Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on September 25, 2004, 04:13:08 pm
-
http://news.com.com/Conservative+group+savages+anti-P2P+bill/2100-1028_3-5381593.html?part=rss&tag=5381593&subj=news.1028.20
One quote...strikes me as quite odd
"This is the Hollywood liberals trying to crush innovation," said ACU deputy director Stacie Rumenap.
The opportunistic attempt to chuck mud at the other side amuses me - you'd never guess it was political. :)
-
cool cheese
-
yay!
-
I find it funny calling liberals conservatives and conservatives liberals... :lol:
-
Hey, if we can get the Conservatives on our side, all the more power to us. Yay!
-
It's you Brits that have the terms fouled up.
Conservative in the political sense refers to the following:
marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners(morality)
Liberals on the other hand are all about doing away with the above. It's not that they have any better ideas they just don't like traditional ethics or morality.
On topic: it's nice to see someone in government(any government) coming down on the side of innovation and technological development instead of trying to stifle it since they don't understand it.
-
conservitives conserve, they like things to stay the way they are or were,
liberals like big change, if something is in there opionion wrong they will flip the world upsidedown to corect it.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Liberals on the other hand are all about doing away with the above. It's not that they have any better ideas they just don't like traditional ethics or morality.
Keep in mind that your tradition is not everyone else's.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's you Brits that have the terms fouled up.
Conservative in the political sense refers to the following:
marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners(morality)
Liberals on the other hand are all about doing away with the above. It's not that they have any better ideas they just don't like traditional ethics or morality.
On topic: it's nice to see someone in government(any government) coming down on the side of innovation and technological development instead of trying to stifle it since they don't understand it.
*cough* Inventors of the language and the democratic use *cough*
I like how your definition is completely biased in favour of your own view, very (not) subtle.
For the sake of fairness, here's some proper definitions.
(NB: I've selected the definitions which are appropriate...the financial description for conservative, i.e. 'conservative guess' isn't relevant IMO, etc etc)
Definition for conservative from http://www.dictionary.co.uk/;
conservative (AGAINST CHANGE)
1 tending not to like or trust change, especially sudden change
2 If you are conservative in your appearance, you tend not to like fashionable or modern clothes or hairstyles:
Conservative (POLITICAL PARTY)
belonging to or supporting the British political party which opposes sudden social change, high taxation and government involvement in industry
Definition for liberal from http://www.dictionary.co.uk/;
liberal (SOCIETY)
respecting and allowing many different types of beliefs or behaviour:
liberal (POLITICS)
of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society
Liberal Democrats
in Britain, a political party that believes in more power for local government, more personal freedom and a gradual development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society
-
Okay, I agree with the more personal freedom part, the more I learn about current governmental trends the more Libertarian I become. I diverge, however, on the sharing of wealth.
What gives anyone, the government included, the right to take the money that I work my ass off for and give it to someone else because they are shiftless or are unwilling to work for what they want. If they can't make enough where they are move. I understand hard times, everybody goes through them. But I refuse to fund someone else's life of leisure when I can barely pay my rent.
-
you make it sounds as if though people on welfare a) are living the high life, with a fleet of Mercedes and a mansion with a pool and b)are in their position becuase they are unwilling to change it, not unable.
Anyway, the poor actually get taxed quite a bit too. Take Bush's tax cut for example: most of it was to the richest 1 or 2%.
What I don't understand is, if you (and conservatives in general) are so keen on keeping taxes low, then why do you unquestioningly support a ridiculously overlarge military, which is a huge waste of money. American military spending is almost equal to that of the entire rest of the world combined. I can understand the need to protect your borders, but having such a large military speaks volumes about the way in which Americans feel they ought to dominate.
Cutting the military down to a reasonable size (and cutting the massive inefficiences and under-the-table *wink wink* military contracts to well-connected military companies) doesn't mean you'll suddenly have the Commies or the terrorists or whoever knocking on your door. And it would give everyone a nice, bg tax break..
-
*munches popcorn*
This is gonna be fun.
-
America is currently in a "ME" phase, whereby the plight of those in poverty is brushed aside by the American myth that everyone controls his or her own destiny.
-
You do control your own destiny. The only people who can change that is you, if you give your freedom of choice away to say a government or other organization.
