Problem with the US Military/Government/Public

[Falcon]

The only reason America has done so well for so long is that the Constitution keeps the fickle masses from harming themselves fatally.

There's an irony in someone saying that while simultaneously saying (in another thread) that strict separation of church and state should be ignored because people have been trampling over it for decades, and so this "precedent" outweighs the constitution.

The proposal I made does not trample on the first amendment, nor does it violate the Constitution. The precedent established only further demonstrates the Constitutionality of what was proposed.

[Wicked Pilot]

If you want to do that (no more winner take all in states) I suggest we go back to the old electorate system where the people elect representatives who vote independently for the President.

I never said that, that's a stupid idea. In fact, most states mandidate by law that those on the electorial college vote for whomever they were selected to vote for.

We should also go back to a state legislature elected federal Senate too.

No, that was a bad idea. Senate elections are fine the way they are currently. Minus the campaign contributions of course.

I disagree with the interfearing of districting, the point is that representatives be elected by what the people in that district want, not what the whole rest of the state wants.

They do get what they want. Even if people are in the minority, they can still get represented on the national level. The way it is set up now, a state can have 100% of their Representives representing only 51% of their population.

If we did it that way the representatives would no longer have a district to represent, they'd be representing a poll of an entire state,

They represent who voted for them. In the first seneario I mentioned, the three Reps represent the 43% of the state that voted for them, the three Dems represent their 43%, and the third party guy represents the 14% that voted for him.

If two or three big cities who were heavily in favor of 1 party it would deny equal representation to the rest of the citizens in the state.

No, that is the way it is set up now. The big city citizens' votes will count just the same as Farmer Bob's.

Remember, the object of American government is not democracy.

You don't speak for the American government, only yourself. If you don't like democracy, there are other countries in the world that can accomodate you.

[Falcon]

If you want to do that (no more winner take all in states) I suggest we go back to the old electorate system where the people elect representatives who vote independently for the President.

I never said that, that's a stupid idea. In fact, most states mandidate by law that those on the electorial college vote for whomever they were selected to vote for.

It isn't a stupid idea, it place a step between the people and the President. A people, it should be noted, who are mostly ignorent of how to choose a President. The people would still vote for representatives who favored their interests, but those electorates would hopefully be better informed\dedicated than the masses in general.

We should also go back to a state legislature elected federal Senate too.

No, that was a bad idea. Senate elections are fine the way they are currently. Minus the campaign contributions of course.
[/quote]

How is it fine that the Senate, which was supposed to represent the interests of the states and act as a counterbalance to the fickle mob, is now nothing more than a second House of Representatives with a longer term?

I disagree with the interfearing of districting, the point is that representatives be elected by what the people in that district want, not what the whole rest of the state wants.

They do get what they want. Even if people are in the minority, they can still get represented on the national level. The way it is set up now, a state can have 100% of their Representives representing only 51% of their population.
[/quote]

Thats the whole point, immediate gratification wasn't a part of the Constitution. America was set up as a balance between freedom, representation and law. Everyone (slavery aside, that was a renagade throwback that has no place in this discussion, before someone brings it up) was supposed to be free and equal under the law. The law was to be crafted by Representatives who governed under the Constitution, which established the limits on government. The Representatives were supposed to balance each other and represent different parts of society. The House was for the people, it has few powers, but can 'veto' any legislation. The Senate was for the states, to act as the stewards of the Constitution, it had most powers of the Legislature. The President was the counterbalance to the legislature, to prevent one branch from dictating policy. A legislature can trample rights as easily as a king. At no point in this process were the people supposed to just get anything they 'want' Ultimately the people can make any change that they see fit, but the process is long and difficult to prevent hasty actions. The people need to be removed from parts of the government so that statesmen can govern effectively without fear of retribution from a hasty mob. The people still choose (choose the electorates, the state legislatures, etc...), but their choice is checked by cooler, hopefully wiser, heads, and by time itself. I think we have deviated too far from that basic style, and it hasn't done us any good.

If we did it that way the representatives would no longer have a district to represent, they'd be representing a poll of an entire state,

They represent who voted for them. In the first seneario I mentioned, the three Reps represent the 43% of the state that voted for them, the three Dems represent their 43%, and the third party guy represents the 14% that voted for him.
[/quote]

On a state level, what if 3 district are 55% for party A, but state wide party B is makes up 80% of the population. Suddenly those three districts now have only 2 representatives (assuming 1 rep per 10%). Democracy isn't a goal here...

