NardDogNation wrote:

arkrud wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

arkrud wrote:Government represent the power of elite.
US government represent the power of 1% of the society which produce almost all wealth and consume most of it too.
The rest is unthinking majority which is clueless and have no idea about what is going on outside of their little live..
30% of this majority works and produce enough to feed their families.
Other 70% of them leave on entitlements... and are happy at this.
We need army to keep elites form other counties to get our wealth by force.
We need police, FBI, etc. to prevent disorderly redistribution of wealth.
Big government we have is just another type of welfare given to millions otherwise useless people who have no idea how to support themselves.

i like how arkrud doesn't post often,

but when he does,

he hits you with sledgehammer on the head

Don’t get me wrong - it is not about good or bad.
This is reality of the advancement of human race.
It was time when 0.01% of the society had most of the wealth and power.
And only 10% were able to support their families.
We are improving and US is still leading the way.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-created-90-worlds-millionaires-194309907.html
We do have some crisis looming when the current power of bureaucrats (who recently became just consumers of wealth) will need to be replaced by technocrats (creators of wealth).
This will be the new class warfare for years to come.
My hope is that the level of violence we saw through the history of Mankind will start to decrease.
Other vice with technology advancing so fast the human race will be extinct

Great minds are cultivated and not born.

do you think nba players are cultivated and not born?

jrodmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Maybe with all that science in your background you should review some reading fundamentals. What's the title of the thread? What was the question?

Who asked what a law was?
You want to tell me how a bill makes it's way through congress? Or maybe you'd like to expound on how evolution provided a bacterial flagellum?

The Declaration is just that. A Declaration. It includes the purpose of why governments are formed. Maybe you don't think that's relevant. You'll perhaps notice who wrote it, and how they represented themselves.

I think you should spend a little less time with the liberal big government rhetoric and spend a little more time thinking about what your actual question is.

And while you're at it, maybe you can explain what the basis is of these "laws" you say exist as a "system of rules" that are LATER expressed in the Constitution? What system of rules? Whose rules? These are your "facts"?

That's comedic gold. Just to clarify your posted this:

Golly, I thought this was a federal republic (boo Bonn!) and not a democracy.
In Congress, July 4, 1776.
A Declaration
By the Representatives of the
United States of America,
In general Congress assembled.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I normally make it my business not to try to write my own laws and ways of doing things. Especially when it's been done already for the country I live in.

You had an excerpt of the Declaration of Independence, immediately followed by the comment "I normally make it my business not to try to write my own laws and ways of doing things. Especially when it's been done already for the country I live in." In other words, you believed the excerpt you provided to be a set of laws that had been provided "(by) the country (you) live in". The fact of the matter is that you are not familiar with the Declaration of Independence and you can't lawyer your way out of this. In any case, it has little relevance to the topic because every Republic formed after 1776, has embodied the spirit of these principles. Even so, governments around the world play a very different role in their respective societies and still remain a Republic. The intent of this thread is to figure out what that appropriate role is. Keep up.

Let's take this slowly, because obviously your lips are busy moving when you read things. And I'll use numbers, so your mathemetician supporter friend can follow along.

1) The title of the thread was "what is the proper role/function of government?"
2) This was followed by a number of posts and responses listing everything from peace, law and order and protection from evil corporations.
3) I posted the reason the US government was formed, based on the actual statement by the founders, of why governments are created.
4) I then followed that with a statement that was meant to infer that I base my answer to the thread question on the Declaration of Independence, and that I'm not of the type to believe you need to write your own laws and ways of doing things.
5) You lecture me on laws, not having understood what it was I even said, since I never stated anything that even remotely means that I "believed the excerpt [I] provided to be a set of laws that had been provided "(by) the country (you) live in"."
6) You highlight it and say, aha, followed by more of your inane "facts":
7) Every republic formed after 1776 has embodied the spirit of these principles? The French Republic? The Chinese People's Rebublic? These governments were formed based on the US Declaration of Independence? The French Revolution was based on humanism. The Chinese People's Republic was based on communism. Have you even read the US Declaration of Independence? Do you even know or understand what an inalienable right is? Do you understand the concept of an endowment?
8) Even so, blithely pointing out that "governments around the world play a very different role in their respective societies" doesn't change the fact of why those governments were originally formed, does it?

