Liberals please explain this one....

[Machiavelli]

I think we're winning it, and I think that as a war goes - this one is going well. That doesnt mean I support it.

[wannabe]

In spite everything I don't like about your politics, Machiavelli, I respect that you can admit that.

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by wannabe:
In spite everything I don't like about your politics, Machiavelli, I respect that you can admit that.

That really wasnt my point.
My point was - the ABC poll didnt ask if they supported the war, the 60% is "are we winning the war?" and "do you think that the war is going well?"

And as for winning the war, yeah obviously we're winning... thats sort of like asking "Are the Detroit Pistons beating the Ridell High School Varsity Basketball team?"

and as for "is the war going well?" in terms of wars - its going well in the sense that we're winning. In the sense that we're pissing off the world, torturing people and creating more terrorists - its not going so well... but thats not part of the war. Yes, we're shooting a lot of people and occupying Iraq, which is our objective - so if you judge the war based on completing objectives - yeah its going well.

Now, the opinion polls that ask "Was the Bush administration truthful about the case for war?" the support has declined now to below 50% in more than one poll.
Not only that, Bush's overall approval ratings have dipped below 50% and with the War the defining issue of his presidency, this speaks largely to the fact that it is highly unpopular.

[98v6]

ok, i'll explain it: you're an idiot. You get all tied up in party politics and forget that the system is the real problem, the best course of action at this point in time is to divide the house and senate and the presidency by electing officials from different parties to each. Republican congress, Democrat president. Best way to do things, because then the idiots can't **** it up. So forget the party, liberal/conservative bs and look at it for what it really is: just a mask to cover up the fact that it's all really the same power grab that's been going on for 30 years where the people get blinded by the media and party lines and forget that what our government actually does can hurt us.

[Blue Flame V6]

Originally posted by Stefan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Machiavelli:
We could lower taxes if we implemented a system like this.

Forcing every citizen to at some point in their life work for the government would LOWER taxes? Please explain how that novelty works. The more people who work for the government the MORE we have to pay in taxes for their payrolls.

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
I said work for charities as well.

Oh yes, forcing people to work for a charity instead of working for a for-profit corporation is going to do wonders for the economy... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
I dont think this system would require the service all at once - 1-2 years of service spread out over someones life time??

Why bother? What is the point of attempting to get more people into civil service and/or military positions? The government is already bloated and inefficient as is, adding more employees only makes it worse. We need government cuts, not expansion.

Originally posted by Machiavelli:
While I share your concern about "forcing" people to do things, I think we have a problem in this country with too many lazy people - across class lines.

So forcing people to work for the government will weed out the lazy people, eh? Why not just cut welfare benefits, or more important, limit their duration? I agree, there are a lot of lazy people who live off the system in this country. But forcing them to work for the government is not the solution. Indirectly forcing them to work (for whoever will hire them) by cutting welfare benefits is.

The very notion of someone being required to serve in civil service or the military is absurd. Look at the great countries who have done this and where it got them:

1. Germany, 1933-1945
2. Soviet Union, 1917-1993
3. Cuba
4. North Korea

You get the idea.

Mandatory conscription is not an effective technique for weeding out "lazy" citizens. </font>[/QUOTE]One country you did forget which will contradict the theory is Sweden. They require mandatory military service I'm thinking 4 years serving/training then you are in it till you 50 or 60. They also have a very well controled army/goverment because each mail being issued a gun @ 20 with a select amount of ammo. They are allowed to use the gun for whatever they want as long as they use their own ammo. Sweden is not a "bad" country(for lack of better words) like the other countries you listed. I am aware that is a matter of opinion but most of the coutries listed I think everyone will agree on. So as far as the military draft(I agree its not one) but saying it was doesn't mean it would turn us into a "bad" country.

that is just my 2 cents

[98v6]

So forcing people to work for the government will weed out the lazy people, eh? Why not just cut welfare benefits, or more important, limit their duration? I agree, there are a lot of lazy people who live off the system in this country. But forcing them to work for the government is not the solution. Indirectly forcing them to work (for whoever will hire them) by cutting welfare benefits is.

