Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Evil Baby · Feb 20, 2004, 11:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)

I don't think anybody here has an issue with the US having the largest army in the world . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I do.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Sorry.

However I think it's fair to assume most don't have a problem, at least those allied with the US.

Evil Baby · Feb 20, 2004, 11:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)

What alternative? No one running for office is offering them a choice.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That would be because there is not enough of a demand for that alternative or somebody would run on that premis. How many people in this world lust for power, and what more powerful position is there then the US president?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Nice wishful thinking. No, it's because there is only one ruling party. It is composed of two rival factions separated only by partisan rhetoric. When it comes down to actually making war, enforcing laws, the leaders of the two parties get together and generally do it consistent with what is good for politicians themselves, their friends, their corporate patrons, the bureaucracy, and their party faithful. They have no inclination whatsoever to bow to the wishes of the people, and when the vote goes against the interests of the rulers, they just get a judge to reverse the election, or simply ignore it. They will tolerate no serious alternative to their policy of mass extortion, war, and corruption.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Would you agree that it is because there is no real opposition to these two factions?

Why is there no real opposition?
Possibly because the American public does not wish to stray too far from what the two parties fight for.

mlingley · Feb 21, 2004, 12:03 am

The public isn't exposed to any of these issues in the American media. If we are given a third party candidate the media pumps it into our heads that they are unelectable. They aren't able to participate in debates, and no real issues ever get discussed. Every channel on television pumps out the same garbage over and over again and basically brainwashes the public into getting behind either the Democrats or the Republicans. They are both equally corrupt and supported by corporations like Enron, GE, Halliburton, Ect...

GE owns NBC and is also one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the U.S. So it's in their best interest to propogate war.

The more things get centralized the worse it's going to get in the U.S.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 21, 2004, 12:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)

Would you agree that it is because there is no real opposition to these two factions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Actually, there is always opposition to at least one or both of those two sub-cults. The only reason 80,000,000 armed Americans don't kick the bastards off the continent is because the propaganda is working to keep most of them squabbling amongst one another, rather than identifying their common enemy. Remember when the Cold War ended? Gee, the Soviet Union collapsed, and it had been (supposedly) the only remaining superpower that threatened world peace. Once it was gone, the sane thing to do would have been to drastically cut the armed forces and show the world that the US aren't the bad guys after all. Is that what happened? You know it's not. What changed when the Soviet Union collapsed? Nothing. What changed when Reagan took over from Carter, and Clinton took over from Bush, and Junior Bush took over from Clinton? Anything? Americans are arguing their fool heads off on television night after night, demanding change. Only a complete idiot would claim they don't want an alternative. Why isn't there any? Because the state is a gang of thugs and lawyers. Why the hell would anyone expect them to act any differently? Why would anyone expect them to allow alternatives?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
Why is there no real opposition?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The state provides all the opposition. The state doesn't care whether one side or the other wins, as long as politicians get their cut, and the lawyers get lots of work. Gay marriage? The more laws they make regulating marriage, the more we need lawyers to intercede when we can't get along in our relationships. Make it illegal to burn the flag? Hooh hah, more court battles on TV! Drug war? Let's talk about ending it, and don't actually end it. Plenty of propaganda opportunities for the hucksters and TV pundits.

The sad fact is, the opposition outnumbers the state, and even the two cults that comprise the electorate. The state doesn't care. If we voted them out, they'd just get a judge to rule the election void. Remember, 1) propaganda and 2) force, the two methods of rule. Voting is the propaganda that "the pee-puhl" are in control. If that doesn't get the results the rulers want, they will override the voters, and eventually do away with voting altogether. As long as it produces money for politicians, they will let you think you're accomplishing something by allowing you to press the little buttons in the secret booth.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
Possibly because the American public does not wish to stray too far from what the two parties fight for.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Since the two parties supposedly want opposite things, the public must be schizo, according to that idea.

--Jackney Sneeb

Evil Baby · Feb 21, 2004, 01:02 am

What proof or evidence do you have that if somebody else was to win the election the state would override the voters?

Impenitent · Feb 21, 2004, 01:41 am

proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority?

the voters mean little to totalitarians

Evil Baby · Feb 21, 2004, 01:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority?

the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is a matter of law and not public opinion.

Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?

terstorm · Feb 21, 2004, 02:42 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority?

the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is a matter of law and not public opinion.

Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Nah it wasn't. In some quarters it still isn't. I wonder if I should be outraged people are getting married. (I'm not, because I see it as freedom in action...i'm sure all the straight people who are and were going to get married are still going to get married, and they'll still continue to make a mockery of it). Actually the christians have been up in arms because they always are up in arms mainly because they're busybodies meddling with everyone elses lives. Silly conservative christians. That's a strawman though..not really related to the thread at hand.