If two or three big cities who were heavily in favor of 1 party it would deny equal representation to the rest of the citizens in the state.

No, that is the way it is set up now. The big city citizens' votes will count just the same as Farmer Bob's.
[/quote]

Yeah, and the masses of city dwellers will overpower farmer bobs vote and he will have no representation, no hope of having a representative to look after his views.

Remember, the object of American government is not democracy.

You don't speak for the American government, only yourself. If you don't like democracy, there are other countries in the world that can accomodate you.[/quote]

The founding fathers were quite clear as to what their government was to be; a Republic, a Constitutional Republic to be exact. Democracy is a terrible style of government, mob rule no less. The majority trampling the rights of the minority, thats what Democracy is.

[Coyote]

The biggest criticism I have is that the average American truly is mind-bogglingly ignorant of the world and how it works. After meeting with so many people and living overseas for so long I almost can't talk to the mass of Americans today. They have not the slightest clue about conditions beyond what they se on TV or in the papers.

In truth, this tends to happen in other countries about America, too-- the only image many have overseas is the US TV image. There really are two worlds here on this planet: the US, all wrapped up in itself and oblivious, and the rest of the world, on the average more aware of others but completely misreading the images of the US that they see.

But I think it's true about our descision makers-- half still turn pale and quake at the mention of "Vietnam" and the other half is ready to take on the whole planet with nothing but a machete.

As for world intervention, what can we do? The world lectures us that as the sole remaining superpower we have "moral obligations" for this and that and blahblahblah-- and then, finally, when we actually do something, we get cursed for being "imperialists". We got pushed in Yugoslavia and then bitched out for being there; we ignored Rwanda and get bitched at for that. It is a very confusing batch of mixed signals.

[Falcon]

It seems that America is often used as a scapegoat for leaders who need to blame the poor state of their nations (or their own shortcomings) on someone else. I get tired especially of people blaming America for problems in other countries because America doesn't 'donate' enough. Maybe if they cleaned their act up some of these places wouldn't need the rest of the world to bail them out.

[Sir Sirius]

We don't. China has a larger army than ours.

True, China has more men, but yours is more powerfull.

At least our political system, much as you seem inclined to sneer at it, is a bit better at keeping Hitlers and Stalins from coming to power.

Better then...?

So let me understand you, we should not spend money to keep our armed forces as advanced as possible, particularly in an age when we are more likely to face unconventional threats like terrorists and guerrilla forces?

Strawman. You ARE thinking about building a bigger and better military. Thank you for agree with me.

So we should be isolationist?

Yes or at least stop bombing 3rd world coutries and stop backing totalitarian regimes when ever, where ever, it serves your national interrests.

And suppose we had done that in the 1940s?

You DID do that in the 1940s. Aside from 'Lend Lease' the U.S. didn't join the WW2 until after Pearl Harbour.

I suppose you'd prefer living in a world with the Swastika and Rising Sun flags flying over half of it?

I wonder why many Americans seem to think that WW2 was somehow a European affair and that the U.S. got involved only out of altruism? Considering that you did not join the war until after you were attacked yourself that is a pretty strange notion.
Besides what you did or did not do 60 odd years ago doesn't justify your actions today.

If we did just "leave everyone else alone" people like you would be screaming just as loud at what selfish, uncaring bastards we are, and how we're content just to let the rest of the world go to hell as long as we can be fat, safe and happy in our land of plenty, etc.

I most certaily would not ne screaming that.

I'd call it the lesser of two evils.

What was the other evil?

Selective memory is a wonderful thing isn't it?<red herrings removed...Blah...blah...blah...>The Republicans are the big bad bullies because... well, because they just are!

The republicans are the bad guys because they elected G.W.Bush the biggoted arch-idiot.
See here, for ONE of MANY reason I think that.

[Perinquus]

We don't. China has a larger army than ours.

True, China has more men, but yours is more powerfull.

So that automatically makes us evil? Our technology is better therefore we are bad?

Can you say "non sequitur" boys and girls?

I knew you could.

At least our political system, much as you seem inclined to sneer at it, is a bit better at keeping Hitlers and Stalins from coming to power.

Better then...?

Germany. Russia. China. Haiti. Chile. Spain. Vietnam. Cambodia. Uganda. Liberia. Libya. Iraq. North Korea. Romania. All countries where bloody-handed dictators with a savage penchant for oppressing their enemies and trampling on human rights have come to power in the last 75 years or so. And this is just a partial list mind you. Oh yeah, the U.S. is worse than any of them. I mean those 20 or 30 million that Stalin killed, that was as nothing compared to the evil of American imperialism!