Don't even start with me Rictor, you know as well as anyone that The Top 1% of wealth holders pay something in the neighborhood of 50% of the total tax burden. If you increase that percentage to the top 10% of wealth holders the total percentage of the tax burden goes up to somewhere near 75%, meanwhile they use next to none of the goevernmental services they fund.
Prefect, you and your left wing liberal social experiment tripe can take a long walk off a short pier, I'm trying to have a well reasoned discussion with Rictor about tax structure and anything else he cares to bring up.
Also, for reference, the current tax system in the USA is broken. It's hundreds if not thousands of pages long. It has more loop holes than a hundred shoe stores. Even the IRS doesn't fully understand it. There is, however, an alternative. (http://www.fairtax.org/)
What freaks me out the most about you Ford, who quote Friedrich Nietzsche in your sig is how can you not believe that each person is responsible for their own destiny? Survival of Fittest and all that?
America is the number one perveyor of foreign aid, both financial and humanitarian, in the world. We fund your precious United Nations, which has far outstripped it's original purpose(which was to act as a forums for countries to talk out their disputes in a mature manner instead of resorting to war, not to enforce a peace that would not hold otherwise and otherwise act as some defacto World Government) and is filled with nations that are run by despots and murderers who would rather see the USA in flames.
A link to the actual Fair Tax bill, H.R. 25 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108OBPS8x:e1018:)
-
Mmmm, I could be wrong, but I think your greatly mistaken if you think that the top 1% pay 50 of the taxes. I think its quite the opposite, that they pay a proportionally lower amount than the ppor or middle classes. And what I do know for certain is that a number of large corporations (as in, among the largest 50 in America) pay no taxes at all.If you check some numbers from the past, you will see that corporations today account for the smallest percentage of tax revnue I think ever. Its past 1am here, so maybe I can dig up something tommorow, I know there are websites out there that monitor this kind of stuff, its just hard to find them.
------------------------------------
As for the UN, is it not true that the US has, since its inception, used the UN precisely for that which you think it should not be, an organization created to enforce a certain agenda instead of only a forum for discussion? Did not Bush say just last year that the UN was in danger of becoming a "debating society", which is what you feel it should be, if they did not take action against Saddam, which you feel they should not do in any case?
In my opinion, the UN should focus on enforcing international law, no matter who the perpetrator, thats it (for now). This means having a variety of measures in place to deter and punish those who break international law or violate human rights. Aside from that, if there is a way to make them independent of the politcal agendas of the big players (security council nations), then they could do more, but right now thats not the case.
The UN ought to serve as a higher authority to appeal to, so that might does not make right. Level the playing field if you will, ensure that all nations are equal under the law. I don't think world government, in one form or another, is avoidable. And there is nothing intrinsicly wrong with that. But the trick is to make these institutions independent and accountable (democratic). Whether its trade, or military matters or economic sanctions, no country should recieve preferential (or, uh..whatever the opposite of preferential is) treatement.
I would also like to get your opinion on the military. Right now, they up to about 400billion a year, which means that if it wqere cut down to a reasonable size (say, 100billion), that would equal a tax-break of $1000 a year for every person in America.
-
First of all, my Nietzsche quote is about music, not the human condition. Second, Nietzsche advocated nothing. If you examine his work, you will find that a large number of his statements directly contradict each other. He was a philosopher who sought furiously to describe the absurdity of existence, not spearhead a creed.
If we entirely controlled our own situations, we would not be human, we would be gods. Although we have considerable ability to reshape our circumstances, it is still limited by two things. First, that human interests overlap; it is our natural tendency to exploit one another, and when there is exploitation, not everyone can win. Second, we are very small entities in a very large, very indifferent universe. We reside in a cosmos that exerts tremendous force and at the same time, is not aware that we are in its path. Thus, no matter how hard we try, we are always at the mercy of random chance. Combine these, and the result is a society in which many will succeed, and many will fight day in and day out to hold their own and will fail. The only hope they have is for others to look back and help dig them out.
-
I think Ford, that you must be a pessimist of the highest order, not that that's a bad thing, the world needs more realists. But at the same time, while I don't pretend that the universe/cosmos is a benign, even helpful enviroment, I believe that there is a compassionate being who created it and has our best interests at heart.
Rictor, I have a question for you, when is a sovereign nation at it's most vulnerable? Right after it's been invaded and defeated by an aggressor nation who is trying to cement their hold over the populace.
Here's a better one.