About US militarism ... it seems expensive, but the US only spends about 3-4% of GDP on its military. That's a fact.

rmnunez · Feb 21, 2004, 02:59 am

Somewhere I read that EU and particularly Franco-German opposition to military intervention in Iraq stemmed from their lack of military resources. The argument went that since most EU countries have puny militaries, they favour the diplomatic tool which they labored to hone and improve. Hence whenever an international problem arises, be that genocide, terrorist attacks or WMD proliferation, the EU looks in drawer and discards the rusty military in favour of their more sophisticated diplomats. In the US the military tool is magnificent and crowds out their relatively weak diplomatic resources with all its atachments. To what degree is the American preference as natural as the EUer's? If the EU had a military comparable to the US, wouldn't they be more forceful in their international relations?

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 21, 2004, 06:29 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)

I don't think anybody here has an issue with the US having the largest army in the world . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I do.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Sorry.

However I think it's fair to assume most don't have a problem, at least those allied with the US.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The US has allies? From what I've heard in the news, the whole world hates the US, and no one likes the US sending its military forces around the world to invade every country that doesn't bow to US policy.

Besides, why should I give a rat's ass what "most" think? Why shouldn't my opinion be based on logic, instead?

--Jackney Sneeb

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 21, 2004, 06:40 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
What proof or evidence do you have that if somebody else was to win the election the state would override the voters?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Uh . . .who got the most votes in the last US presidential election? Who is the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Do the answers to those two questions match?

60% of voters in California passed Proposition 187 to keep illegal immigrants from using public services, and a judge overturned the election, claiming the result was "unconstitutional."

"If voting changed anything, it would be illegal." --Anon

--Jackney Sneeb

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 21, 2004, 06:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority?

the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is a matter of law and not public opinion.

Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You have a fine habit of making my arguments for me, thank you!

Incidentally, politicians don't give rights. They do their best to restrict us -- look at the Patriot Act, for example. Remember, It was the state that upheld slavery and Jim Crow laws in the US.

--Jackney Sneeb

Impenitent · Feb 21, 2004, 09:52 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority?

the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is a matter of law and not public opinion.

Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

yes law... the mayor is breaking the law that the majority democratically enacted... the mayor is breaking the law as well as going against the majority...

yes it was popular to give rights... the popularity contest was won by the north...

mlingley · Feb 21, 2004, 03:27 pm

"If the people were not convinced (that the Free World is in mortal danger) it would be impossible for Congress to vote the vast sums now being spent to avert this danger. With the support of public opinion, as marshalled by the press, we are off to a good start. It is our job - yours and mine - to keep our people convinced that the only way to keep disaster away from our shores is to build up America's might."
- Charles Wilson, Chairman of the Board of General Electric (NBC)

This quote was taken from a speak to the Newspaper Publishers Associatoin in 1950 just after Wilson was appointed to head the Office of Defense Mobilization.

Evil Baby · Feb 21, 2004, 08:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,)
Somewhere I read that EU and particularly Franco-German opposition to military intervention in Iraq stemmed from their lack of military resources. The argument went that since most EU countries have puny militaries, they favour the diplomatic tool which they labored to hone and improve. Hence whenever an international problem arises, be that genocide, terrorist attacks or WMD proliferation, the EU looks in drawer and discards the rusty military in favour of their more sophisticated diplomats. In the US the military tool is magnificent and crowds out their relatively weak diplomatic resources with all its atachments. To what degree is the American preference as natural as the EUer's? If the EU had a military comparable to the US, wouldn't they be more forceful in their international relations?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I would think its more because they would have made more money with Saddam in power, not to mention the people of Europe were not for the war. Britain didn't even have a majority of its people for the war until the war actually started and it was something like 53%.

But that argument may be true. I don't know much about European military readiness.

Evil Baby · Feb 21, 2004, 08:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)

I don't think anybody here has an issue with the US having the largest army in the world . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I do.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Sorry.

However I think it's fair to assume most don't have a problem, at least those allied with the US.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The US has allies? From what I've heard in the news, the whole world hates the US, and no one likes the US sending its military forces around the world to invade every country that doesn't bow to US policy.

Besides, why should I give a rat's ass what "most" think? Why shouldn't my opinion be based on logic, instead?

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Just because they weren't for the US led war against Iraq does not mean they are still not US allies. You should konw that, you're a smart person.

You shouldn't give a rats ass, nor do I care if you give a rats ass.

