you don't make an exception for anyone who happens to share your citizenship.* Modern government - and most of political philosophy - is just a massive effort to pretend otherwise.

The point of the pretense is twofold.* First, to make unjustified demands on some strangers' behalf: You're going to help the American elderly, the American poor, and the American sick whether you like it or not.* Second, to help us forget our basic obligation to leave all strangers alone: We've never met you before, but you still owe us.*

When libertarians say things like this, people ridicule them as cold and cruel.* But they're just dodging the issue.* Even staunch anti-libertarians would be baffled if a homeless man announced, "Give me my money!" instead of asking "Spare change?"* After all, the beggar is a stranger.* All the libertarian is pointing out is that your other "fellow citizens" are strangers, too.* You're not cold and cruel when you refuse to help; they're being pushy and totalitarian when they refuse to take no for an answer.
GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 15:52
  #367 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
galaxy flyer

Thank you for that. I'll match my "cold and cruel" (as if) against any effort to order me to do anything I decide to (not) do. The Constitution was written by assertive individualists, to a man, woman, unapologetic.

The greatest American Irony is the Bastardization of the word "Liberal". By and large it (accurately) describes people who are not Liberal, except in their willingness to obligate others to do what they themselves refuse to do. Even though they do "do", they have no claim to arrogate unto themselves the power to obligate others. Here, one must certainly include Republicans with the Democrats, for it is the wielding of power for its own sake that is the scourge, not the false "label" the Puppet is dressed in. The enemy is the "Statist", the "Bureaucrat"; they produce nothing of any value whatever, and in arrogating the People's power, they Steal, War, and pervert the Integrity of our Nation on a daily basis.

They (sic) "should" on themselves and others when they imply a course of unquantifiable action. Suffice to say it is they who refuse to define the "Should". Better it remain "squishy" so they must constantly be "consulted" as to what to "do". For it is not the action they demand, but the definition of it, and the resultant 'Power' that enures to their group in its "explanation". War on "Poverty", War on "Drugs", "Transparency", "Hope", "Change", "Healthcare Reform". WRITE the Laws AFTER they ennable them with a Blanket power to DO "What we Say". etc. Make no mistake, TARP, Stimulus, Healthcare were all Laws that ennabled the Executive to act in ways the Desk felt "Necessary". It is all Tyranny, one way or the other.

bear

Last edited by bearfoil; 26th Jan 2011 at 16:17.
 
Old 26th Jan 2011, 15:54
  #368 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
lars

Occasionally, the only thing Americans as a people do better than other people besides warring is forgetting. This Middle Eastern crap is ongoing since WW1 and before. We never Learn, only forget. See for me, it is not relevant, particularly, whether 9/11 was perpetrated by whomever, or the Spanish American War, or WW2. It is critical though, to find out who "the Enemy" truly is. If we need to have a look at 'ourselves', no matter. It occurs to me that offenses against my Country have sourced from within from time to time. How would most of us know? That is the question, for most of us are satisfied with Data that is spoon fed to us via Print, or TV. There's a pair to draw to.

bear

Last edited by bearfoil; 26th Jan 2011 at 16:19.
 
Old 26th Jan 2011, 16:37
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 69
Posts: 554
Thanks for that Bear and you demonstrate your argument most beautifully.

the only thing Americans as a people do better than other people besides warring is forgetting
I was actually thinking of the Philippine American War when I wrote those words!
larssnowpharter is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 17:03
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 80
Posts: 63
Thumbs up I suppose it was BOUND TO HAPPEN, EVENTUALLY

Originally Posted by bearfoil View Post
For it is not the action they demand, but the definition of it, and the resultant 'Power' that enures to their group in its "explanation". War on "Poverty", War on "Drugs", "Transparency", "Hope", "Change", "Healthcare Reform". WRITE the Laws AFTER they ennable them with a Blanket power to DO "What we Say". etc. Make no mistake, TARP, Stimulus, Healthcare were all Laws that ennabled the Executive to act in ways the Desk felt "Necessary". It is all Tyranny, one way or the other.

bear
I suppose it was bound to happen, eventually, that amongst all the medieval dictionary-page flipping verse, should come something surprisingly simply said -yet profound (I say this not just because I mostly agree)

Particularly striking and cause for pause, concern and strident cries from our then as now, silent press, the clauses of Tarp which not only forbade all scrutiny in the present, but future as well, for the monetary actions and disbursements made. One could argue exigent circumstances, emergency - but even Generals and privates alike, on the most exigent of playing fields a fast flowing battlefield may find themselves subject to inspection or even censure. Not here for OUR financial generals, no!

It's definitely as Bear outlined.. the POWER is IN the definition.. to make the slope, then keep it slippery. To be fair, some ambiguity of definition is inescable in complex legislation and much of or system IS designed that way, in a vague 'fill in the blanks/details' as we go along, with some details filled in via judicial interpretation (some would say intervention) by the courts.