Go read some more books.

You are the king of empty points. Reading is fundamental, friend, no matter how much you shun the practice.

If you had simply posted the Declaration of Independence and left it at that, it would've fallen perfectly in line with the conversation that was occurring. Instead, you attempted to be a smart ass and only ended up outsmarting yourself by insinuating that we were making laws and that the Declaration of Independence was all we needed as far as "laws" are concerned. At no point during this thread was there a discussion of law that didn't include you or even the mention of the word "law" until you brought it up. After all, why would there be when "law" has nothing to do with it? Just read the freaking title "What is the Proper Role/Function of Government?"!

This is why I felt it was appropriate to correct you and remind you that the Declaration of Independence has no "laws" in it and was instead intended to be the founding principle for which all our laws would spring forth. If it was the magic bullet you no doubt suggested, there would have been no need for the Articles of Confederation, the Bill of Rights (and its subsequent Amendments since the first version), the Constitution or even state laws. In short, you need to brush up on those political science textbooks of yours. I can start you off with the actual text from the Declaration of Independence:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

As for your 7th point, you may have got me. I was careless in not qualifying "republics" with a "most", "real" or something to the like. The conversation really comes down to what can be considered a "republic" in the truest sense of the word. For me, a real "republic" is a government that has to have an element of choice between two or more competing ideologies. That choice is presented in the form of parties, which can have radically different visions for nation building. Why? Because the more variety, the higher the likelihood of finding a group that more accurately reflects the beliefs of the nation's citizens. In China, however, their "political parties" are more for show and actually are just one party. As a result, I don't consider them to be a republic. You didn't stop there though, you had to throw in France, which is absolutely a republic in every sense of the word. Please continue saying that it isn't so that I can make fun of you for it, lol.

NardDogNation wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

arkrud wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

arkrud wrote:Government represent the power of elite.
US government represent the power of 1% of the society which produce almost all wealth and consume most of it too.
The rest is unthinking majority which is clueless and have no idea about what is going on outside of their little live..
30% of this majority works and produce enough to feed their families.
Other 70% of them leave on entitlements... and are happy at this.
We need army to keep elites form other counties to get our wealth by force.
We need police, FBI, etc. to prevent disorderly redistribution of wealth.
Big government we have is just another type of welfare given to millions otherwise useless people who have no idea how to support themselves.

i like how arkrud doesn't post often,

but when he does,

he hits you with sledgehammer on the head

Don’t get me wrong - it is not about good or bad.
This is reality of the advancement of human race.
It was time when 0.01% of the society had most of the wealth and power.
And only 10% were able to support their families.
We are improving and US is still leading the way.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-created-90-worlds-millionaires-194309907.html
We do have some crisis looming when the current power of bureaucrats (who recently became just consumers of wealth) will need to be replaced by technocrats (creators of wealth).
This will be the new class warfare for years to come.
My hope is that the level of violence we saw through the history of Mankind will start to decrease.
Other vice with technology advancing so fast the human race will be extinct

Great minds are cultivated and not born.

do you think nba players are cultivated and not born?

Absolutely. I have a cousin that's 7"1' and he can't play a lick of basketball. The men we get to see play on that level have been developing that skill from the time they were grade school children. They could afford to do so because basketball is really a poor man's game, which is cheap enough for these skills to become refined. You notice how there aren't any elite ski/bobsledders from the hood though? They didn't have the resources to drop thousands of dollars to buy the equipment necessary to ever get good at the sport, which helps make my general case about the nature of "genius".

ok but what about me? was i born or cultivated?