So let me understand you, we should not spend money to keep our armed forces as advanced as possible, particularly in an age when we are more likely to face unconventional threats like terrorists and guerrilla forces?

Strawman. You ARE thinking about building a bigger and better military. Thank you for agree with me.

So this automatically makes us bad how?

So we should be isolationist?

Yes or at least stop bombing 3rd world coutries and stop backing totalitarian regimes when ever, where ever, it serves your national interrests.

What third world countries have we been bombing lately?

And of course, it's only the U.S. whose to be blamed for supporting dictators around the world. Everyone else is allowed. The French can sell weapons to Syria, Iraq, Iran et al. and that's ok. The world remains silent. They can sell nuclear reactor technology too, and nobody minds. The Germans can sell weapons. The Belgians and Czechs can sell small arms all over the world. The Russians can train terrorists. The Chinese can oppress their own people and invade neighbors like Tibet. But the U.S is the worlds greatest villain. And when we support a repressive foreign government, it's somehow different and worse than when anybody else does.

And suppose we had done that in the 1940s?

You DID do that in the 1940s. Aside from 'Lend Lease' the U.S. didn't join the WW2 until after Pearl Harbour.

I suppose you'd prefer living in a world with the Swastika and Rising Sun flags flying over half of it?

I wonder why many Americans seem to think that WW2 was somehow a European affair and that the U.S. got involved only out of altruism? Considering that you did not join the war until after you were attacked yourself that is a pretty strange notion.
Besides what you did or did not do 60 odd years ago doesn't justify your actions today.

If we had been isolationist, and willing to leave everyone alone, Pearl Harbor need never have happened in the first place. The Japanese attacked us because we cut off their supplies of steel and oil out of moral outrage over what they were doing in China. But hey... that was none of our business. If we'd just left them alone they could have gone on, and after all, what right did we have to interfere. Yeah, you're right, the U.S. should have minded its own business. Of course, the rest of the world would be Nazi or Japanese now, but that'd be much better than it is today with us messing around with things.

If we did just "leave everyone else alone" people like you would be screaming just as loud at what selfish, uncaring bastards we are, and how we're content just to let the rest of the world go to hell as long as we can be fat, safe and happy in our land of plenty, etc.

I most certaily would not ne screaming that.

Oh as much as you seem inclined to single us out among all the transgressors of the world, I doubt that. We're just the bad guys; you've got to blame us for something.

I'd call it the lesser of two evils.

What was the other evil?

Selective memory is a wonderful thing isn't it?<red herrings removed...Blah...blah...blah...>The Republicans are the big bad bullies because... well, because they just are!

The republicans are the bad guys because they elected G.W.Bush the biggoted arch-idiot.
See here, for ONE of MANY reason I think that.

Okay, now I know you're an idiot. You make judgements without even bothering to read the whole story and be sure you know what you're talking about. George W. Bush never said that... It was his father who said it. But why bother with details? They're the bad guys because they elected a man you considered an idiot huh? The Democrats elected a man who is a a proven liar and perjurer, but that's okay. He conveniently ordered cruise missiles fired at a foreign target the same day Monica Lewinsky was testifying before a grand jury, but he's still better. Gore accepted 20 grand in illicit funds from a Buddhist temple, but that pales in comparison to Bush's supposed simpleness. Gore can also lie through his teeth about inventing the internet, inspiring a romance novel and having his mother sing labor union tunes to him as a lullaby 27 years before they were even written, but pshaw... what do honesty and integrity matter? I guess it's wrong to be a Republican hayseed but it's okay to be a Democratic crook.

[Sir Sirius]

So that automatically makes us evil? Our technology is better therefore we are bad?

Can you say "non sequitur" boys and girls?

I knew you could.

Strawman!
Where did I say that it makes you evil? Find the post, please.

Germany. Russia. China. Haiti. Chile. Spain. Vietnam. Cambodia. Uganda. Liberia. Libya. Iraq. North Korea. Romania. All countries where bloody-handed dictators with a savage penchant for oppressing their enemies and trampling on human rights have come to power in the last 75 years or so. And this is just a partial list mind you. Oh yeah, the U.S. is worse than any of them. I mean those 20 or 30 million that Stalin killed, that was as nothing compared to the evil of American imperialism!

LOL. So the U.S. is better then totalitarian regimes, excellent. A truly marvelous achiefment, you really ougth to be proud of that.

So this automatically makes us bad how?