As for the Healthcare reform part of it, I part ways with the Bear, but only just.. I recognize that the system as it was was untenable - it bleeds us dry. Being forced to PAY INSURANCE? I already DO and through the orifice. Is the law(s) in Healthcare reform the perfect stage? No. However, it is better than the status quo. Certain components in law NECESSITATE CERTAIN OTHER THINGS, SOME OF WHICH WE MAY NOT LIKE.

If we decree that NO INNOCENT MAN BE PUT TO DEATH, we necessarily take the chance of giving a worthy sob life in prison.

We say as Americans, that if a man is found injured, bleeding and shot, and he is taken to a hospital, he shall receive the very best of care possible to save his life, without interrogating of his race, ability to pay, status in this country or residency. We say we will do this, no matter what the cost - Indeed it could be that any one of us could be set upon by robbers, say, and find our way to a healing place.

But who pays? who pays for this magical world? And when?
If ALL pay (yes, taxed) then the actual cost is reduced. Or shall we spend our money to our own enjoyment, confident that the cost will not come, or that if it does, another's coin shall be spent?

@GF tempted tho i was, I'll take up that "stranger babble rubbish" another time!
tailstrikecharles is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 17:40
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,470
From post #332.
Of course the whole world cannot be considered a battlefield (Obama has made such an assertion -- even on US territory); it has to actually be in a war-zone, or a zone of conflict.
Yes, it can. Your assertion of "cannot" is how you wish it were, not how things are.

You appear to have absolutely no idea how war has, on its own, transformed since 1945. That you try to shoehorn it into your own desired reality doesn't change reality.

For extranational actors, the battlefield is wherever they can accomplish something that achieves their ends. That makes the entire world their warzone, and as such, leaves no part of the earth's surface, and bits below that, safe.

Until you grasp that, since technology has made so many things possible in the past few decades, I don't think you'll understand war in the year 2011 and beyond.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:59
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 80
Posts: 63
Grasp this!

Until you grasp that, since technology has made so many things possible in the past few decades, I don't think you'll understand war in the year 2011 and beyond
whats there to grasp?

Just because an area is a POTENTIAL venue for war options does NOT make it a 'battlefield'. I should think not, lest I post armed guards at Uranus to prevent Al Qaeda massing there (as they undoubtedly are, since something seems to have gotten you perturbed

The word i believe you are looking for, is THEATRE
tailstrikecharles is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 22:43
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,598
Lars,

Some of us know where the PI is....I did two years there as did my Grand Dad....me in 1982-4 and Grand Pap in 1898-1900. He was nominated for the Medal of Honor for his service while I got a library card. The American attempt at being a Colonial power did not fare well in the Philippines but we did remain somewhat friendly despite the bloody start to the relationship.
SASless is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 23:57
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
TSC

Go ahead, take it up now. Here's an example:

I have a good job, have remained married and built a house and savings for retirement, volunteered for the local fire department. My neighbor has spawned several children, now grown. He has had a checkered job history, losing several due to his hot temper, limited education, and lack of discipline in showing up. One of his children is serving time for a drug trafficking conviction. The town has recently passed an ordinance titled, "Taking Care Of Our Own". It says that those town folk earning more than three times the median income will have to do 10 hours of service to the less fortunate and contribute 10% of their income, after other taxes, to their neighbor's welfare.

Several weeks after the ordinance's passage, the town collector and a police officer comes to visit. The Collector says I must do 5 hours a week to maintain this neighbor's house and yard. My wife has to cook 5 hot meals week to aid in their nutrition. Also, based on my income I owe them $1,000 per month, payable to the town.

Do you think this ordinance is legal and justified? If so, why? If not, why is taxing me a similar portion of my income is, in fact, legal to support current welfare programs.

I think putting the welfare state in personal terms should clarify exactly what the government is doing? And, perhaps, might make the currently wasteful system more efficient. It dearly needs this kind of reflection shone, lest we become Greece. How's that working?

GF

PS You put stranger babble rubbish in quotes, did my post use those words anywhere?
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 01:04
  #375 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
rh200

Its my impression that armed forces personnel take their duty seriously
Many of them do

There are bad ones, just as there are in civy street, same as there are crooked judges etc.
That's the problem. The people who sit on these commissions are hand-picked, you think Bush and Cheney, or Obama would be above picking a person who they knew would deliver the verdict they wanted?


bearfoil

it is the wielding of power for its own sake that is the scourge, not the false "label" the Puppet is dressed in. The enemy is the "Statist", the "Bureaucrat"; they produce nothing of any value whatever, and in arrogating the People's power, they Steal, War, and pervert the Integrity of our Nation on a daily basis.
I can't argue with that

Occasionally, the only thing Americans as a people do better than other people besides warring is forgetting.
Sadly, that is largely the case. We're the United States of Amnesia.