IronWillGiroud wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

arkrud wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

arkrud wrote:Government represent the power of elite.
US government represent the power of 1% of the society which produce almost all wealth and consume most of it too.
The rest is unthinking majority which is clueless and have no idea about what is going on outside of their little live..
30% of this majority works and produce enough to feed their families.
Other 70% of them leave on entitlements... and are happy at this.
We need army to keep elites form other counties to get our wealth by force.
We need police, FBI, etc. to prevent disorderly redistribution of wealth.
Big government we have is just another type of welfare given to millions otherwise useless people who have no idea how to support themselves.

i like how arkrud doesn't post often,

but when he does,

he hits you with sledgehammer on the head

Don’t get me wrong - it is not about good or bad.
This is reality of the advancement of human race.
It was time when 0.01% of the society had most of the wealth and power.
And only 10% were able to support their families.
We are improving and US is still leading the way.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-created-90-worlds-millionaires-194309907.html
We do have some crisis looming when the current power of bureaucrats (who recently became just consumers of wealth) will need to be replaced by technocrats (creators of wealth).
This will be the new class warfare for years to come.
My hope is that the level of violence we saw through the history of Mankind will start to decrease.
Other vice with technology advancing so fast the human race will be extinct

Great minds are cultivated and not born.

do you think nba players are cultivated and not born?

I believe that many people a born with some exceptional abilities to others.
To make this stand this abilities must be recognized and then cultivated.
I also believe that some abilities are passing from generation to generation but culture person born in has much bigger role.
In any case if family and society makes a conscious effort to take care about new generations and give them the best resources this society will advance.
Of course this required a lot of wealth to be available.
This is one of the main reasons the inequality is growing.
People who have wealth must recognize that they need to use some of it to advance the society as a whole.
If they will not the unrest, revolution, depression will follow and their wealth and life style will be destroyed. .

IronWillGiroud wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

arkrud wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

arkrud wrote:Government represent the power of elite.
US government represent the power of 1% of the society which produce almost all wealth and consume most of it too.
The rest is unthinking majority which is clueless and have no idea about what is going on outside of their little live..
30% of this majority works and produce enough to feed their families.
Other 70% of them leave on entitlements... and are happy at this.
We need army to keep elites form other counties to get our wealth by force.
We need police, FBI, etc. to prevent disorderly redistribution of wealth.
Big government we have is just another type of welfare given to millions otherwise useless people who have no idea how to support themselves.

i like how arkrud doesn't post often,

but when he does,

he hits you with sledgehammer on the head

Don’t get me wrong - it is not about good or bad.
This is reality of the advancement of human race.
It was time when 0.01% of the society had most of the wealth and power.
And only 10% were able to support their families.
We are improving and US is still leading the way.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-created-90-worlds-millionaires-194309907.html
We do have some crisis looming when the current power of bureaucrats (who recently became just consumers of wealth) will need to be replaced by technocrats (creators of wealth).
This will be the new class warfare for years to come.
My hope is that the level of violence we saw through the history of Mankind will start to decrease.
Other vice with technology advancing so fast the human race will be extinct

Great minds are cultivated and not born.

do you think nba players are cultivated and not born?

Absolutely. I have a cousin that's 7"1' and he can't play a lick of basketball. The men we get to see play on that level have been developing that skill from the time they were grade school children. They could afford to do so because basketball is really a poor man's game, which is cheap enough for these skills to become refined. You notice how there aren't any elite ski/bobsledders from the hood though? They didn't have the resources to drop thousands of dollars to buy the equipment necessary to ever get good at the sport, which helps make my general case about the nature of "genius".

ok but what about me? was i born or cultivated?

