Americans! Vote!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**lord_blackfang**

That little weapons test the USA did on Serbia happened 8 years after the fall of communism, sparky. You're going to blame the Shiite/Sunite conflicts in Iraq on communists next.

**two_heads_talking**

jmurph wrote:Can ChaosDave please take his political pushing elsewhere? I hear freerepublic is a pretty good sight for rightards... Most leftards prefer democraticunderground.

what about us midtards? is there a place for those of use who like to swim in the middle of the pond and not at the extreme edges?

**Frazzled**

lord_blackfang wrote:That little weapons test the USA did on Serbia happened 8 years after the fall of communism, sparky. You're going to blame the Shiite/Sunite conflicts in Iraq on communists next.

No one brought up Iraq but you. You can't hide the atrocities that Tito was behind, a further circumstance of what happens when a communist state gets power. Right wing dictatorships aren't better, but they are both killer regimes.

**lord_blackfang**

Frazzled, that website is horribly biased and even admits it:

[qoute]
No apologies are necessary for the "one-sidedness" of the Museum's focus. A movement that deliberately kills millions of innocent people can possess only one side.

**ChaosDave**

Centurian99 wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
As for liberals and big government, well your statement tells all. Government doesn't solve problems, the people do. The idea that creating a massive bureaucracy to "handle" any problem is absurd but this is exactly what is done to "deal with" any problem "too big for individuals to solve". In fact I would ask that you tell me one US government bureaucracy that is efficient and isn't plagued by cost overruns or corruption? Hell tell me one that actually works and solves or has solved the problem it was created to "deal with".

Here's the part that I've never gotten (and the reason I'm a Democrat). "For the people, by the people, and of the people." We like to blame government for being ineffective - but that's saying that we're not responsible for what the government does. Which is hogwash, in a representative democracy. We may not be directly responsible, but we choose the people who are. And its our job to hold our elected officials responsible.

Of course we are responsible for what the government does. My point is that there is a perception that you can or should use government to shape society. This perception causes people to think that government is there to solve their/societies problems. This isn't true, government can't solve societies problems, it can only hide them or suppress them. Take Yugoslavia for example, the leftist government had near total control, redistributed wealth, used education in government run schools to try and solve the regions societal problems etc etc. They had decades to resolve these problems but what happened once the repression was lifted? The oldest societal problem in that region blew up into an ethnic war. My contention is that government is only there to provide infrastructure and to protect it's population.

**dogma**

ChaosDave wrote:
As for liberals and big government, well your statement tells all. Government doesn't solve problems, the people do. The idea that creating a massive bureaucracy to "handle" any problem is absurd but this is exactly what is done to "deal with" any problem "too big for individuals to solve".

I hope you appreciate the irony of using the plural form of 'person' when criticizing government.

ChaosDave wrote:
In fact I would ask that you tell me one US government bureaucracy that is efficient and isn't plagued by cost overruns or corruption? Hell tell me one that actually works and solves or has solved the problem it was created to "deal with".

Well, the Fed pretty well dug us out of the Great Depression by acting as a lender of last resort. Sure, WWII was the primary force in that it leveled the playing field, but without the ability to print paper programs like lend-lease, as the primary mechanism by which debt was eliminated, would have been impossible.

In any case, off the assumption that government bureaucracy is inefficient, could you give me an example of a corporation which does not give in to excess waste? Or any organization, for that matter? Actually, just define what 'waste' entails.

**Frazzled**

lord_blackfang wrote:Frazzled, that website is horribly biased and even admits it:

[qoute]
No apologies are necessary for the "one-sidedness" of the Museum's focus. A movement that deliberately kills millions of innocent people can possess only one side.

**CaptainCommunsism**

I needs a fact-o-meter check: One time a friend of mine told me that the vote in china to choose the national language (Cantonese or Mandarin) was decided by one vote in favour of Mandarin. I've always wondered if this was true or not. anyone have info?