Evil Baby · Feb 21, 2004, 08:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
What proof or evidence do you have that if somebody else was to win the election the state would override the voters?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Uh . . .who got the most votes in the last US presidential election? Who is the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Do the answers to those two questions match?

60% of voters in California passed Proposition 187 to keep illegal immigrants from using public services, and a judge overturned the election, claiming the result was "unconstitutional."

"If voting changed anything, it would be illegal." --Anon

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well I would much rather see a Democrat in the office it is extreamly obvious as to why Bush is in power. That is how the US electorial was set up well before that election.

Your second example is a good one and I see your point... sort of. Still I don't see how any judge would be able to claim voting in another party would be unconstitutional. If the majority of Americans vote to kill every black person does that mean is should automatically be law?

Evil Baby · Feb 21, 2004, 08:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority?

the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is a matter of law and not public opinion.

Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You have a fine habit of making my arguments for me, thank you!

Incidentally, politicians don't give rights. They do their best to restrict us -- look at the Patriot Act, for example. Remember, It was the state that upheld slavery and Jim Crow laws in the US.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Maybe I have a habbit of doing so because I have some similar views as you. Not all views but some...

Which is another reason why I would have an issue with the state being re-organized but I wouldn't want them out of my life as much as they could be as well, because then we wouldn't be protected from the large companies and they wouldn't be any better.

If people weren't just so damn lazy and everybody voted then maybe this world would be a better place.

Evil Baby · Feb 21, 2004, 08:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority?

the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is a matter of law and not public opinion.

Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

yes law... the mayor is breaking the law that the majority democratically enacted... the mayor is breaking the law as well as going against the majority...

yes it was popular to give rights... the popularity contest was won by the north...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

And as we speak the are changing the law. Judges have already thrown out two arguments against it because it is unconstitutional to not allow it, or at least that is how the state sees it.

eburchelli · Feb 22, 2004, 10:39 am

Jackney Sneeb: The US has allies? From what I've heard in the news, the whole world hates the US, and no one likes the US sending its military forces around the world to invade every country that doesn't bow to US policy.
======================================================================
The US has all the allies it needs to accomplish whatever it decides to do. We have the resources to do it alone, if need be. The rest of the world would collapse without the US. We subsidize nearly every country in the world in one form or other, including France, Germany and Russia. We need to carry a big stick to keep the monsters of the world from rising up and killing us or each other.

Feb 20, 2004, 11:24 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) I don't think anybody here has an issue with the US having the largest army in the world . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I do. --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sorry. However I think it's fair to assume most don't have a problem, at least those allied with the US.

Feb 20, 2004, 11:26 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) What alternative? No one running for office is offering them a choice. --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That would be because there is not enough of a demand for that alternative or somebody would run on that premis. How many people in this world lust for power, and what more powerful position is there then the US president?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nice wishful thinking. No, it's because there is only one ruling party. It is composed of two rival factions separated only by partisan rhetoric. When it comes down to actually making war, enforcing laws, the leaders of the two parties get together and generally do it consistent with what is good for politicians themselves, their friends, their corporate patrons, the bureaucracy, and their party faithful. They have no inclination whatsoever to bow to the wishes of the people, and when the vote goes against the interests of the rulers, they just get a judge to reverse the election, or simply ignore it. They will tolerate no serious alternative to their policy of mass extortion, war, and corruption. --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Would you agree that it is because there is no real opposition to these two factions? Why is there no real opposition? Possibly because the American public does not wish to stray too far from what the two parties fight for.

Feb 21, 2004, 12:45 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) Would you agree that it is because there is no real opposition to these two factions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, there is always opposition to at least one or both of those two sub-cults. The only reason 80,000,000 armed Americans don't kick the bastards off the continent is because the propaganda is working to keep most of them squabbling amongst one another, rather than identifying their common enemy. Remember when the Cold War ended? Gee, the Soviet Union collapsed, and it had been (supposedly) the only remaining superpower that threatened world peace. Once it was gone, the sane thing to do would have been to drastically cut the armed forces and show the world that the US aren't the bad guys after all. Is that what happened? You know it's not. What changed when the Soviet Union collapsed? Nothing. What changed when Reagan took over from Carter, and Clinton took over from Bush, and Junior Bush took over from Clinton? Anything? Americans are arguing their fool heads off on television night after night, demanding change. Only a complete idiot would claim they don't want an alternative. Why isn't there any? Because the state is a gang of thugs and lawyers. Why the hell would anyone expect them to act any differently? Why would anyone expect them to allow alternatives? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) Why is there no real opposition?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The state provides all the opposition. The state doesn't care whether one side or the other wins, as long as politicians get their cut, and the lawyers get lots of work. Gay marriage? The more laws they make regulating marriage, the more we need lawyers to intercede when we can't get along in our relationships. Make it illegal to burn the flag? Hooh hah, more court battles on TV! Drug war? Let's talk about ending it, and don't actually end it. Plenty of propaganda opportunities for the hucksters and TV pundits. The sad fact is, the opposition outnumbers the state, and even the two cults that comprise the electorate. The state doesn't care. If we voted them out, they'd just get a judge to rule the election void. Remember, 1) propaganda and 2) force, the two methods of rule. Voting is the propaganda that "the pee-puhl" are in control. If that doesn't get the results the rulers want, they will override the voters, and eventually do away with voting altogether. As long as it produces money for politicians, they will let you think you're accomplishing something by allowing you to press the little buttons in the secret booth. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) Possibly because the American public does not wish to stray too far from what the two parties fight for.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Since the two parties supposedly want opposite things, the public must be schizo, according to that idea. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 21, 2004, 01:41 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority? the voters mean little to totalitarians "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 21, 2004, 01:57 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority? the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is a matter of law and not public opinion. Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?