I think genetics and circumstance/nature and nurture are central to "genius". Does a guy like Vivien Thomas become recognized as a pioneer for open heart-surgery if he doesn't meet Dr. Alfred Blalock who allows him to work alongside him WITHOUT a degree in medicine or him even having completed college because of economic hardships? Does he have the opportunity to do this if he were born a slave, like his grandfather was? People tend to look at stories like this and presume that all you need to overcome obstacles are perseverance and sheer force of will. I look at these stories and wonder how many Vivian Thomas' we may have missed that either did not have the opportunity to develop their skills or did not have an instance of dumb luck to give them a break.

Take another guy like Freeway Ricky Ross, the crack kingpin of the 80's. At his height, he was suspected to have grossed an excess of $800 million, estimated to be worth $2.5 billion by today's standards in just 7 years. I was listening to an interview of him recently and how, as a child, he was so poor that he'd have to open up bags of cookies and eat them in supermarkets just to have something to eat. You think a guy with the mental faculties to build an empire like that, would've gone bad if he did not have to struggled as he did and had a legitimate chance to become a real businessman/entrepreneur, chemist or the like; if he had an opportunity to become a real innovator? Just ignore for a moment how evil his trade is and consider the number of things that must occur to build something like that. First, you got to learn how to manufacture/secure the drugs. You then have to understand street politics to carve out a niche for yourself and avoid antagonizing rival dealers on a local level. As you grow beyond a local level (which is necessary to reach the levels he did), you have to figure out means of mass transportation WHILE avoiding authorities that have unlimited resources to pursue you. You then have to figure out a way of securing these new territories and repeating this entire process on an even grander scale. You think you could do that if you wanted to? I sure as **** couldn't from a logistical standpoint. But billionaires should get tax cuts so that we can foot the bill and have our infrastructure, designed to harness a man's potential, destroyed.

arkrud wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

arkrud wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

arkrud wrote:Government represent the power of elite.
US government represent the power of 1% of the society which produce almost all wealth and consume most of it too.
The rest is unthinking majority which is clueless and have no idea about what is going on outside of their little live..
30% of this majority works and produce enough to feed their families.
Other 70% of them leave on entitlements... and are happy at this.
We need army to keep elites form other counties to get our wealth by force.
We need police, FBI, etc. to prevent disorderly redistribution of wealth.
Big government we have is just another type of welfare given to millions otherwise useless people who have no idea how to support themselves.

i like how arkrud doesn't post often,

but when he does,

he hits you with sledgehammer on the head

Don’t get me wrong - it is not about good or bad.
This is reality of the advancement of human race.
It was time when 0.01% of the society had most of the wealth and power.
And only 10% were able to support their families.
We are improving and US is still leading the way.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-created-90-worlds-millionaires-194309907.html
We do have some crisis looming when the current power of bureaucrats (who recently became just consumers of wealth) will need to be replaced by technocrats (creators of wealth).
This will be the new class warfare for years to come.
My hope is that the level of violence we saw through the history of Mankind will start to decrease.
Other vice with technology advancing so fast the human race will be extinct

I think this conversation is definitely about "good and bad" in the context of policy making. You, like many conservatives, make the error in assuming that financial "elite(s)" automatically mean people that are productive. The truth is that a significant portion of that population consists of people who simply inherited their wealth/resources, which does not mean they produce or create anything.

I got no problem with their being wealthy people, however. Greed is one of the easiest qualities of the human character to leverage progress, innovation, etc. My issue is that public money is being used to subsidize their wealth (see oil companies, big farmers, any company that produces anything abroad) to the detriment of the whole. After all, where are all these jobs that were promised after cutting their tax rates? They seem to be doing just fine, while college graduates are having to literally prostitute themselves just to pay off their college debt.

Unlike you, I don't believe that genius, the crux of innovation/production/progress, is endemic to any social class. Henry Ford was born to an immigrant father who operated a family farm. Wilbert and Oliver Wright's father was a bishop. Jonas Salk's parents were immigrants who barely had an education. You notice a trend here? This is why it is important for a government to be one that actively promotes the welfare of the whole because it is the only way a civilization can ever truly become great; Great minds are cultivated and not born.

