Free Republic

Your dialogue has been very instructive. Thank you. I admire how you have stuck to the point and not been offensive to each other.

And thank you.

I am NOT a democrat! I am not a republican either.

I'm not going to say you are a RAT either. But you are using some of the RAT arguments. You are also using some REP arguments too. Let's just say you are one of the few who are undecided. Good. I hope you are using this discussion to learn a bit more. I will give you some advice for making your final decision. This is the same advice I use myself.

(1) Demand facts. This is a highly republican-biased web site. The republican posters know that and are rather apologetic for it. Ask for facts. I've found the posters of this site more than happy to reference you to unbiased sites (like the US Census Bureau with facts that were obtained during the Clinton administration) to democratic sites that even quote republican arguments, like http://www.archive.org that reference what the democrats really said before they changed their minds for political reasons. The democratic sites will seldom allow it, at least censor real links to facts.

(2) Walkie/Talkie: Be careful of the emotional sensory arguments -- the ones that make you feel good now or the ones that cater to your physical senses. It's a sign of mental immaturity, quite typical of youngsters. There are two types of people politically stratified: walkers and talkers. Walkers believe that actions speak louder than words, and consequently have spent more time doing, than talking about it. They are the ones that throw the ball, rather than the spectators. They are the people that own businesses, rather than just employees. They are the independent adults, rather than the dependent child and senior citizens. Walkers have tended to become more republican/independent/libertarian than democratic. Remember the saying "Those who can... do!. Those who cannot... teach!" It should be no surprise that teachers are highly liberal/democratic by nature. There was a talk show host at one of the conventions who would interview people as they passed by. He would ask a person there if they were voting for Bush or Kerry. If the person responded "Bush", then his next question would be "So what do you do?" If the person responded "Kerry", the next question would be "So where do you teach?" Surprisingly, no one there caught on to this subtle but humorous line of questioning. That says something about the population.

It's an old joke:

• Democrat: "Did you hear what that republican said?"
• Republican: "Did you see what that democrat did?"

The democrats are always talking trash about how Bush sounds, or what he said, or how he said it, or the tone he took, or the way he pronounces NUCLEAR. They judge this as a sign of intelligence -- the pretentious intellectual elite always do. See Postmodernism Disrobed. The republicans are always talking about what Kerry did, how he voted, how he protested the war, how he never showed up for senate votes, what Clinton did with Monika, how he wagged the dog with Bosnia. The question becomes, are you a walker or a talker. Talk is cheap, but lots of people like to wallow in it -- especially children.

Unfortunately for both sides, if you practice walking, you seldom get enough practice talking -- and visa versa. This is one of the reasons Reagan and Schwarzenegger are such strong political candidates on both political sides -- they can both walk and talk.

Maturity: Finally, you've heard the old saying "Children live in the present, adults live in the future, and the elderly live in the past." I find it interesting that most children and old people vote democratic. They are the group more dependent on society, and statistically the least intellectual (lack of wisdom or senility). Most independent adults vote republican. By this, can I deduce that republican's live in the future, and democrats live in the present or past? You've heard the old saying that "If you are not an idealist by the time you are 20, you haven't got a heart. If you are still one by the time you are 30, you haven't got a brain". Children (idealists) typically vote democratic.

Your seem to be arguing that we should be more concerned with the present state of the US returning to how things were in the past, and be less concerned with any arguments of the Iraqi speculation of future security and economic benefits. Can I deduce that your political maturity is still child-like, maybe you are still in college or just out. Perhaps you are under 30 years old. I don't know. I'm just fishing. No need to answer these questions, but don't be ashamed if you are. I used to be that too.

So consider that line of philosophical arguments when choosing your next political party.

You ultimatly think that the US should solve the worlds problems, I don't.

Nope. I think the US should solve US problems. I think the US is the best solver for US problems -- not the UN. I think that by the US solving US problems, that the worlds problems will automatically be solved as a consequence. If the measure of all good is by how well the world's problems get solved, then I believe that "the US solving US problems" is better for the world than "the UN solving world problems", as ironic as that may sound.

Our country needs serious reworking.

It's always a trivial (and useless) statement to say "we can do better". No one ever disputes this statement -- ever. It requires adults with experience to invent and propose actual economically viable solutions with cost/benefit trade-offs.

We (including all political factions) are so concerned about the world's affairs that we have lost site of our own.

No. The world's affairs are US affairs. And since the US is the leader of the world by such a wide distance, the truth is that "the US's affairs are the world's affairs."

If the US spent 2 years bringing home troops and the next 2 years concentrating on solving America's issues we would have a much better country both econically and socially.

Disagree. America is solving more US issues by having our troops over there, than if they were over here.

It's not about WMDs. That's just more arguments for going into Iraq. The only reason we were justified for going into Iraq was that we said we would do so if Saddam didn't keep his promises with Resolution 1444, which he begged us for instead of taking him out right there in 1990.