Strawman!
Where did I say that it makes you bad? Find the post, please.

What third world countries have we been bombing lately?

Iraq and Afghanistan. Less 'lately' there is of course Vietnam.

And of course, it's only the U.S. whose to be blamed for supporting dictators around the world. <blah...blah...red herrings removed...blah...blah> And when we support a repressive foreign government, it's somehow different and worse than when anybody else does.

No it isn't, but the fact that others do those things as well doesn't justify your actions. Espacially since you do it more then anyone else.

Oh as much as you seem inclined to single us out among all the transgressors of the world, I doubt that. We're just the bad guys; you've got to blame us for something.

Ad hominem. Why would I blame you for something if the reason that makes me blame you for something didn't exist?

Okay, now I know you're an idiot. You make judgements without even bothering to read the whole story and be sure you know what you're talking about. George W. Bush never said that... It was his father who said it. But why bother with details?

Ooops...made a mistake there, sorry. Although daddy Bush was a republican as well.

No.
-- George W. Bush, responding to Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater's 1998 question asking "Were you ever arrested after 1968?"

See here, Bush is a liar as well.

[Falcon]

Last time I looked Iraq and Afghanistan are International operations, so you might as well lump the rest of the UN right along there. Not to mention the fact that those nations are oppressed filth holes already, we couldn't make them worse places if we tried (thats barely an exaggeration, which is sad imo).

[Falcon]

Oh, and you're comparing purjury (which is very serious, we're talking real jail time serious here) and lying about activities while President (hi billy bob clinton) to 'lying' about being 'arrested' for drunk driving when Bush was 30. thats so pathetic, you should probably go hide now

[Knife]

Sir Sirius: Wrote

I wonder why many Americans seem to think that WW2 was somehow a European affair and that the U.S. got involved only out of altruism? Considering that you did not join the war until after you were attacked yourself that is a pretty strange notion.
Besides what you did or did not do 60 odd years ago doesn't justify your actions today

America was attacked by the Japanesse, we did not have to fight in the European theater at all out of altruism. Even then, we fought in it and make it our priority not the Pacific Theater in which the country that attacked us was located. The Europe first stategy was altruism.

What we did do 60 years ago is what you appearently want us to do. Sit on our fat asses until we are attacked ourselves and be damned with the world and our allies and our interests. Only after we were attacked did we mobilize into action and stop the Axis which could have been stopped earlier and with much more ease. So in a way it does justify our actions today, because when we sat and did nothing you all went to shit in a handbasket. So now we are involved and people will say we are fucked if we do and fucked if we don't.

Personaly, I'd rather be blamed for trying than blamed for sitting on my ass and doing NOTHING. How about you?

[Perinquus]

So that automatically makes us evil? Our technology is better therefore we are bad?

Can you say "non sequitur" boys and girls?

I knew you could.

Strawman!
Where did I say that it makes you evil? Find the post, please.

Oh please... You began this whole line of argument by insisting that the U.S. is a militaristic country, and the implication was clear that this is a bad thing. Your whole tone is critical. Don't pretend for one minute that you meant to suggest otherwise. Well, the U.S. is not a militaristic country. The military is not exalted in society. Most people do not pursue a career in the military today. And most well-to-do families do not see their children off to serve in uniform these days. In proportion to our population, the U.S. has a smaller military than a great many countries. This is a strong contrast to real militaristic countries throughout history like Imperial Germany, Victorian England, Napoleonic France, etc. who saw very large percentages of their popluation under arms. Yes, we have a large military. We also have a huge population and a juggernaut economy that permits us to support a large defense budget. So what?

Germany. Russia. China. Haiti. Chile. Spain. Vietnam. Cambodia. Uganda. Liberia. Libya. Iraq. North Korea. Romania. All countries where bloody-handed dictators with a savage penchant for oppressing their enemies and trampling on human rights have come to power in the last 75 years or so. And this is just a partial list mind you. Oh yeah, the U.S. is worse than any of them. I mean those 20 or 30 million that Stalin killed, that was as nothing compared to the evil of American imperialism!

LOL. So the U.S. is better then totalitarian regimes, excellent. A truly marvelous achiefment, you really ougth to be proud of that.

Congratulations on missing the point by a light year. This whole line of argument came up because of your condemnation of U.S. Imperialism. For my part I pointed out that these totalitarian regimes were some of the real imperialists. Some of them launched all out invasions with which the U.S. has never done anything remotely comparable. Our political system has prevented us from having monsters like this come to power. The point, since you obviously missed it the first time, is that these countries did not start out as totalitarian regimes, they turned into that when dictators siezed power. And I remind you, that for all its faults, the U.S. system of government is stable enough, and prosperous enough, and free enough to prevent that sort of coup from taking place here for over two and a quarter centuries.