It was time when 0.01% of the society had most of the wealth and power.
And only 10% were able to support their families.

Yeah and women were once not allowed to vote. Precedent doesn't make right or just nor is it a consolation prize for less ****tier circumstances. The fact of the matter is that in spite of the rich becoming richer, social mobility in our country has slowed to 11th among industrialized nations. The health of a society is always judged by the least of us and the least of us is unfortunately stagnant at 99% of the population.http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/

I do not think that people are automatically wealth creators because they have capital.
The capital itself is creating wealth regardless of who is attached to it personally.
The owner can maximize the wealth creation or completely ruin it. This is a nature of man who is imperfect.
Public money are mostly used on entitlements.
The portion going for subsidies you mentioned are negligible and are needed to keep productive wealth in the country boundaries.
If US will not stimulate business it will go elsewhere and we will get nothing.
I think you are a bit delusional about cultivating great minds.
You think every person can became Einstein, Galileo Galile,Bobby Fischer,Ludwig Wittgenstein,Blaise Pasca,John Stuart Mill,
Wilhelm von Leibniz,Emanuel Swedenborg,Leonardo Da Vinci,Wolfgang von Goethe, etc.?
Nothing wrong with being an average mind. But you cannot cultivate physical abilities.

The portion going for subsidies you mentioned are negligible and are needed to keep productive wealth in the country boundaries.
If US will not stimulate business it will go elsewhere and we will get nothing.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Our nation has the lowest corporate tax rates of any other industrialized nation and corporate types still complain about it being too high. So where are they going to go? To some 3rd world country? They could definitely pawn off factory jobs there but for the white collar jobs, you need an educated population, which many of those countries can not muster. And even if they were to hypothetically leave, who are they going to sell to? We are 5% of the world's population and consume 30% of its resources. We are the world's biggest market, which is right in their backyard AND so they don't even have to worry about the tariffs designed to dissuade us from buying products from foreign countries. So I ask again, where are they going to go?

And yet, we continue to maintain a military that is the rough equivalent of HALF THE WORLD'S MILITARY EXPENDITURES to protect their interests in foreign markets. And mind you, of the top 15 spenders, we are considered to be allies with ALL but possibly two (Russia and China), who we still manage to maintain diplomatic ties with. You think another industrialized/educated nation would blow that much money to protect their PRIVATE assets while ignoring the needs of their people?

I think you are a bit delusional about cultivating great minds.
You think every person can became Einstein, Galileo Galile,Bobby Fischer,Ludwig Wittgenstein,Blaise Pasca,John Stuart Mill,
Wilhelm von Leibniz,Emanuel Swedenborg,Leonardo Da Vinci,Wolfgang von Goethe, etc.?

No, I don't. For there to be "genius'" in the world, there need to be people on the other end of the spectrum to help give it context/significance. What I am saying is that "genius" creates innovation and builds the kinds of industry that drives an economy. What I am saying is that "genius" is not something possessed exclusively by the wealthy and so we should not use our resources to protect their wealth. What I am saying is that genius is part innate but MUST BE CULTIVATED to realize it's potential, which is why tax payer dollars should instead go towards developing infrastructure.

This nation/society wasn't built by wealthy men. It has been built with men that have had "ideas" that have helped to redefine our lives. In many cases, those "ideas" have been rewarded by HUGE financial windfalls but "genius" and money are not inherent to one another. Men like Jonas Salk, did not patent his polio vaccine (or the vaccine technology that sprung from it) and reap a fortune from it. Albert Einstein, who laid the foundation for nuclear technology, lived a comfortable life but was no man of fortune either. Our greatest resource is man and our responsibility is to maximize his potential, which our constitution so eloquently puts as "promoting the general welfare". This trickle down economic nonsense is not doing that and is destroying society.

jrodmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Maybe with all that science in your background you should review some reading fundamentals. What's the title of the thread? What was the question?

Who asked what a law was?
You want to tell me how a bill makes it's way through congress? Or maybe you'd like to expound on how evolution provided a bacterial flagellum?