Why should a nation with as many enemies as the United States(both declared, which are dangerous enough, or undeclared, which are even more dangerous since they often come with an open hand of friendship and a knife behind their back) surrender it's sovereign national rights to defend itself and its citizens to an entity which is composed of said enemies?
I'm should need to remind you that your bloody precious UN issued 16 resolutions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in an effort to have him stop his weapons programs and the mass murder of his citizens. Each one threatened use of force, but the weak-kneed bastards sat in their nice New York penthouses with their various distractions while the weapons programs and mass murdering continued, all the US-led coalition(which BTW we didn't and aren't going it alone, we just left the France, Germany, ect out of it because they wouldn't do anything but get in the way and slow down progress) was enforce those resolutions.
The UN is full of loud-mouthed politicos who are as meaningless as an umbrella in a hurricane.
-
Yeah, but it's not like Iraq posed any actual threat to US citizens.
I like the Libertarian candidate's approach to the military problem. Don't **** with other nations and stuff outside the US. That means the US keeps its troops where it matters (the US) and can spend the extra money on genuinely useful things.
-
And that will last until the first outcry that the USA isn't doing enough to stop human rights abuses and "ethnic cleansing"(it used to be called civil war).
Also, the US and her allies are engaged in a campaign, of which Iraq was a part don't forget, to eliminate Islamo-Fascist Terrorism. The side effect of this is we have to also eliminate those that provide succor to this enemy. As in any war there will be casualties, but the politicians need to stop using the conflicts to bolster their reelection hopes and let the military complete it's assigned task.
-
About "fair" tax...
I was amazed by it a few years ago, and i asked to some well informed people (i hope you agree that economics and finance university teachers are informed) some details about it...
It came out that the system was widely used in the past, but basically dumped because a)You don't have any reliable control or predictability on it, b)thus you cannot plan spendings this way and c)it's to vulnerable to fraud.
That said, there are taxes on goods almost everywhere (at least in UE, which uses it for self financing and i'm almost certain UK too) but in the real world they works well only with large businesses as you cannot reliabily control individual cosnsumers or smaller businesses.
BTW, ironically tax monitoring was way more efficent in Italy when there was a center-left coalition in government, as the actual liberist coalition is very lax and permissive, condoning in many ways tax evasion...
-
I will consent that university economics and finance instructors are well informed, it's their job after all to be as up to date as possible with information about what they teach, but I will also consent that a great majority of University Profs in general, lean left. To the point that, when challenged/corrected by a student who leans right, some will actively sabotage that student.
How can you not predict based on that system anyway?
US culture is a consumer culture, 350 million consumers, each spending hundreds of dollars a month on everthing from food to electronic gadgets and automobiles.
It's simple math. I'll use myself as an example. Even though I don't have a job right now(and I am looking believe me), my parents being great and helping me out. I don't and haven't purchased anything but neccessities(certain basic foodstuffs and gasoline for my bomber) for almost a year and I spend easily $40 a week.
Now times that by 4 weeks in a month.
4 x 40 is 160.
This doesn't count my rent, which is $100 a month(trailer lot only) or the power bill which averages $35 a month.
Counting all that:
160 + 100 = 260
260 + 35 = 295
Let's round that up to $300 to make the math easier. Now that's a very low monthly expense for most everybody.
Let's say the government gets 5% of that, as it's spent at the register remember. That's $15. Doesn't sound like a lot does it? Now let's times that by 350 million people, cause even if that many aren't spending money it will get made up somewhere else in the system.
15 x 350,000,000 = 5,250,000,000
Understand, that's five billion two-hundred-fifty million dollars per month. Times 12 months per year.
12 x 5,250,000,000 = 63,000,000,000
That's sixty-three billion dollars generated by survival spending only at a rate of 5% at the register. Everybody spends at least that much a month, most quite a lot more. That could be considered the baseline to base economic projections on.
Also, before you go on about how the average person couldn't afford the additional sales tax, remember that they will get their entire paycheck, not half of it. If you earn $200 a week on wages or $2000 a week on salary, your paycheck would be for that amount it would be you're choice how, where and when to spend it.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
*munches popcorn*
This is gonna be fun.
*sits down next to Blue Lion*
yup could be a long one:rolleyes:
-
it's realy realy realy easy to fix the numbers the way you want,
if you neglect to mention you are talking net, gross, or percent.
-
Bob, there is no net using this system.