Conservative ideas about welfare are idealistic at best. Everybody lives in society, and the rich pretty much reap all the benefits of the poor class's labor. So, how exactly is it fair that the poor class which does the work doesn't get anythign back from it? Welfare in itself is an idealistic notion, because any collective good is going to have free riders.

So, why don't we use an example? There's a road in a town right? Well, say that only the people in the town paid for it. So why is it fair that other people get to drive their cars on it and reap all that benefit? Because they do the same in their towns.

Money isn't much different, it translates to material possessions and happiness though, and the road is just transportation. Basically, society is going to help everybody out, but the guys that build the road can't even afford to drive on it. The idealistic image of capitalism includes easy transition of classes, but does not mention lots of real life factors like drugs, alcohol, and stress. I know people who work 60+ hours a week just to barely get by and support a family. That's a one-way ticket to a nervous breakdown in many circumstances, so why should that contributing member of society be dubbed lazy and forced even lower in the class structure? People want to move up, but there needs to be a concrete bottom for them to stand on first.

You can't dub somebody lazy just because they're poor, there are an infinite number of factors that go into poverty, and higher minimum wages and welfare are a decent way to start people off on the right foot.\

And no, this is not socialism. It's an idea called a mixed system wherein the government regulates the capitalistic scene and keeps things like separation of classes from getting too bad because capitalism will fail if this occurs. Seems like a lot of people forget about that, and lust for pure market economy when it's just unrealistic to expect that to work in any form.

[wannabe]

Originally posted by 98v6:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So forcing people to work for the government will weed out the lazy people, eh? Why not just cut welfare benefits, or more important, limit their duration? I agree, there are a lot of lazy people who live off the system in this country. But forcing them to work for the government is not the solution. Indirectly forcing them to work (for whoever will hire them) by cutting welfare benefits is.

Conservative ideas about welfare are idealistic at best. Everybody lives in society, and the rich pretty much reap all the benefits of the poor class's labor. So, how exactly is it fair that the poor class which does the work doesn't get anythign back from it? Welfare in itself is an idealistic notion, because any collective good is going to have free riders.

So, why don't we use an example? There's a road in a town right? Well, say that only the people in the town paid for it. So why is it fair that other people get to drive their cars on it and reap all that benefit? Because they do the same in their towns.

Money isn't much different, it translates to material possessions and happiness though, and the road is just transportation. Basically, society is going to help everybody out, but the guys that build the road can't even afford to drive on it. The idealistic image of capitalism includes easy transition of classes, but does not mention lots of real life factors like drugs, alcohol, and stress. I know people who work 60+ hours a week just to barely get by and support a family. That's a one-way ticket to a nervous breakdown in many circumstances, so why should that contributing member of society be dubbed lazy and forced even lower in the class structure? People want to move up, but there needs to be a concrete bottom for them to stand on first.

You can't dub somebody lazy just because they're poor, there are an infinite number of factors that go into poverty, and higher minimum wages and welfare are a decent way to start people off on the right foot.\

And no, this is not socialism. It's an idea called a mixed system wherein the government regulates the capitalistic scene and keeps things like separation of classes from getting too bad because capitalism will fail if this occurs. Seems like a lot of people forget about that, and lust for pure market economy when it's just unrealistic to expect that to work in any form. </font>[/QUOTE]First, no one said that anything was FAIR.

That said, it's illogical of you to argue fairness when you are simply advocating one unfairness over another. It's unfair of the poor to DEMAND a portion of MY money that I earned through hard work and dedication just because they are either unwilling to do the same. I say unwilling because the simple fact is that in this country, every year, thousands of new millionaires are created. Thousands of new immigrants with no knowledge of the culture or language come here and become rich. Some don't, too. But the fact is that those who do come here with the knowledge that in this country, hard work and ingenuity pay off. Many (not all, don't try and trap me with "all" or "none" arguments) of those in this country who are poor are simply not willing to put in that kind of work. I know that you're going to say "Well, working at McDonald's is never going to make you rich, so they have no incentive to try." But that's not true. It's called starting at the bottom. Learn. Work hard. EARN your way to the top. THAT is the American dream.