So this automatically makes us bad how?

Strawman!
Where did I say that it makes you bad? Find the post, please.

Again, you're tone is highly critical. Your whole line of argument is highly critical, and when you point out that, to use your own words, we "ARE thinking about building a bigger and better military" it is clearly pointed out in that same critical tone - the implication clearly being that there is something wrong with our wanting to improve our armed forces. It is disingenuous of you to sit there and claim that I am accusing you unjustly of condemning the U.S. for this.

What third world countries have we been bombing lately?

Iraq and Afghanistan. Less 'lately' there is of course Vietnam.

Ah, Iraq, home of a genocidal dictator who has been violating the terms of the U.N. sponsored peace treaty he signed, who has supported and is supporting terrorist activity around the world and aimed more often than not at Americans. And Afghanistan, home of the Taliban, one of the most odious and repressive religious theocracies since Biblical times, and more to the point supporter and shelterer of Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, who in very recent history murderously and barbarically slaughtered over 3000 innocent people.

I have to say that I am truly, honestly stupefied to find you defending Afghanistan, Taliban Afghanistan. To suggest that we were morally in the wrong for taking down the organizations responsible for 9/11... I was regarding you with irritation, now that's changing over to contempt.

And of course, it's only the U.S. whose to be blamed for supporting dictators around the world. <blah...blah...red herrings removed...blah...blah> And when we support a repressive foreign government, it's somehow different and worse than when anybody else does.

No it isn't, but the fact that others do those things as well doesn't justify your actions. Espacially since you do it more then anyone else.

That is a really extraordinary claim in light of what the Soviet Union was doing "exporting world revolution" all during the Cold War.

Oh as much as you seem inclined to single us out among all the transgressors of the world, I doubt that. We're just the bad guys; you've got to blame us for something.

Ad hominem. Why would I blame you for something if the reason that makes me blame you for something didn't exist?

Anti American bias perhaps? You clearly show it. Not that we haven't done reprehensible things - don't get me wrong. But to single us out, especially when there are far worse regimes throughout the world, with very much worse records than ours in the areas of aggression, human rights violations, oppression, etc.

Okay, now I know you're an idiot. You make judgements without even bothering to read the whole story and be sure you know what you're talking about. George W. Bush never said that... It was his father who said it. But why bother with details?

Ooops...made a mistake there, sorry. Although daddy Bush was a republican as well.

No.
-- George W. Bush, responding to Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater's 1998 question asking "Were you ever arrested after 1968?"

See here, Bush is a liar as well.

This in no way compares with the lying Clinton and Gore did about things that went on not thirty years ago in their youth, but while they were actually in office. Clinton perjured himself before a grand jury for God's sake! That's not just morally reprehensible; its a felony! Trent Lott can make some stupid (and honestly inexcusable) remarks off the cuff, and the Republicans clean house - they do the right thing and force him to step down. Clinton can comit a felony while in office and the Democrats close ranks to defend him, and help to ensure that he gets away with it!

[HemlockGrey]

This in no way compares with the lying Clinton and Gore did about things that went on not thirty years ago in their youth, but while they were actually in office. Clinton perjured himself before a grand jury for God's sake! That's not just morally reprehensible; its a felony! Trent Lott can make some stupid (and honestly inexcusable) remarks off the cuff, and the Republicans clean house - they do the right thing and force him to step down. Clinton can comit a felony while in office and the Democrats close ranks to defend him, and help to ensure that he gets away with it!

I mostly agree with you, but this is pushing it. Clinton lying about getting a blowjob is not some tremendously horrible thing. Yes, it's bad, and it's still lying, but it is not some end-all-be-all evil deed.

Oh, and Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Did a lot of other shit, but never claimed that.

[Perinquus]

If Clinton had just lied on TV to the American people... well, actually, he did that... but if that were all, I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about it (A politician who lies!?! NO! ), but the point is he didn't just lie, he committed perjury. He took a solemn oath to tell the truth in court, and lied without a second thought. Lying in the course of your life and work is not a crime - reprehensible yes, but not a crime - lying on the witness stand, under oath is a crime. It's a serious enough crime to be classed as a felony. Presidents should not be above the law. Thanks to the Democrats, Clinton committed a felony while in office and got away with it.