If a dollar is spent, the government gets whatever it's tax percentage is, at the register. You won't have 3/4 of the country going into anxiety attacks every april with this system. The IRS as it exists now will cease to exist.
This is as absolutely fair to all concerned parties as it can possibly get. If you spend money, you get taxed on that money. If you don't spend money, you don't get taxed on it.
It's 3:20 am here, I'm going to bed.
-
You are leaving untapped an huge amount of stuff...
Also, how do you tax services without having them evading taxes?
And how do you prevent a whole lotta people to simply buy and sell disregarding taxes?
Note that these aren't theories, but every day real life problems...
Also, you may notice that there are a lot of goods already under similar taxes, but the income generated by them is not nearly enough to cover expences...
Finally, lol@you for saying that most university professors leans left...
It may be true there but i'm in Milano, one of the most right winged cities in the whole Europe, and i tell you that teachers here leans deeply right...
That said, here goods (and services) are taxed up to 20%, but still this is not nearly enough to cover the needs, plus the fact that any time you tax a good you are automatically generating inflation, making the income somewhat less valuable...
It would also be nice if anyone uses real life examples instead of theories, as facts speaks louder than words, no matter how well crafted they are...
-
I was refering to the 1% paying 50% thing.
so your talking about replaceing income tax with a federal sales tax? I agree with this, the more you spend the more you get taxed, it will auto-balence to tax those who are more wealthy, especaly if some items are given a higher tax rate than others, an individuals second (+) car for example. and unweaselable.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I will consent that university economics and finance instructors are well informed, it's their job after all to be as up to date as possible with information about what they teach, but I will also consent that a great majority of University Profs in general, lean left. To the point that, when challenged/corrected by a student who leans right, some will actively sabotage that student.
so....anyone who disagree with your political leanings-stroke-preferred policies does so not out of logic, but out of their own political leanings?
Hypocritical, perhaps?
-
on a semi-related note, who here supports Tobin taxes (assuming they are even implementable, which would take a major initiative from somone like the WTO or the UN)..
-
I did some math on the topic, basing myself on the Italian situation.
Italy has about one sixth of US population, and state expences are around $1300 billions, which is more or less the GNP.
Now, let's simplify things a bit and say that there are 40 millions of active spenders (or people with an income), maybe it's a little less but let's keep it simple.
Now, take $1.300.000.000.000 and divide it for 40.000.000, you obtain $32500 per year, wich means around $2700 per month.
Now, let's make another simplification and say that everyone spends around $1000 per month as average, and the average tax is around 10%.
Given that, you will obtain $100 per month for every tax payer.
That said, you miss $2600 per month for every tax payer...
Since you still need to get that money somehow in this system the only way to get more money would be to increase taxation...
The problem here is that you would have to tax everything at 2700% average (it's not a typo, just do the math), making most of the stuff quite pricey to say an euphemism...
That said, since people can pay only so much when they buy goods what will you obtain?
Massive evasion, Giffen behaviour on most basic goods (Giffen behaviour happens when a good price goes up it produces more demand instead of less than usual... I.E. if bread price goes up you will have to spend less on other stuff, and since bread is usually the cheapest one it means you're going to buy even more of it...) and what else on the economy, including a spectacular inflation...
Now, translate it to any other country and just change the numbers to fit with your one...
That kind of tax doesn't seem so fair to me, since it would almost double the price of anything but the most basic goods which hopefully would have a lower taxatation...
Mind you, i'm not against that kind of tax, but basing all or most of a country income on it is simply ridicolous...
-
Are we talking about the same thing here (assuming you're responding to me, and not Lib's previous posts)
Tobin taxes only work on *international* capital transaction, and would not affect things on a national level. It would also contribute nothing to the national coffer, but rather raise money that would be spent on international problems such as AIDS, poverty and so forth. And I for one have no qualms with taxing (very, very slightly) currency speculators who only increase their own wealth but contribute nothing that improves peoples lives in return (most corporations do produce something useful, but when you deal only with money, an abtraction, there is no "useful side-effect" of creating products which serve a purpose).
And with a minimum of 200-250 billion per year raised by these taxes, imagine how much good could be done with that money.
-
Rictor, i was talking about basing a country taxes simply on goods, also called sales tax, and showing how it cannot be used to replace completely income taxes...
-
I was wondering, do any of these tax calculations/complaints account for the quantative value of what tax money is spent on? For example, spending on the health services reduces absenteeism for companies, education improves job prospects and hence the persons average pay, etc.....