WMDs are nothing more than a Liberal's argument that we must be 100% perfect in all cases before we can consider ourselves justified. Since we didn't find WMDs there, we are only 99% justified in going there, so therefore we are completely 100% unjustified in going there. No! I don't think that way. Liberals must be perfect before they act. That's why they never act. Conservatives must only be good enough.

The US was attacked by Al-Qaeda which was led by Osama bin laden, you would agree with that right? If that is the case, they why haven't I heard you mention bin Laden's name once. He is the culprit not Saddam

Bin Laden is dead, at least that's my guess. He was hit with a 1000 pounder, but no body was found. Bin Laden was attacked, for attacking America. Saddam was attacked, for attacking Kuwait, and then breaking the ceasefire agreement. TWO SEPARATE INSTANCES. I don't know why both Reps and Rats feel the need to make them one bundled policy.

This attack was not perpetrated by a country but by a group of Islamic Fundamentalists.

Good thing you are not a surgeon. You'd probably tell the patient with skin cancer on his hand that there is nothing you can do because you cannot go after "bad cells" without hurting the "good cells", or that you cannot be 100% sure that no "good" cell will be hurt. Surgery is out because you have to cut good cells in order to get to the bad cells.

It's all about choices!

Islam is a cancer, and Bush is Chemotherapy. There's no guarantee that the chemo will work and that Iraq will survive, but its better than doing nothing, and at least we know the doctor will live.

In 1941 Congress declared war on Japan as given the right to do so in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. This never happened after September 11.

Don't blame Bush. Congress supported it. And Clinton attacked Bosnia after the Monika (wag the dog) under the same argument.

I want to get the chess pieces back to the start position. This is a chess game that America is not prepared for and it is a chess game that was begun by the 2 Bush's. Just like Vietnam was a chess game begun my LBJ.

Bush did not start the war. Saddam attacked Kuwait. That started the first and only war with Iraq. There was no second war war in Iraq. Saddam agreed to Resolution 1444 in exchange for us granting a ceasefire, which lasted for the entire Clinton term. Saddam broke the ceasefire by not complying with the resolution. If I was Saddam and Clinton was in power, I'd probably not comply either. Stupid Clinton was too weak a president to call Saddam on it. Bush did, and the ceasefire of the first war continued. There was no second war. George Senior promised Saddam that America would attack if he didn't comply. Saddam didn't. Bush's son merely followed through with America's promise. The world is a better place now that America is known that we follow through. France may not like us because we show some backbone and integrity, which they lack. But who cares about France?

You can't get the chess pieces back in the start position. You are not the chess player. You are spectator in the stands. 

I understand the game of chess, but the game of chess only involves 2 players... until America came along that game was between the Arabs and the Jews and they were doing just fine over there. We have messed that game up!

It doesn't matter if you mess up the game. We didn't count on them (The Islamofascists) attacking the WTC. There's no such thing as a perfect game. All that matters is that they mess up more. And they did. They didn't count on us going into Afghanistan. They lost two countries, lots of sources of cash to support their sick ways, Iraq is no longer building gas centrifuges, and Saddam is no longer repeating his past.

AGAIN. It's about choices! You just say "We have messed up the game", as though that meant something. Messed up in what way? If you had your way, you'd mess up the game too, but even worse. Islamofascists lost a lot more than we did. We're still doing things pretty much as we did before. They are not. Our will power has trumped theirs.

Think about it, the United States of America is less that 300 years old and is telling a country 3 times as old what to do... I don't tell my grandfather what to do, he would smack me.

Is this supposed to be an argument? What if your grandfather pulled out a knife and threatened your son's life? Again, it's all about choices. You can't just argue that something is good or bad. Good only exists when compared to something bad. You must show how Bush's choice to go into Iraq is somehow worse than had he not going in. You can't just call it bad. That's not an argument. Show me that Saddam Hussein should have still remained in power.

you aren't really going to fall for the notion that Iraq was responsible for September 11th

Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It is you who do not understand all the dynamics of the Middle East. Try this. Think of the Middle East as a chess board. The Islamofascists are the enemy's king. Their queen (let's say Saudi Arabia) can do the most damage to us, and did. Iraq is like a piece in center board. We want to kill the king, but there's all these other pieces on the board blocking our way. Do you attack the king first, because that's your ultimate goal? No. You'd lose the game. Do you attack the queen (Saudi Arabia) because that's the piece that attacked you? No, you'd lose the game, on both economics and resources. Better, you attack the pieces that support the king, and defend the king, and work your way up. That's how the game is played by strategists. 