Feb 21, 2004, 12:03 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
mlingley Molten Ash Posts: 120	The public isn't exposed to any of these issues in the American media. If we are given a third party candidate the media pumps it into our heads that they are unelectable. They aren't able to participate in debates, and no real issues ever get discussed. Every channel on television pumps out the same garbage over and over again and basically brainwashes the public into getting behind either the Democrats or the Republicans. They are both equally corrupt and supported by corporations like Enron, GE, Halliburton, Ect... GE owns NBC and is also one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the U.S. So it's in their best interest to propogate war. The more things get centralized the worse it's going to get in the U.S.

Feb 21, 2004, 01:02 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	What proof or evidence do you have that if somebody else was to win the election the state would override the voters?

Feb 21, 2004, 02:42 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
terstorm Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 60	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority? the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is a matter of law and not public opinion. Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nah it wasn't. In some quarters it still isn't. I wonder if I should be outraged people are getting married. (I'm not, because I see it as freedom in action...i'm sure all the straight people who are and were going to get married are still going to get married, and they'll still continue to make a mockery of it). Actually the christians have been up in arms because they always are up in arms mainly because they're busybodies meddling with everyone elses lives. Silly conservative christians. That's a strawman though..not really related to the thread at hand. About US militarism ... it seems expensive, but the US only spends about 3-4% of GDP on its military. That's a fact. <span style='color:blue'>Things Fall Apart---the centre cannot hold</span> Storm

Feb 21, 2004, 02:59 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Somewhere I read that EU and particularly Franco-German opposition to military intervention in Iraq stemmed from their lack of military resources. The argument went that since most EU countries have puny militaries, they favour the diplomatic tool which they labored to hone and improve. Hence whenever an international problem arises, be that genocide, terrorist attacks or WMD proliferation, the EU looks in drawer and discards the rusty military in favour of their more sophisticated diplomats. In the US the military tool is magnificent and crowds out their relatively weak diplomatic resources with all its atachments. To what degree is the American preference as natural as the EUer's? If the EU had a military comparable to the US, wouldn't they be more forceful in their international relations? Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Feb 21, 2004, 06:29 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) I don't think anybody here has an issue with the US having the largest army in the world . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I do. --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sorry. However I think it's fair to assume most don't have a problem, at least those allied with the US.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The US has allies? From what I've heard in the news, the whole world hates the US, and no one likes the US sending its military forces around the world to invade every country that doesn't bow to US policy. Besides, why should I give a rat's ass what "most" think? Why shouldn't my opinion be based on logic, instead? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 21, 2004, 06:40 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) What proof or evidence do you have that if somebody else was to win the election the state would override the voters?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Uh . . .who got the most votes in the last US presidential election? Who is the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Do the answers to those two questions match? 60% of voters in California passed Proposition 187 to keep illegal immigrants from using public services, and a judge overturned the election, claiming the result was "unconstitutional." "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal." --Anon --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 21, 2004, 06:46 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority? the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is a matter of law and not public opinion. Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You have a fine habit of making my arguments for me, thank you! Incidentally, politicians don't give rights. They do their best to restrict us -- look at the Patriot Act, for example. Remember, It was the state that upheld slavery and Jim Crow laws in the US. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 21, 2004, 09:52 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority? the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is a matter of law and not public opinion. Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> yes law... the mayor is breaking the law that the majority democratically enacted... the mayor is breaking the law as well as going against the majority... yes it was popular to give rights... the popularity contest was won by the north... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 21, 2004, 03:27 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
mlingley Molten Ash Posts: 120	"If the people were not convinced (that the Free World is in mortal danger) it would be impossible for Congress to vote the vast sums now being spent to avert this danger. With the support of public opinion, as marshalled by the press, we are off to a good start. It is our job - yours and mine - to keep our people convinced that the only way to keep disaster away from our shores is to build up America's might." - Charles Wilson, Chairman of the Board of General Electric (NBC) This quote was taken from a speak to the Newspaper Publishers Associatoin in 1950 just after Wilson was appointed to head the Office of Defense Mobilization.