The Declaration is just that. A Declaration. It includes the purpose of why governments are formed. Maybe you don't think that's relevant. You'll perhaps notice who wrote it, and how they represented themselves.

I think you should spend a little less time with the liberal big government rhetoric and spend a little more time thinking about what your actual question is.

And while you're at it, maybe you can explain what the basis is of these "laws" you say exist as a "system of rules" that are LATER expressed in the Constitution? What system of rules? Whose rules? These are your "facts"?

That's comedic gold. Just to clarify your posted this:

Golly, I thought this was a federal republic (boo Bonn!) and not a democracy.
In Congress, July 4, 1776.
A Declaration
By the Representatives of the
United States of America,
In general Congress assembled.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I normally make it my business not to try to write my own laws and ways of doing things. Especially when it's been done already for the country I live in.

You had an excerpt of the Declaration of Independence, immediately followed by the comment "I normally make it my business not to try to write my own laws and ways of doing things. Especially when it's been done already for the country I live in." In other words, you believed the excerpt you provided to be a set of laws that had been provided "(by) the country (you) live in". The fact of the matter is that you are not familiar with the Declaration of Independence and you can't lawyer your way out of this. In any case, it has little relevance to the topic because every Republic formed after 1776, has embodied the spirit of these principles. Even so, governments around the world play a very different role in their respective societies and still remain a Republic. The intent of this thread is to figure out what that appropriate role is. Keep up.

Let's take this slowly, because obviously your lips are busy moving when you read things. And I'll use numbers, so your mathemetician supporter friend can follow along.

1) The title of the thread was "what is the proper role/function of government?"
2) This was followed by a number of posts and responses listing everything from peace, law and order and protection from evil corporations.
3) I posted the reason the US government was formed, based on the actual statement by the founders, of why governments are created.
4) I then followed that with a statement that was meant to infer that I base my answer to the thread question on the Declaration of Independence, and that I'm not of the type to believe you need to write your own laws and ways of doing things.
5) You lecture me on laws, not having understood what it was I even said, since I never stated anything that even remotely means that I "believed the excerpt [I] provided to be a set of laws that had been provided "(by) the country (you) live in"."
6) You highlight it and say, aha, followed by more of your inane "facts":
7) Every republic formed after 1776 has embodied the spirit of these principles? The French Republic? The Chinese People's Rebublic? These governments were formed based on the US Declaration of Independence? The French Revolution was based on humanism. The Chinese People's Republic was based on communism. Have you even read the US Declaration of Independence? Do you even know or understand what an inalienable right is? Do you understand the concept of an endowment?
8) Even so, blithely pointing out that "governments around the world play a very different role in their respective societies" doesn't change the fact of why those governments were originally formed, does it?

Go read some more books.

You are the king of empty points. Reading is fundamental, friend, no matter how much you shun the practice.

If you had simply posted the Declaration of Independence and left it at that, it would've fallen perfectly in line with the conversation that was occurring. Instead, you attempted to be a smart ass and only ended up outsmarting yourself by insinuating that we were making laws and that the Declaration of Independence was all we needed as far as "laws" are concerned. At no point during this thread was there a discussion of law that didn't include you or even the mention of the word "law" until you brought it up. After all, why would there be when "law" has nothing to do with it? Just read the freaking title "What is the Proper Role/Function of Government?"!