All I hear from you is that you don't like chess, and all this is too confusing for you, and you don't get it, and if we would just stop playing chess, then they would stop attacking us. I think you are either arguing that Afghanistan was the king, and the game is over, or that the Taliban was a bishop that we captured, and that's all we need to do for now, and that we should just wait quietly and see if they are going to attack before we do something again. Do you know how many countries and cultures were destroyed in the history of man because they passively sat back, built walled citied, and dared the enemy to come to them? The answer is more than plenty for American generals to know that you ATTACK when you have the initiative. That's what Bush did, and what Clinton did not, and why I'm voting Bush back into office.

There is no need for our troops to be placed on every corner of the globe just to show them that we are the world's supreme. It's 2004, they already know that.

I agree. That is exactly why we do NOT have troops placed on every corner of the globe. Nor are we trying to show them we are supreme.

You must be very careful with literary rhetoric. It can suck you in and keep you infantile. Stick to the facts! Show trade-offs in your arguments. You are not doing this. You are only saying that you don't like WAR. Well, no one is supposed to like war. But know this. Talk is cheap. Anyone can easily complain. Anyone can effortlessly find fault with the world. New born babies still attached to their mother's umbilical cord can cry to let us know that the world is not satisfactory, and that they must be fed. This dependence on someone else to provide one's solutions is the definition of being a child. Adults go one step further in maturity. ADULTS MAKE CHOICES! They choose between presented realities. Go back to 9/11/2001. They attacked us! Remember? So let's test your maturity.

Which would you rather have? (1) Our current situation in Iraq, with Saddam out of the picture, no attacks on American soil, Kadafi capitulating, Iran and North Korea worrying about us next, and you feeling bad about us being there because no one let you "be the general", or (2) one of our cities nuked, possibly one that you are in or a loved one, and you feeling bad about Bush "not doing enough". Which would make you feel worse?

 

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

I agree. Democracy, without a rule of law, is a recipe for oligarchy. In Franklin's quote, the lamb's weapon is law. America's recipe is "laws first, men second". The Republic provides the static framework first. The Democracy provides the dynamics in the framework second. The dynamics may never contradict the statics. Pure engineering architecture!

I would gather that you would be for getting out of Iraq now.

Never! I'm for staying there in Iraq for the next 1000 years if that's how long it takes for them to stop attacking us. If they never stop attacking us, then we should never leave. 9/11 proved that they will attack us no matter where we are. Better that they attack us there, on Iraqi soil, than here, on American soil. And I will vote for American leaders that share that opinion. At least we get veteran-status troops in the process, and new technologies from the war effort. In addition, ever dollar spent on the military, is one less dollar spent on "saving the rabbits", and other useless largesse.

Tell me that today's America fits within those definitions and I will end my argument that America has lost it's sight on what the Constitution is and what representive government is supposed to be all about.

Yes, America best fits that definition. However, there's no such thing as a perfect fit, unless it's math of course. But never end your argument! Keep fighting for perfection. There is nothing stable about a Republic, as the Fall of Rome has demonstrated. Left passively, political entropy will surely set in.

We place so much emphasis on the Presidential election when really the Executive Branch is the least powerful of the 3 branches as defined by the Constitution.

Well, I don't personally place that much emphasis on the Executive Branch. I spend far more time reviewing the propositions and legislators (senators and representatives). I love America for the mere fact that of all the countries out there, this is the country least likely to be adversely affected by choosing a bad leader. Perhaps that one of the reasons why many feel it's OK to vote carelessly.

It's called the Politics of Envy. When in the presence of a "superior" person (by your definition), you have many strategic options: (1) You can do nothing and accept that you are inferior. This is insignificant to your question, so let's not consider it any further. (2) You can attempt to better yourself so as to surpass or lessen the difference between you and your opponent. This is the American Way! A true capitalist. The total system improves because of fair competition. I can think of no better way to raise an entire system up, than by each individual improving itself. (3) You can attempt to lower your "superior", by killing your opponent, by getting your opponent to slow down, not try as hard, or merely corrupt your opponent. This third way lowers the entire system, but still decreases your relative inferiorness. Sadly, this third strategy is very popular. This third option requires you to "hate".

This explains them -- Al Qaeda et al. They've never really forgiven Western Europe (and now America) from taking the lead technologically, culturally, religiously, economically, and politically. So why do some of "us" hate us? The answer is easy. Because some of us see others of us as superior, and choose option (3). They have not learned that the only way to truly be superior is to stop worrying about where someone else is, and start worrying about where they are.

My advice... Improve yourself! Stop comparing yourself to others. And if you can't resist the urge to compare... then choose option (1).

The CIA World Factbook calls us a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"

Their definition of a Democracy is "a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed."

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.... - Thomas Jefferson.

Florida is ready for 2004

As long as you keep your promises and do not break any laws, investing for profit is the ONLY moral choice and the MOST optimal choice for investment. If they (the one's you are investing in) do not keep their promises, or break the law, then they will likely get sued or prosecuted, which is not good for profit.