Oh, and isn't one the problems with sales-based taxation that it is completely non-discriminatory... i.e. some people may have trouble affording clothes, etc, as is and this system would cost them in a greater way than it would someone with a high income?
How do you determine what a 'neccessary' item is (food and water being key examples), and what to tax?
In other words, does it not punish the people who can afford the least, the most?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
And that will last until the first outcry that the USA isn't doing enough to stop human rights abuses and "ethnic cleansing"(it used to be called civil war).
Also, the US and her allies are engaged in a campaign, of which Iraq was a part don't forget, to eliminate Islamo-Fascist Terrorism. The side effect of this is we have to also eliminate those that provide succor to this enemy. As in any war there will be casualties, but the politicians need to stop using the conflicts to bolster their reelection hopes and let the military complete it's assigned task.
Not wanting to start another one of these debats, but you do realise that the Iraq war had completely no effect nor purpose in reducing terrorism, and that of the 2 terrorist groups in Iraq, one was anti-Saddam, and the other (an Iranian Marxism-Islamist group) signed a truce with the US and was thus effectively protected?
-
Aldo, the non discriminatory nature of the tax is also one of the arguments used against it.
EU uses different levels of taxation, with essential goods as food taxed on around 4%, while luxury goods like computers goes to around 20%...
-
You're all assuming that Federal spending would be unaffected.
The biggest gripe I have with the US government is that they make a budget and completely ignore it, spending many billions of dollars over it. The First Rule of Budgeting is that you don't spend over the budget. Apparently, the Congress never took an economics class.
I'm not saying the out of control Federal spending would not be affected but it would require the Polis in Washington to stop pork barrel spending and fund what needs funding instead of their pet projects.
-
You mean like Bush $200 BILLION pet project, Iraq?
-
"**** social services, a WAR will solve our problems!"
-
You know Rictor, that's what I like about Leftists. You don't actually think before you speak sometimes.
Afganistan, Iraq, as well as the next conflict and probably the ones after that are all, lock, stock and barrel, parts of the War on Terror. It is not a separate entity from that War. It's like taking the Battle of Normandy and saying that it's a separate conflict from WW2. They are all parts of a greater whole.
We are fighting and dying to make sure that you dorks don't have to worry about getting blown to bits by Islamo-Fascist Terrorists and their brainwashed followers the next time you a dance club or a bar or something. I'll kindly ask you to remember that.
They don't want to talk about why they don't like the West, they want to kill every last one of us that won't convert to Islam and submit to them.
-
Iraq? War on Terror? What on Earth do your so called "Islamo-Fascist Terrorists" have to do with a country that was previously ruled by a secular dictator?
-
:rolleyes: Err...
Liberator, can you please stop quoting Bush personal website and start using some thought of yours?
You know, propaganda doesn't bring anywhere...
-
I've noticed Lib's use of Michal Savage's "Islamo-Fascist" sevral times, and while I do think that it's a fairly acurate description, I think many rightwing suporters over use there talkingpoints, now the left does this too, but they will change one or two words so at least when they do it it isn't so xeroxical.
-
I do not, repeat not want to start another long debate on the war. However, in what way did the war in Iraq attack terrorism? In what way has it reduced the terrorist threat? If it hasn't, does that mean it has been lost?
You can't fight a war against terrorism. Terrorism is not an army, or a single cohesive entity. Terrorists don't fight on a foreign battlefield, they fight with a bomb, on a street or a bus or a plane or a boat, or simply strapped onto their body.
All the war in Iraq has achieved is sending a big recruiting message for Al-Queda, and making martyrs out of thousands of Iraqi civillians. It's painted a giant bullseye on Madrid, on Washington, on London, on Canberra, on Rome, and most of all on Iraq itself.
There was a chance, just the slightest, that the US and by extension the west could strike a blow against terrorism in Afghanistan, by rebuilding that country as a free, strong and independent nation. To say 'we will rebuild what we destroy, because this war isn't about you'. They - we - failed.
Instead, we see 'suspected' terrorists chucked in a prison camp, reclassified as 'illegal combatants' to flout the Geneva Convention. We see a camp hidden behind a veil of shadows, where we have no way of knowing who is guilty, who is innocent, and who is held accountable.
You want to fight terrorism, you put more police on the streets, more people on the ground infiltrating these organisations (yes, that includes making it legal to check if terrorist suspects have bought a gun, Mr Ashcroft). You take action against the social conditions that make people become terrorists, because you need to help tackle the supply as well as the recruiter.