This is why I felt it was appropriate to correct you and remind you that the Declaration of Independence has no "laws" in it and was instead intended to be the founding principle for which all our laws would spring forth. If it was the magic bullet you no doubt suggested, there would have been no need for the Articles of Confederation, the Bill of Rights (and its subsequent Amendments since the first version), the Constitution or even state laws. In short, you need to brush up on those political science textbooks of yours. I can start you off with the actual text from the Declaration of Independence:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

As for your 7th point, you may have got me. I was careless in not qualifying "republics" with a "most", "real" or something to the like. The conversation really comes down to what can be considered a "republic" in the truest sense of the word. For me, a real "republic" is a government that has to have an element of choice between two or more competing ideologies. That choice is presented in the form of parties, which can have radically different visions for nation building. Why? Because the more variety, the higher the likelihood of finding a group that more accurately reflects the beliefs of the nation's citizens. In China, however, their "political parties" are more for show and actually are just one party. As a result, I don't consider them to be a republic. You didn't stop there though, you had to throw in France, which is absolutely a republic in every sense of the word. Please continue saying that it isn't so that I can make fun of you for it, lol.

Seriously for a moment, how old are you?

Old enough to know the nuances of the Declaration of Independence.

If I think that education is important, I will vote for a party/political figure that values education and will spend the adequate slice of the pie on education. Then you decide what else you feel strongly about. Like say, global warming. And so on and so on.

What sucks for you guys is that you only have two guys to realistically choose from when it comes to who's supposed to run the country. And the two guys you do have to choose from are not that ideologically far from each other when it comes to taxation. Which it is almost always about. Taxation. So there's no way for you guys to come out of this political rut other than a revolution of the political system of some kind.

Also, my last point, as a citizen of any country I would value the country's image in the worlds eye highly. Which at times it seems like you guys don't care too much. The NSA ordeal is an outstanding example.

I'm just confused as to how people here can put up with most of this stuff. Like dismissing Clinton for infidelity, but keeping Bush in office for 8 years. It's beyond me.

NardDogNation wrote:

skeng wrote:I'm from Denmark and I (almost) fully trust my government, something I've yet to hear from any American. I'm also of the opinion that you guys need some kind of revolution sooner rather than later. What I expect of my government is pretty simple. It basically boils down to what kind of person you are. I expect my government to represent the majority of the people in the country. So if the majority of X Country's people are socialist, that particular country will have a socialist government - making socialist decisions with the wealth and spending.

If I think that education is important, I will vote for a party/political figure that values education and will spend the adequate slice of the pie on education. Then you decide what else you feel strongly about. Like say, global warming. And so on and so on.

What sucks for you guys is that you only have two guys to realistically choose from when it comes to who's supposed to run the country. And the two guys you do have to choose from are not that ideologically far from each other when it comes to taxation. Which it is almost always about. Taxation. So there's no way for you guys to come out of this political rut other than a revolution of the political system of some kind.

Also, my last point, as a citizen of any country I would value the country's image in the worlds eye highly. Which at times it seems like you guys don't care too much. The NSA ordeal is an outstanding example.

I'm just confused as to how people here can put up with most of this stuff. Like dismissing Clinton for infidelity, but keeping Bush in office for 8 years. It's beyond me.

Skeng, considering the things my government has done domestically and abroad, I'm not sure if we should trust it. It feels as though it exists for the sole purpose of furthering the well being of a select, connected few. This status quo continues because these select and connected individuals, invest a great deal of money to ensure that elections/appointments are bought. Look at guys like the Koch Brothers and the hundreds of millions of dollars they can invest toward perpetuating misinformation and campaigns of politicians that are partial to them and their causes.

Exactly. And that is A HUGE problem in my eyes. What sucks is nothing (can?)/is being done about it.

I agree with almost every point you've made in this thread and the Gov. shutdown thread. People like you have all my sympathy btw.

I've often thought that it'd serve this country better if they divided the states into separate autonomous regions, where you're not having a full continent voting for 2 different guys. I mean when did the Mid West ever vote similarly to California or New York?

And I wish you guys the very very best of prosperity, because how you guys fare surely reflects on the western world.

skeng wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

skeng wrote:I'm from Denmark and I (almost) fully trust my government, something I've yet to hear from any American. I'm also of the opinion that you guys need some kind of revolution sooner rather than later. What I expect of my government is pretty simple. It basically boils down to what kind of person you are. I expect my government to represent the majority of the people in the country. So if the majority of X Country's people are socialist, that particular country will have a socialist government - making socialist decisions with the wealth and spending.