**dogma**

ChaosDave wrote:
Of course we are responsible for what the government does. My point is that there is a perception that you can or should use government to shape society. This perception causes people to think that government is there to solve their/societies problems. This isn't true, government can't solve societies problems, it can only hide them or suppress them.

I disagree. So do the Civil Rights movement, the Women's Suffrage movement, the FDR, and the founding fathers.

ChaosDave wrote:
Take Yugoslavia for example, the leftist government had near total control, redistributed wealth, used education in government run schools to try and solve the regions societal problems etc etc. They had decades to resolve these problems but what happened once the repression was lifted? The oldest societal problem in that region blew up into an ethnic war. My contention is that government is only there to provide infrastructure and to protect it's population.

That's not a valid comparison. Yugoslavia was an artificial construct based on the maintenance of Imperial control. Divide and suppress. America is no way comparable to that kind of a factional environment. Context is everything.

**gorgon**

Necros wrote:
budro wrote:Think about it - if you had a couple billion dollars what would you do with it?

I would probably buy one of those new laser beam planes that can fly around and make bad guys spontaneously combust from 50 miles away.

There is no better use of a couple bil than a stealth bomber, IMO.

**ender502**

lord_blackfang wrote:Frazzled, that website is horribly biased and even admits it:

[qoute]
No apologies are necessary for the "one-sidedness" of the Museum's focus. A movement that deliberately kills millions of innocent people can possess only one side.

**ChaosDave**

dogma wrote:

Well, the Fed pretty well dug us out of the Great Depression by acting as a lender of last resort. Sure, WWII was the primary force in that it leveled the playing field, but without the ability to print paper programs like lend-lease, as the primary mechanism by which debt was eliminated, would have been impossible.

In any case, off the assumption that government bureaucracy is inefficient, could you give me an example of a corporation which does not give in to excess waste? Or any organization, for that matter? Actually, just define what 'waste' entails.

Actually corporations in a free market are far more efficient and less likely to "give in to excess waste" by the simple fact of competition. If they aren't efficient they fail and cease to exist. The only time this doesn't happen is when government intervenes and "bails out" a corporation. When that happens you usually see criminal charges and a restructuring to eliminate "excess waste" and increase efficiency. So in effect either way they are self correcting.

Now a government bureaucracy is a different animal altogether. For starters it has no competition and no way to fail. If it runs into cost overruns the people end up paying for it in increased taxes or money being redirected to it from other places like infrastructure. In fact a government bureaucracy will only grow larger. A bureaucracy's very existence becomes to sustain itself and it's policies will adjust themselves to ensure that it survives and grows.

**lord_blackfang**

Frazzled wrote:
Of course its biased. How could it not be? How can a sane individual not be biased when it comes to repression and mass murder? One can say "wow that was some bad " and move on in life, but one can't forget the past, especially when making comparisons to other societies that didn't do that. You're moral relativism argument doesn't hold.

Which societies didn't use repression and mass murder? Your own country is doing it right now. I am certain that in the grand scheme of things, communist Yugoslavia was near the bottom of the heap as far as atrocities go. After 1953 it was probably more relaxed than the McCarthy era in the USA. The worst that has happened to any of my family for "dissent" during the height of the regime was losing a job. Easily comparable to what happened to some "non-patriots" in the democratic USA after 9/11.

**Kilkrazy**

ChaosDave wrote:
dogma wrote:

Well, the Fed pretty well dug us out of the Great Depression by acting as a lender of last resort. Sure, WWII was the primary force in that it leveled the playing field, but without the ability to print paper programs like lend-lease, as the primary mechanism by which debt was eliminated, would have been impossible.

In any case, off the assumption that government bureaucracy is inefficient, could you give me an example of a corporation which does not give in to excess waste? Or any organization, for that matter? Actually, just define what 'waste' entails.