But what you don't do, is start a war for no reason - worse, for a blatant lie - ignore the pleas of half the world and criticise them for speaking out, and then **** up the post-war situation so badly that the country is probably in a worse state than when it was invaded!
George Bush said "You're either with us, or against us". Well, i'm againt him - because only a moron sees the world in such terms of black and white.*
*quoted from an Iain Banks interview
-
If you think that fascist can apply to an islamic government then you need to study a bit of history...
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist
my understanding of the word fascist is that it is a right wing authoritarian government or ideology.
if you replace the nationalist with culturalist, then I'd say it's a fair aproxamation of the mindset of the people we're fighting.
-
That wikipedia description is pretty incomplete and does not render accurately the complexity of fascist ideology, which was not aimed towards religion, but rathen over autharchy and populism, with corporate government elements, where the strongest industries play an important role into influencing government decisions against labour and worker organizations.
In short words, you cannot swap theocracy for fascism, as they means deeply different things.
-
fascism as a politcal ideology is disctinctly right-wing and authoritarian. It does not apply to "those bad, evil men" in general. In fact, the Iranian government is AFAIK quite leftist when it comes to economic policy.
Also, Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, you know that as well as I do Liberator. FFS, Osama and Saddam were enemies! You said it yourself, any agressive act that America undertakes will be neatly filed under the "war on terrorism", regardless of whether it actually has anything to do with it or not. Sort of like everything was done in order to stop the big, bad Communist threat back during the Cold War. Killing a few Guatemalan peasants, installing a repressive (and for a change, this one actually WAS fascist by the dictionary definition of the word) regime in Chile, its all about stoping the Commies and the Leftisits.
C'mon Lib, try thinking critically for a bit. Iraq was not a threat to the US, thats the bottom line. No links to al Queda, no WMD (or even programs)...no nothing. The invasion was not justified.
-
now we're arguing over the definition of words,
I told you haw I use the word fascist [right-authoratarian] if that doesn't follow the historical oragins of the word well it's unfortunate that we speak in a liveing language were the meaning of words changes somewhat over the many years.
-
Not to be a nitpicker, but since we are not talking about something fast evolving like tech language, but rather than terminology with a deep historical and cultural meaning you should use it within it's original meaning.
While former Iraqui could be somewhat described as fascist, neither Iran or Afghanistan ones coud, being theocracies evolved for semi Marxist revolutions.
-
no, you use it correctly. I'm just against the bastardization of words, especially when its with political intent. It reminds me too much Orwell. sort of like terrorist in now taken to mean anyone who attacks America, regardless of whether the targets or civilian, military or whatever.
-
yayz 4 conservatives!
Im not going to say anything else, lest I catch the topic on fire. :)
-
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
It's an old saying, and it's been used far too often to really make the impact it should these days. I however, feel it is true especially in these dark days of uncertainty over the future and our own goals. What has happened since 9am on September the 11th, 2001 has been the symptom, not the disease.
It has taken over 30 years, but finally, we are all suffering the same fever that has gripped the 2nd and 3rd world for generations. We are all choking to death on the lies spoken by men who have led us from one war to another, one financial crisis to another, one tragedy to another. How many children have starved to death, or surrendered to the dark night while gasping violently in thier mother's arms as they frantically try to keep breathing through the toxic gasses the factory thier parents work in fill the air. How many men have gone from being masters of thier own temperment to men of fury, blind rage and purporters of the most horrible acts because of the pain inflicted upon them by men of power who seek not a national interest but a financial reward? That pain, that dark night, has stalked the population of the East, and the southern continents for many years. Now, it is coming for us.
Our leaders have one thing right: we are in danger of being destroyed by a weapon of mass destruction. This weapon, however is not chemical, biological or nuclear. It is an idea. An idea that we exist only to serve those with greater wealth than us. An idea that we have no say in our nations' future. An idea that we are subservient to the most ruthless and that men of good will are but fools who must be lauded but never directly supported. It is an idea that has kept us all in chains since before any one of us can remember. An idea that has seen fleeting moments of hope torn across it, yet always restored to strength by the unwillingness of men of character and concience to act.