Lonewolf 50

Yes, it can.
My point was this: I think if we can capture a terrorist on US soil, they should have the right to a trial as we have historically tried terrorists.


BandAide

We just need a lot more unmanned aerospace vehicles and intelligence on the ground to patrol the vast reaches where they generate their numbers, identify the targets, and pick them off. We also need to develop better ways to sort them from among us and surreptitiously eliminate them.
And do you propose doing this on US soil too? If so, what's to prevent the US government from using this to identify, sort-out, and surreptitiously eliminate people who are not true threats (terrorists), but simply people the government doesn't like (critics, whistleblowers, protestors, and dissidents)?
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 01:10
  #376 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
TSC

Healthcare and Health Insurance are mutually exclusive. They are at odds one with the other, to wit: Insurance is a for profit venture, and the Government must not compete.

No indemnified population can be insured by one Vendor, the tables prove that to make a profit, the provision of Care must be reduced to make room for it. Hence "Government Insurance" is absurd. Absent the mercantile's requirement for profit, the Government becomes the best candidate for "Payor". Eliminating profit from something that is required for the benefit of the Nation, means almost all the collected taxes go to the providers. No longer do Insurors scrimp and stall to the detriment of clients, in the name of Healthcare. It is obscene on its face to allow Insurance companies to decide something as important as Medical care. Single Payor is the solution.

Now as to Obamacare, We hear the argument that the Insurance companies must relinquish the "field" to the Government by 2014. First, though, 35 million as of now uninsureds must purchase a policy from a Company licensed to "practice" (sic).

So Obamacare has the Pirates on the run all right, but in the meantime, Barry and Pelosi have written law that provides these bastards with 35 million new clients. Sure runnin' scared, No?

Read for depth, the Gub does not have our interests at Heart, they simply don't.
 
Old 27th Jan 2011, 01:23
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 809
That's the problem. The people who sit on these commissions are hand-picked, you think Bush and Cheney, or Obama would be above picking a person who they knew would deliver the verdict they wanted?
Maybe, maybe not, but I'm pretty sure they want guilty people convicted and innocent ones p$ssed off, to much bad pr. Any way I don't think the Pres and vice get to choose, and anyway I believe that the defence lawyers can protest.

On the other side of the coin the use of civilian trials make it orders of magnitude harder to convict due to evidence collection and how the person was caught. Hence there's a vastly greater chance of them getting off, even if guilty.
rh200 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 01:39
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 80
Posts: 63
Thumbs up Playing with balls (ROE? or Soccer?)

@GF I referred to "Stranger babble rubbish" because of this -
As a effort to explain libertarian political thought, The Stranger gies far

Quote:
What do you call a man you never met?* A stranger.

What are you morally forbidden to do to a stranger?* You may not murder him.* You may not attack him.* You may not enslave him.* Neither may you rob him.

What are you morally required to do for a stranger?* Not much.* Even if he seems hungry and asks you for food, you're probably within your rights to refuse.* If you've ever been in a large city, you've refused to help the homeless on more than one occasion.* And even if you think you broke your moral obligation to give, your moral obligation wasn't strong enough to let the beggar justifiably mug you.
The quote starts off with a fallacy then rolls on happily from there, shifting the rubric of its logic mid quote

Is a stranger "a stranger" simply because you have never "met him/her" - of course, we can juggle the definition of "meet", but if you are a pilot and known to me as such, then you are no 'stranger' to me but a brother, similarly for any squid or marine who's paths cross mine.
If in a strange land, then if you have that Eagle on your passport then you are no stranger either, met you -or not. On those grounds to me at least, the quote starts with bullshit.

but it goes on - "If a stranger asks you for food - you are probably within your rights to refuse"
Within your rights yes, but the quote started off by talking about MORALS. Morally, to have food available and deny it to one who is hungry (and there is no indication that such generosity would subject you to real or imagined harm or loss) then that to me is....well, lets say we define "morality" in the Judeo-christian "Ten Commandments" way...love thy Neighbor as thyself?

I tried to read the rest of it, honest I did! -but even as my eyes opened, my mind glazed over at yet another piece of forum filling cut-and-paste bullshit.

so on to the next.

Your hypothetical (i guess) Town and it's "Ordinance".

Well written, it couches you in glowing terms, using all the right code words remained married A dig no doubt at the carnal couplings and uncouplings plaguing our land!
A volunteer fire fighter! (not a volunteer cop whom it can be inferred is on an authority trip) -thumbs up!