Actually corporations in a free market are far more efficient and less likely to "give in to excess waste" by the simple fact of competition. If they aren't efficient they fail and cease to exist. The only time this doesn't happen is when government intervenes and "bails out" a corporation. When that happens you usually see criminal charges and a restructuring to eliminate "excess waste" and increase efficiency. So in effect either way they are self correcting.

Now a government bureaucracy is a different animal altogether. For starters it has no competition and no way to fail. If it runs into cost overruns the people end up paying for it in increased taxes or money being redirected to it from other places like infrastructure. In fact a government bureaucracy will only grow larger. A bureaucracy's very existence becomes to sustain itself and it's policies will adjust themselves to ensure that it survives and grows.

Clearly you have never worked in a large corporation. They are seething pits of waste and bureacracy.

Small companies where every penny counts are the most efficient in their use of resources.

I speak as someone who has worked in both kinds of companies.

**Frazzled**

1) You're frighteningly wrong. I can point to Ward Churchill and a host of others who maintained their jobs-most of the media being a prime example. Indeed, Obama would have been disappeared because of his criticism of the state.

2) We'll just have to agree to disagree. This is OT to the 3rd power and clearly both of us have strong personal feelings on the subject.

Clearly you have never worked in a large corporation. They are seething pits of waste and bureacracy.

Small companies where every penny counts are the most efficient in their use of resources.

I speak as someone who has worked in both kinds of companies.

I see the new MOD brings great wisdom and speaks a truth of the ages.

Vote Cthulu?

**Centurian99**

ChaosDave wrote:Actually corporations in a free market are far more efficient and less likely to "give in to excess waste" by the simple fact of competition. If they aren't efficient they fail and cease to exist. The only time this doesn't happen is when government intervenes and "bails out" a corporation. When that happens you usually see criminal charges and a restructuring to eliminate "excess waste" and increase efficiency. So in effect either way they are self correcting.

Now a government bureaucracy is a different animal altogether. For starters it has no competition and no way to fail. If it runs into cost overruns the people end up paying for it in increased taxes or money being redirected to it from other places like infrastructure. In fact a government bureaucracy will only grow larger. A bureaucracy's very existence becomes to sustain itself and it's policies will adjust themselves to ensure that it survives and grows.

Ah yes, the competition argument. Which essentially leads us to our current economic situation, and a demonstration of why "Less Regulation" is epic fail - because although in the long run, the free market will probably recover, the immediate impact on millions is simply unacceptable.

As in many things, the solution isn't to swing to the other extreme, but rather to find a middle ground.

Government bureacracies are as inefficient as the people leading them and the rules that govern them. Change one or both, and you can get good efficient services - take the US Post Office, or the US Marine Corps.

**Kilkrazy**

The same is true of companies, which is why big companies tend to be inefficient.

For all the propaganda the executives would like people to believe, it is rare for one guy at the top to be able to have any real influence on hundreds and thousands of lower level staff.

**ChaosDave**

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
Take Yugoslavia for example, the leftist government had near total control, redistributed wealth, used education in government run schools to try and solve the regions societal problems etc etc. They had decades to resolve these problems but what happened once the repression was lifted? The oldest societal problem in that region blew up into an ethnic war. My contention is that government is only there to provide infrastructure and to protect it's population.

That's not a valid comparison. Yugoslavia was an artificial construct based on the maintenance of Imperial control. Divide and suppress. America is no way comparable to that kind of a factional environment. Context is everything.

Ahh but that comparison was merely to illustrate the underlying principle, the idea that you can use government to solve societies problems.

As for America not being comparable to that kind of a factional environment, I'm not so sure. We are definitely factional, maybe not as extreme but it's still there none the less. If you want proof go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt to any well populated public place and see what happens.

**CorporateLogo**

Off topic for a moment, but I'd like to quote this man on Proposition 8:

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS

if you vote yes on proposition 8 you are Garbage

**Frazzled**

Is that the same guy who beat up the old people for putting the yes on 8 sign in their yard?