You speak of taxation, and the justification for war in Iraq, Afghanistan and a dozen other places we will probably never any of us see in our lifetimes. I ask you, why are you so concerned about the events thousands of miles away when the biggest violation of human rights happens every day - every moment of our lives. Why do you not ask - why must I feel there is no one I can vote into government that can make things better? Why must I work so hard in profession and recieve a meager reward with even less respect from those around me? Why is it not enough for everyone in society to gain a place for themselves, for thier family and thier future without fear of being paid too little or provided with less than they require?
Men who came before us dreamed the same dreams we do - of a world where all men are equal, where each person has thier place in the world respected by all, where freedom and the good of your fellow man can be respected above all else? Why has this not happened? Why have so many generations failed to meet the challenge of building a better future? Can it ever happen?
I believe it can. I believe it can because in our hearts we men of good will have never given up, the few of us there are. We have kept the dreams alive in our hearts, in our minds, and in our children. Those among us who oppose us, do so not because they are "evil" but because they are tempted by the short term gains that thier lies provide them with, and the riches thier brutal and violent actions can bring.
It is the role of those of us who believe in a better tomorrow to stand fast, and uphold our ideas and principles that will always overcome the most gross levels of greed and most horrifying of violent acts. When we fail to do this, we become what truly is evil - we abandon our faith in the future and in ourselves and we betray our future children and thier own dreams.
We often falter, we often lose the moral courage to do what is right - but so long as we stand back up, dust ourselves off, admit to ourselves we made a mistake and confront injustice and hardship face on - then we can always call ourselves good people.
These are the reasons I do not fear the unjust man in this world. These are the reasons why I believe no matter how grim the future may seem today, tomorrow morning with the sunrise there is new hope.
These are the reasons I say to those who would exploit my fellow man and rape my fellow women: You are nothing to fear.
These are the truths I will commit my faith and my heart to.
These are the truths we must fight for, we must die for, and we must remember.
We must be free.
-
P.S. Follow that. :)
-
meh
any thinking person knows...
(http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/bushbaby.jpg)
(http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/bunnies.gif)
-
So that'd be a no then? :)
Edit: Btw, I have no idea what kicked me off here 2nite. I think I'm just finally fed up with the way all these debates have been going recently.
-
wow vyper, you should be a speech writer or something.
...on second thought, what politician would be willing to speak those words?
-
the one seeking to be elected,
politicians say many things
-
Originally posted by Rictor
wow vyper, you should be a speech writer or something.
...on second thought, what politician would be willing to speak those words?
Thank you Rictor.
A few might take the risk, but only pay lip servce (if you pardon how that sounds). The day I want to see is the one where someone can stand up and say those words and mean them.
You know, a few years back I planned my career to go into politics - but then a very high level of apathy and hopelessness set in.
Every so often I surprise myself with things like this.
-
Words are under-rated, actions over-rated.
-
Vyper,
Eh, **** it. Compliment and admiration where compliment and admiration is due. I'll be thinking about this for a long while. Mind if I quote it in the future?
Our leaders have one thing right: we are in danger of being destroyed by a weapon of mass destruction. This weapon, however is not chemical, biological or nuclear. It is an idea. An idea that we exist only to serve those with greater wealth than us. An idea that we have no say in our nations' future. An idea that we are subservient to the most ruthless and that men of good will are but fools who must be lauded but never directly supported. It is an idea that has kept us all in chains since before any one of us can remember. An idea that has seen fleeting moments of hope torn across it, yet always restored to strength by the unwillingness of men of character and concience to act.
Brilliant.
-
[q] Mind if I quote it in the future?[/q]
First, thank you, second of course I have no objection. This is how ideas begin. :)
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q] Mind if I quote it in the future?[/q]
First, thank you, second of course I have no objection. This is how ideas begin. :)
Seriously, I was really impressed with that writeup.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What I don't understand is, if you (and conservatives in general) are so keen on keeping taxes low, then why do you unquestioningly support a ridiculously overlarge military, which is a huge waste of money. American military spending is almost equal to that of the entire rest of the world combined. I can understand the need to protect your borders, but having such a large military speaks volumes about the way in which Americans feel they ought to dominate.
Cutting the military down to a reasonable size (and cutting the massive inefficiences and under-the-table *wink wink* military contracts to well-connected military companies) doesn't mean you'll suddenly have the Commies or the terrorists or whoever knocking on your door. And it would give everyone a nice, bg tax break..
'I have always been fond of the West African proverb: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." ' --Theodore Roosevelt