Feb 21, 2004, 08:30 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,) Somewhere I read that EU and particularly Franco-German opposition to military intervention in Iraq stemmed from their lack of military resources. The argument went that since most EU countries have puny militaries, they favour the diplomatic tool which they labored to hone and improve. Hence whenever an international problem arises, be that genocide, terrorist attacks or WMD proliferation, the EU looks in drawer and discards the rusty military in favour of their more sophisticated diplomats. In the US the military tool is magnificent and crowds out their relatively weak diplomatic resources with all its atachments. To what degree is the American preference as natural as the EUer's? If the EU had a military comparable to the US, wouldn't they be more forceful in their international relations?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I would think its more because they would have made more money with Saddam in power, not to mention the people of Europe were not for the war. Britain didn't even have a majority of its people for the war until the war actually started and it was something like 53%. But that argument may be true. I don't know much about European military readiness.

Feb 21, 2004, 08:32 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) I don't think anybody here has an issue with the US having the largest army in the world . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I do. --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sorry. However I think it's fair to assume most don't have a problem, at least those allied with the US.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The US has allies? From what I've heard in the news, the whole world hates the US, and no one likes the US sending its military forces around the world to invade every country that doesn't bow to US policy. Besides, why should I give a rat's ass what "most" think? Why shouldn't my opinion be based on logic, instead? --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Just because they weren't for the US led war against Iraq does not mean they are still not US allies. You should konw that, you're a smart person. You shouldn't give a rats ass, nor do I care if you give a rats ass.

Feb 21, 2004, 08:34 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) What proof or evidence do you have that if somebody else was to win the election the state would override the voters?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Uh . . .who got the most votes in the last US presidential election? Who is the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Do the answers to those two questions match? 60% of voters in California passed Proposition 187 to keep illegal immigrants from using public services, and a judge overturned the election, claiming the result was "unconstitutional." "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal." --Anon --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well I would much rather see a Democrat in the office it is extreamly obvious as to why Bush is in power. That is how the US electorial was set up well before that election. Your second example is a good one and I see your point... sort of. Still I don't see how any judge would be able to claim voting in another party would be unconstitutional. If the majority of Americans vote to kill every black person does that mean is should automatically be law?

Feb 21, 2004, 08:37 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority? the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is a matter of law and not public opinion. Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You have a fine habit of making my arguments for me, thank you! Incidentally, politicians don't give rights. They do their best to restrict us -- look at the Patriot Act, for example. Remember, It was the state that upheld slavery and Jim Crow laws in the US. --Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Maybe I have a habbit of doing so because I have some similar views as you. Not all views but some... Which is another reason why I would have an issue with the state being re-organized but I wouldn't want them out of my life as much as they could be as well, because then we wouldn't be protected from the large companies and they wouldn't be any better. If people weren't just so damn lazy and everybody voted then maybe this world would be a better place.

Feb 21, 2004, 08:39 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) proof of over riding the voters? look at san francisco... the state of california voted 2/3 to 1/3 that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman... the vast majority of the electorate in california has spoken democratically, but lo and behold, the shining example of the liberal democRATS the mayor has been illegally marrying gay and lesbian couples... where is the outrage? where is the cry for the democratic majority? the voters mean little to totalitarians<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is a matter of law and not public opinion. Was it popular to give Blacks rights? or to allow them to marry white people?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> yes law... the mayor is breaking the law that the majority democratically enacted... the mayor is breaking the law as well as going against the majority... yes it was popular to give rights... the popularity contest was won by the north...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And as we speak the are changing the law. Judges have already thrown out two arguments against it because it is unconstitutional to not allow it, or at least that is how the state sees it.

Feb 22, 2004, 10:39 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	Jackney Sneeb: The US has allies? From what I've heard in the news, the whole world hates the US, and no one likes the US sending its military forces around the world to invade every country that doesn't bow to US policy. ====================================================================== The US has all the allies it needs to accomplish whatever it decides to do. We have the resources to do it alone, if need be. The rest of the world would collapse without the US. We subsidize nearly every country in the world in one form or other, including France, Germany and Russia. We need to carry a big stick to keep the monsters of the world from rising up and killing us or each other.