If you want to make society better, please God, decrease the number of poor people, save the rabbits, and cure cancer, THEN make profit your #1 criteria for investment.

History has yet to discover a better strategy that just this.

OK. Let's take one step back. This isn't going in a useful direction. I am nothing like the Libertarian you described. Let's recap:

Marriage to minors can adversely affect minors -- they grow up to be bad society people. Single minors are better people than married minors. This has nothing to do with whether their singleness makes you happy or not. The law is to protect them from them -- not you from them. As voting adults, we feel superior to children to make these decisions for them knowing all too well that they will grow to be independent adults able and encouraged to make their own decisions. Therefore we have laws for minimum marriage ages. Age changes equally for everyone. Every nation has these laws. It's culturally genetic. There does not seem to be any good arguments for allowing it anywhere in the world. You and I agree on that, but it's still a state issue as you pointed out that many states allow different marriage ages. It's not federal.

As far a polygamy goes, I could careless. Some nations allow it. Ours does not. Those nations that do allow polygamy have very good arguments for allowing it, such as those that support stability in society. I'm not going to get into that. The same applies to prostitution. Some nations allow it. Nevada allows it. There are age limiting laws, and some require licensing. The same applies to drugs and pornography. Some nations allow it.

In all these cases, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, polygamy, gay marriages, can be limited by age laws. When I try to understand why there are age laws against these acts, the only conclusion I find is that they are invented to prevent you from hurting yourself. Age is an attribute that you possess, that changes outside of your control. If you cannot buy cigarettes (or get married) now because you are too young, wait a while. Soon, the law will recognize that you are mature enough to make that decision. 

Can you not see the difference? Do you just lump all the things that you don't personally like into one category, that supporting one somehow condones all others? 

Can you claim that the same argument against minors getting married applies to adult gay marriage? Can you say, preventing gays from getting married protects gays from them? Do you feel superior to adult gays so that you can make decisions that limit them for their benefit? We know you will never pass a law that prevents them from "being" gay or practicing gayness. So how do you justify righteously going up to two specific gay adults and tell them that they cannot get married. Marriage today means making some long-term promise to the other person that they will be treated with higher respect than anyone else for however long the vows state. Don't use the "God" argument because the government is supposed to stay out of religious arguments. 

Here's a classic popular marriage vow I stole from the net:

“I, John take thee Mary to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”

Vows do vary. One-size does not fit all. The definitions of these terms are vague across cultures. All that's important for marriage is that the two people getting married agree on what their vows means. In the case of legal conflict, the law refers to their culture or their religion for interpretation -- not yours. Ideals are supposed to get more abstract when you go up the hierarchy (toward the federal) and more concrete when you go down the hierarchy (toward the local state and individuals). We are supposed to be a bottom-up society (capitalism, laissez-faire, democracy, a republic that limits high-level government), not a top-down one (socialism, communism, theocracy, a constitution that tells the government what they can do and must do). 

How might a gay couple choose to change these vows? The answer is only in the names they choose to call each other.

“I, John take thee Mark to be my wedded spouse [or whatever they (the ones that create and own the vow) decide it should be], to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”

How is denying a tax-paying legal abiding adult citizen from making this promise to another person adverse to society? I don't get it! I know it doesn't adversely affect them. All I understand is that you don't like it. American laws do not exist to make your life happy or reaffirm your philosophy or your religion! They exist to prevent you from making other people unhappy, and visa versa. You claim their actions make you unhappy. They argue the reverse, that you are preventing them from pursuing their happiness. But they go one step further, that you don't even know them, that you are not even affected by it. You are physically preventing them from pursuing their happiness. The reverse is not the case. Their argument is much stronger than yours. In this case, the government should do what it was established to do and just opt out, telling you to look the other way and mind your own business.

We can prove that marriage adversely affects minors. We cannot prove that marriage adversely affects gays. If you try to claim that their marriage affects your marriage, then you don't understand marriage.

All you seem to be arguing is that gay marriage somehow adversely affects you personally, regardless of your marital status. The burden of proof is upon you.

PS: Thanks for taking the time to continue this debate.

I get it. Caesar would have listened neither to the UN nor to Iraq. To the victor goes the spoils. Although America (and previously Britain) is the closest thing to the spirit of the Roman Empire, we have come a long way on our "conquering" philosophy. I'm sure if the tables were turned, and Iraq had conquered America, no American would have been in the "new" government.

As the Romans would have said, "You [Iraq] are a conquered nation. You will do things to our satisfaction, or you will die."

Iraq should be praising Allah that we have given them so much freedom. We've come a long way as a super power.

When the first side slaps the second side, you know that the first side has lost the battle.

She left you all with good thoughts of her. I can think of no other higher achievement in life. God must be smiling.