V.Kemp,
What's more laughable is to suggest that the participants in a free-market are interested in equal opportunity and meritocracy. Their idea of meritocracy includes: "Ladies want a promotion? Okay, bend over."
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
V.Kemp,
What's more laughable is to suggest that the participants in a free-market are interested in equal opportunity and meritocracy. Their idea of meritocracy includes: "Ladies want a promotion? Okay, bend over."
Obama's problem is that traitors like Grover Norquist want to starve the beast, so to speak. They also now bribe the Republican party. They don't want the government to invest in the public goods necessary to guarantee the equality of opportunity and meritocracy. They want aristocracy, and to hell with the rest of the population.
I am furious that Obama continues to undercut our civil liberties, but I acknowledge he is in a weak negotiating position, where he is forced to concede to the interests of elitist billionaires, military interventionists, and social conservatives. That group definitely hates liberty more than Obama. They write contradictory laws that turn everyone in to criminals, they want to legislate on "sin," they let the police casually seize the assets of people "suspected" of participating in an illegal business, they undermine the 4th and 5th amendment, and they breach the separation of church and state by contracting public services to religious institutions and NGOs that conform to their beliefs. Moreover, they undermine transparency, try to censor the flow of information, and impose barriers to entry in the marketplace so their goons can maintain control.
This isn't democracy or free-markets. It's plutocracy.
Yell,
I thought you hated the 5th amendment right protecting against self-incrimination. Now you support it and understand it very well? WTF?
Stop shifting from retarded to intelligent.
Acolyte,
No. I want a collusion agreement among citizens to limit rights of aliens to work, reside, engage in commerce, and own property in my country.
I am also for limiting access to citizenship. I propose limiting future citizenship to children born of American women, and only allowing naturalization for individuals of exceptional merit.
Flint,
Also, allowing non-citizens to join the military as a condition for citizenship amounts to degenerating the military in to a mercenary force. Mercenary armies are bad bad news. It will open the door for presidents to turn the military on the people. So I say citizen army only. No compromises.
> V.Kemp wrote:
> The real story here is that Turkey is flying F-4s.>
Actually, I'm surprised Syria managed to even shoot down a F-4.
Turkey and Syria have a long history of disputed territory. They have kind of wanted to invade anyway. My bets are they deliberately provoked Syria to cause a diplomatic chain of events that will excuse their military ambitions. I also have little doubt that Jordan is secretly collaborating with Turkey to partition Syria between them.
Keep in mind, Turkey's prime minister has explicitly stated that the Armenian genocide never happened, because Muslims can't commit genocide.
What's also telling is that 2/4 democrat justices concurred with the result. Die unions die!
Yell,
Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated that the first amendment guaranteed the separation of Church and State. If he inferred the same conclusion, then the supreme court was justified doing the same. So you're wrong!
Except, social services provided by the religious institutions are not typically funded by the government. Once the government gets involved, the government is promoting the establishment of a religion.
Flint,
Except most US Christians are not socially conservative nut jobs.
Yell,
It's not unconstitutional if they were contracted by the government to provide those services. And if the government allows them to impose their religious beliefs in their practice, when they conflict with secular practices, then the permission violates the separation of church and state.
Which is what this Obama thing is about.
The priests don't want that.
Duh.
Kemp,
There is nothing wrong with religious speech. What's wrong is that Bush created the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and contracted the Catholic Church to provide social services. Likewise, the Catholic Church requires its subcontractors to accept their extreme views. This is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State. Bush created a precedent, and it must be stomped: with iron and blood, if necessary.
There ought to be a separation of Church and State. Religion and politics don't mix. Given Benedict's relentless activism, it's time to force American Catholics to separate from Rome. The President can approve a Pope from the list of candidates.
And elsewhere, it's easy for prostitutes and their clients to avoid the police.
Please euthanize me when I am crippled and bed ridden.
Kemp,
I have nothing against wealthy individuals, owners, or CEOs contributing to political campaigns, just not from the corporate treasury.
Companies aren't citizens, and some companies have foreign origins. You want them to fund political campaigns? Traitors! Off with your heads!
I have nothing against companies collaborating with government. A company ought to be allowed to argue in defense or opposition to legislation that would affect them, or argue that a policy would enable them to better serve the needs of the population. What I don't like is when companies dictate political events, or effectively bribe politicians. Reminds me of the prank call to governor Scott Walker, where the guy posed as a Koch brother and Walker treated him like he was his master.
Flint,
If people so easily die from NHS, then why do so many countries with a NHS have a longer life expectancy?
But you acknowledge that NHS is better than what we have now?
I listen to actual Nobel laureates like economists such as Paul Krugman not voodoo economists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNoNhiOYkAY&feature=relmfu , check 16:30.
Data:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/healthcare-spending-countries_n_1388306.html#s825346&title=1_United_States
Of the countries that invest the most in health care, the US spends the most on health care and has the lowest life expectancy. Worse, the US spends $2,608 more per capita than Norway, the second biggest spender. Health Care also accounts for 17.4% of the US GDP, whereas it is 12% for the Netherlands. That is a 5.4% difference. Since Europeans are spending less and have a higher life expectancy than the US, how, exactly, is a NHS not more efficient? Obviously, we spend the most and have the lowest return on investment = inefficient.
However, the government ought to stop contracting with the Catholic Church. Church and state ought to be separated.
No, a NHS would be more efficient due to economies of scale. Likewise, most disadvantages of NHS are exaggerations or fabricated lies invented by those who stand to lose from it.
Flint,
My political motto is autocracy, liberty, and efficient government. Imagine an autocrat so powerful he has no need to be sensitive to the private interests of anyone. When he legislates, the apparatus of the state imposes his will without interruption from resisting parties. Bound by social contract, he invests in public goods that encourage the development of his state. When appointing officials to public office, it is a reward of merit rather than friendship, and he enforces meritocracy among those below him. He can afford to reward merit because he is supreme, and therefore has no one to fear or anyone to please. He also invests in public goods that manifest the equality of opportunity to ensure that human resources are efficiently allocated in the public and private sector. There is freedom of speech, because he understands that communication inspires innovation and transparency, and both improve the efficiency of his state by sniffing out corruption, the enemy to the efficient flow of service. There is the rule of law and due process, because he understands they are also essential to prevent corruption and abuse. All in all, he wants to deliver the best service to his people, and being dedicated to the efficient flow of public service secures his political monopoly.
Unfortunately, most autocrats lack the means to do this because their power depends on a political coalition with its own interests. Those who largely accomplished what I described were generally celebrated military leaders, who commanded the absolute loyalty of the military due to their shared experience on the battlefield.
I agree that drugs are bad, and I would never do them myself. I would also advise a friend or family member to seek help. Our disagreement is over values and strategy. I value liberty so highly, that I can tell you that the liberty to injure or even kill one's self ought to be permitted with a straight face. This is the dark side of liberty, true, and I can live with it. Our second disagreement is over strategy. As I have stated before, criminalization raises the price for drugs, and therefore increases crime. The better strategy would be to focus on prevention and rehabilitation, rather than on a ruthless effort to kill drug dealers.
We need to move to a single-payer National Health Care system. It would be more efficient.
Something I should mention:
There are such things as market failures that require government intervention. Examples include markets such as power companies where economies of scale ensure that the market will favor a monopoly or oligopoly. In such cases, it's essential that the government impose price controls.
I can't help him get a wife, but I can help him with an escort.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.