It's also illogical to assume that just because the poor are doing the grunt work for the lower wage means that they get no benefit. They get the benefit of pay commensurate with their work and, more importantly, EXPERIENCE and the ability to work toward a higher goal.

Don't ever try and tell me that it can't be done. Thousands of people do it every year. The vast majority of new millionaires are self made. My own father (while not a millionaire), provided a much better life for me than he had growing up because he WORKED HARD. End of story.

[98v6]

First, no one said that anything was FAIR.

That said, it's illogical of you to argue fairness when you are simply advocating one unfairness over another. It's unfair of the poor to DEMAND a portion of MY money that I earned through hard work and dedication

Wait, you say I can't argue fairness and then turn around and do the same? The point of my post was that SOCIETY IS WHERE YOU GET YOUR MONEY. Without society, you don't have money or a place to spend it. Classes need to be close together for easy transition, like where you get rich... And that's done by things like welfare.

[98v6]

Originally posted by wannabe:
Thousands of new immigrants with no knowledge of the culture or language come here and become rich. Some don't, too. But the fact is that those who do come here with the knowledge that in this country, hard work and ingenuity pay off. [/QB]

That immigrant scenario... funny. And society pays you, it doesn't pay everyone who has hard work and why do you have to be a genius to succeed? The point of welfare is for people who aren't born on top of the damn gene pool to be able to have decent lives.

[Machiavelli]

If people werent so inherently evil, greedy, and conieving we wouldnt need the government - but people are, so we do.

[95fbirdkid]

The point of my post was that SOCIETY IS WHERE YOU GET YOUR MONEY. Without society, you don't have money or a place to spend it.

That doesnt mean I owe society my money, everyone has a chance to work hard and earn money.

[98v6]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The point of my post was that SOCIETY IS WHERE YOU GET YOUR MONEY. Without society, you don't have money or a place to spend it.

That doesnt mean I owe society my money, everyone has a chance to work hard and earn money. </font>[/QUOTE]Obviously this is where we have our difference of opinion because you're probably some punk *** little rich kid who's never seen what it's like to be poor- which is fine, but you need to shut your face when you're saying that anybody can work hard and actually get somewhere, because every day I see people who work hard and will never succeed beyond just having kids and being a loving parent.

[token sebring]

[quote]Originally posted by wannabe:
[QUOTE][qb]

It's also illogical to assume that just because the poor are doing the grunt work for the lower wage means that they get no benefit. They get the benefit of pay commensurate with their work and, more importantly, EXPERIENCE and the ability to work toward a higher goal.

[img]graemlins/bs.gif[/img]

That is absolutely not true - if it were, teachers, cops, firemen, etc would all get paid more than CEO's... but they don't. They get paid next to nothing to be responsible for the education, motivation, and safety of our future. Fabulous plan if you ask me. Well, at least we know they're not in it just for the money right?

[wannabe]

[quote]Originally posted by token sebring:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wannabe:

[qb]

It's also illogical to assume that just because the poor are doing the grunt work for the lower wage means that they get no benefit. They get the benefit of pay commensurate with their work and, more importantly, EXPERIENCE and the ability to work toward a higher goal.

[img]graemlins/bs.gif[/img]

That is absolutely not true - if it were, teachers, cops, firemen, etc would all get paid more than CEO's... but they don't. They get paid next to nothing to be responsible for the education, motivation, and safety of our future. Fabulous plan if you ask me. Well, at least we know they're not in it just for the money right?

</font>

Non sequitur.

[token sebring]

oh well - to each his own beliefs then [img]smile.gif[/img]