**ChaosDave**

CorporateLogo wrote:Off topic for a moment, but I'd like to quote this man on Proposition 8:

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS

if you vote yes on proposition 8 you are Garbage

Ahh yes, the "tolerant left" showing it's intolerance.

**wyomingfox**

"Off topic for a moment, but I'd like to quote this man on Proposition 8:"

And there is an unbiased remark

**Wraithlordmechanic**

What most people don't understand about proposition 8 is that the only thing it affects is a definition of marriage. Civil unions in California hold the same legal ramifications as marriage. Proposition 8 doesn't take any rights away from homosexuals it simply defines marriage (not civil unions) as between a man and a woman which is what it always was.

p.s. This is way off topic and I hope this doesn't lead to threadocide

**ChaosDave**

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:What most people don't understand about proposition 8 is that the only thing it affects is a definition of marriage. Civil unions in California hold the same legal ramifications as marriage. Proposition 8 doesn't take any rights away from homosexuals it simply defines marriage (not civil unions) as between a man and a woman which is what it always was.

p.s. This is way off topic and I hope this doesn't lead to threadocide

That bit needed to be highlighted. As for off topic, well this is the off topic forum so going off topic is expected isn't it?

**JohnHwangDD**

CorporateLogo wrote:Off topic for a moment, but I'd like to quote man on Proposition 8:

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS

if you vote yes on proposition 8 you are Garbage

Gee, thanks for your insight.

If only it were so simple that the proper vote would be obvious, rather than a hotly-contested measure.

Now, it's my turn to make a statement:

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL LIBERALS IN THE GARBAGE STATE:

If you want to call several million people "Garbage", have the balls to man up and say it to face to face.

Don't be the "big man" who hides behind the Internet to make these kinds of statements because you're on the opposite side of the country.

**Kilkrazy**

There are much bigger problems in the world than if two men or women want to have a certificate saying they are married to each other as opposed to one saying they are in a legally binding civil partnership.

**ender502**

ChaosDave wrote:

Ahh yes, the "tolerant left" showing it's intolerance.

Don't be absurd. Do you actually believe one person acts as the mouthpiece for all liberals? If that is the case I think the grand wizard of the KKK should be the mouthpiece for all republicans.

Sound fair? Good.

ender502

**ChaosDave**

ender502 wrote:
ChaosDave wrote:

Ahh yes, the "tolerant left" showing it's intolerance.

Don't be absurd. Do you actually believe one person acts as the mouthpiece for all liberals? If that is the case I think the grand wizard of the KKK should be the mouthpiece for all republicans.

Sound fair? Good.

ender502

Oh I would normally agree with you, but unfortunately that intolerance of differing opinions is much more wide spread and it grows everyday. Like I said a few posts up, if you don't believe me go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt in a well populated public place and see what happens.

**CorporateLogo**

I make no apologies for the views expressed by rubbercat.net even if they are hilarious.

Also: lol at all the people who think I wrote that myself and didn't steal it off a website

**djones520**

ender502 wrote:
ChaosDave wrote:

Ahh yes, the "tolerant left" showing it's intolerance.

Don't be absurd. Do you actually believe one person acts as the mouthpiece for all liberals? If that is the case I think the grand wizard of the KKK should be the mouthpiece for all republicans.

Sound fair? Good.

ender502

*sighs* Maybe look up a little info on the KKK before you start wipping out the political party paint brush.

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-KKK%20Terrorist%20Arm%20of%20the%20Democrat%20Party&tp_preview=true

“Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

Participation in the Ku Klux Klan
Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was twenty four in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.[2]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone

important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[2] Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[2]

When Byrd was twenty eight years old, he wrote about the 1945 racial integration of the military to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

—Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944 [2][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

The KKK was a organization founded by the democratic party to combat Republican attempts to desegregate this country. The Democratic party has fought kicking and screaming since the Emancipation Proclamation to hold African Americans back. All of this is well documented, in their terrorist acts, through their elected officials (like George Wallace), and the laws they've passed.

Open a history book sometime and read before making yourself look like an idiot.