The Neighbor (or evil protagonist) is not so lucky. While your child bearing status is unknown in this story, (you no doubt remaining honorably chaste even after your vows), the cur next door has SPAWNED offspring? No doubt a litter, the offspring of curs!
His offspring, unsurprisingly are similarly dregs of humanity - how they ever managed to become your neighbor and lower your property values is the scourge of deeded communities everywhere!

Do you think this ordinance is legal and justified? If so, why? If not, why is taxing me a similar portion of my income is, in fact, legal to support current welfare programs.
The quick, and perhaps easy answer (however trite) is NO, its a f--king HYPOTHETICAL it's not real, so it's fairness or legality (or lack of either/both) is moot!

HOWEVER

Let's argue, in a devil's advocate sort of way, that these homes are 10 million dollar homes (our miscreant may have earned his via inheritance, and, thanks to no Estate Tax, was able to move in, rather than sell his easy gains!)

Lets say, that allowing THIS property to fail, would have brought down values on ALL the properties. Lets say also that the resulting equity loss was unacceptable to the residents, so democratic and responsible people that they were, they put out a Public Notice and, in accordance with all Laws and Bylaws, held a binding vote 30 days later, a vote btw, you did not attend, neither did you attend any of the public hearings on the matter since (and this is all hypothetical mind you), you were a "faux libertarian pompous ass with no time for this rubbish"

The vote was just able to attain it's 60 percent majority and passed. Since all proceedings were in compliance with the laws, then the new law is LEGAL AND BINDING.

But we know that you are no volunteer fireman, and that there is no ordinance. It is also similarly likely that you are NOT a pompous ass, hypothetically or otherwise.

Tis all a question about TAXES and the use to which our tax dollars are put - uses we may well disagree.
Well, there is an avenue for your grievance(s).

You have the courts, your lobbying powers and your ballot(s)
However, you elect representative and govt to act on your behalf and also on behalf of the country as a whole.
You may not agree with the Property Tax that funds schools, or the 4cents per gallon that supports public transportation or roads (if you are housebound, how galling!)
Still, it is the cost, part and parcel of CIVILIZATION.

As we grow, up, realize we cant farm AND weave our own clothes and build our own muskets, we band together specialize and DELEGATE others to perform some of these functions on our behalf and at our pleasure. It is called, among other things government.
Grow up and deal with it!
tailstrikecharles is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 02:17
  #379 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
rh200

On the other side of the coin the use of civilian trials make it orders of magnitude harder to convict due to evidence collection and how the person was caught. Hence there's a vastly greater chance of them getting off, even if guilty.
I don't know why everybody mocks the Federal Courts in their ability to convict terrorists. In fact, either yesterday or today, a federal court succeeded in convicting a GITMO detainee, and imposing life imprisonment.

Success for the U.S. Courts: Gitmo Detainee Sentenced to Life in Prison - Andrew Cohen - National - The Atlantic

I think we should return to the rule of law, rather than proceed with this lawless kangaroo-court nonsense. May I remind all of you a quote stated during a military commission proceeding (stated by a USAF Colonel who presided over the Commission):
"I don’t care about international law. I don’t want to hear the words ‘international law’ again. We are not concerned about international law.”

Last edited by Jane-DoH; 27th Jan 2011 at 02:37.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2011, 02:26
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
First, your proposition that we are all friends and no one is a stranger is just lefty, liberal blather. The pilot who passes me at an FBO is a stranger, being another pilot doesn't make him a "brother". "Brother"is a term used in the Army and the Fire Service, but doesn't refer to people with tenuous connections. I was a volunteer firefighter for 10 years by the way, can you do friction loss calculations for 3 inch hose on your head? Apparently, loving thy neighbor doesn't apply to Mr. Obama and his brother. In any case, I don't see any moral obligation to help a stranger on the street in no apparent danger. Yes, in serious distress, hunger, or physical danger, morality demands assistance. Legally, however, almost certainly not. This state of distress almost never applies in modern welfare states.

If supporters of socialist welfare states, as you are, are so concerned about the indigent, why do you not support open immigration? Why so much support for unions that oppose immigration? Since all Americans are in World's top 1% of the income distribution, we should all be taxed to help the truly needy. A billion people living on one dollar a day would love to enter the EU or the USA and work.

Next, yes we band together to form societies, societies based on voluntary exchanges of goods and services called free markets. I quite agree that taxes pay for some civilization for the good of everyone. Schooling makes for a more productive and richer future; police makes everyone's property and rights safer and when they fail courts can adjudicate crimes and civil torts; military protects the society from outsiders who would commit war to steal our property. It goes on and a complex modern society needs government. We don't need government to reward bad behavior or provide "services" that we would not voluntarily purchase by taxation.

Marriage is a key indicator of economic success- children do better with two parents, household income is better, something society should reward.

Ok, I give up, what was your hypothetical law passed to deal with the failing house? if you mean my hypothetical, it is wrong.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.