If I think that education is important, I will vote for a party/political figure that values education and will spend the adequate slice of the pie on education. Then you decide what else you feel strongly about. Like say, global warming. And so on and so on.

What sucks for you guys is that you only have two guys to realistically choose from when it comes to who's supposed to run the country. And the two guys you do have to choose from are not that ideologically far from each other when it comes to taxation. Which it is almost always about. Taxation. So there's no way for you guys to come out of this political rut other than a revolution of the political system of some kind.

Also, my last point, as a citizen of any country I would value the country's image in the worlds eye highly. Which at times it seems like you guys don't care too much. The NSA ordeal is an outstanding example.

I'm just confused as to how people here can put up with most of this stuff. Like dismissing Clinton for infidelity, but keeping Bush in office for 8 years. It's beyond me.

Skeng, considering the things my government has done domestically and abroad, I'm not sure if we should trust it. It feels as though it exists for the sole purpose of furthering the well being of a select, connected few. This status quo continues because these select and connected individuals, invest a great deal of money to ensure that elections/appointments are bought. Look at guys like the Koch Brothers and the hundreds of millions of dollars they can invest toward perpetuating misinformation and campaigns of politicians that are partial to them and their causes.

Exactly. And that is A HUGE problem in my eyes. What sucks is nothing (can?)/is being done about it.

I agree with almost every point you've made in this thread and the Gov. shutdown thread. People like you have all my sympathy btw.

I've often thought that it'd serve this country better if they divided the states into separate autonomous regions, where you're not having a full continent voting for 2 different guys. I mean when did the Mid West ever vote similarly to California or New York?

And I wish you guys the very very best of prosperity, because how you guys fare surely reflects on the western world.

I suppose you can only look at our errors and learn, so that your country never repeats them. The fact of the matter is that this is a well oiled machine that has all the means at it's disposal to execute their plan. There are a great many "coincidences" that double as a form of social control in our society, which makes it very difficult to turn the tide. For instance:

1.) As it is with any nation, the college educated population overwhelmingly tends to assume the "leadership" mantle of the society. It's usually members of this group that spreadhead any kind of revolution as it was during the 60's in my country, fighting for basic civil rights for women and minorities, AGAINST economic imperialism, etc. Isn't it interesting today that my country has made going to college so much more difficult and extremely expensive?

The average college debt for an American is $24,300 (I'm actually down $70,000 despite a full-tuition scholarship and haven't even started a graduate program yet). Just for perspective of how expensive $24,300 is in our society, the average American household makes only $50,000 annually BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL TAXES. That forces us to take out exorbitant private loans, with pretty high variable interest rates that vary from ~5%-$17%. When we finally do graduate, we are wholly indebted to an employer in order to pay that off, which takes DECADES. That being said, it's pretty hard to go out and protest for hours when you have this kind of figure staring you in the face. And yet, despite a fraction of my nation's resources, your nation (and many others) manages to do it for free.

2.) The grip that the private sector has on us is furthered through our healthcare system. Our employers are responsible for providing our healthcare insurance plans, so when we'd leave/lose those jobs, we'd lose our healthcare as well. You could purchase these plans on your own but could easily end up paying +/-$1000 per month and still have a college loan to deal with. Obamacare has helped ease that burden though, which is why I suspect "big money" is against it; one less element of leverage they can exercise over us.

3.) Our media is generally bought and serves as PR for much of the nonsense that goes on in our country. We virtually deify the wealthy, ordaining them as "job creators" despite a lack of evidence of them creating quality jobs or any jobs that don't exist in some 3rd world country. I suppose it shouldn't come as a shock considering that the commercials that fund the media, are for the very same industries that are at the heart of the problem. The end result is that we get half the country defending these people and the other half trying to help matters.

There are plenty more examples I can list but I think this can at least give you perspective of what we're dealing with.