Should we bring back a different kind of draft?
gueb says:
"joshmcintosh says:"The military is against forced service and prefers a professional force."
To call the current state of the military 'professional' is laughable. "
I was referring to the fact that it is their chosen career rather than forced service. Sorry, I thought that would be obvious, considering the discussion topic. And I'm sorry, but dissolve the military? Now that's my idea of laughable. Sounds like Kucinich if you ask me.
Elections need to be publicly funded
dave says:
"...a candidates ability to mount and manage a successful campaign is a good test to see if they'll know how to manage a country/state/city."
That is an interesting argument and one that I had not heard before. While I like the thought that publicly funded campaigns would even the playing field allow us to elect leaders who were not in debt to special interests, I just don't think it would actually change anything significantly.
Sure, we might have 20 Kucinich's in the race, and that would be hilarious until one of them got elected, but I don't see how you could prevent people from spending their own money any way they pleased. Even if you could, how could you stop outside groups from spending however many millions they wished to raise on tv commercials and print ads? I just don't see how it could actually work. Everyone has the right to be politically active, and that includes (fortunately in some cases and unfortunately in other cases) spending their money however they see fit. Currently, to receive public money, I believe you have to show that you can raise enough money on your own, in something like 20 or 25 states, so the wealthy would still have an enormous advantage in qualifying for funds. This is an issue I go back and forth on, but the quote above has a lot of truth to it. Am leaning away from support for public funding, but the right argument could change that.
And just when this was turning into a decent thread....let's make a deal island. You keep your pride, I don't want it. I will take mine in raising a good boy, or writing a good song, or helping an old lady across the street. You know, stuff like that. You can keep your superiority as well. I don't need it. Let's also agree not to argue who loves America more. In return, I offer you this large order of Freedom Fries. Friends?
Island, you are obviously correct about my lack of judgment, since i am still bothering to respond to you. As for the fact that Africans are still engaged in a slave trade has nothing to do with whether this country should pay slave reparations. Slavery is still practiced all over the globe. Including in the United States. Women are kidnapped all over Asia, all over Eastern Europe, and elsewhere for the sex trade. Nobody ever claimed (at least i didn't) that the civil war was fought solely over the issue of slavery. As for my pride or my shame, i reserve those things for things i myself have done. I am white because my parents are white. There is no other reason. As for whites inventing everything...you mean like civilization itself? or do you mean cell phones? Oh, one other thing you were correct about. I should not have called you a moron. I should have just let people see that for themselves.
redking says:
"The fact that America did not give up segregation without conflict (just as with slavery) says that though laws can be changed easily, people's minds cannot. Though political correctness and a popular denial of racism in general exist today, do the old ways of thinking still exist? How many people would feel safer and more comfortable in the workplace or in stores if segregation were brought back?"
You are correct that peoples attitudes cannot be changed by force, and people do segregate themselves everyday. Not only along racial lines, but along economic lines, educational lines, beauty (ie hotness), and myriad other ways. Even in San Francisco, "the most liberal city in the world", racial segregation is still in full effect. Thde residents of this city like to pretend that it is not so, but all you have to do is take a drive to see that it is. In SF, and probably many other cities, segregation is enforced with the dollar. They (we) call it gentrification. It's not fair, but life ain't fair. Though slowly, this country does move forward on these issues, and in fact leads the world (regardless of what statistics might be produced regarding incarceration rates, higher education rates, HIV rates, etc). You are right that there are many Americans who would feel more comfortable in a segregated work place, but fortunately, our country does not allow that.
Tdavid, as for apologies... I honestly don't think that most would be opposed to an apology for slavery. In fact both Bill Clinton and George W Bush have offered quasi apologies for it, without the official stamp of the U.S. government. I think the fear of an "official" apology is that it might carry legal repercussions, ie, reparations.
Here are a couple of quotes i found from Bill and George-
Bill '98- "Surely every American knows that slavery was wrong, and we paid a terrible price for [it], and that we had to keep repairing that. And just to say that it's wrong and that we are sorry about it is not a bad thing. That doesn't weaken us."
George '04- “Years of unpunished brutality and bullying and rape produced a dullness and hardness of conscience. Christian men and women became blind to the clearest commands of their faith and added hypocrisy to injustice”.
Remember, I did say "quasi" hehe.
A war that we're really losing
I guess i misunderstood your earlier post shrugged. I thought that you meant that a person should be responsible for his actions by paying their "debt" to society, as in they knew it was illegal and that the consequences might include prison. I agree totally with your post directly above. And my apologies for questioning your libertarianism.
A war that we're really losing
True, but it can offer treatment as an alternative to punishment. You sure you're a libertarian? I though you guys wanted half the laws thrown off the books.
andy says:
Unfortunately, Israel is constantly fighting with someone, and seemingly often times provoking it. In my opinion, we should shy away of befriending a country that has so many enemies. It's like dating someone with baggage -- sane people just don't do it ;)"
But what if it's your little brother? We did, after all, set up the U.N. and install the state of Israel after the war. I'm not saying we couldn't use a little tough love every now and then, but we are pretty much, their only friends. And if we disengaged and left them on their own, I think the state of Israel would quickly double in size. The original UN mandate was to establish two states with Jerusalem as an international city. Some sixty years later it's still being debated. And finding someone older than 20 without baggage is almost impossible! hehe
Redking, your point about schools is a good one. However, the deal with Native Americans is about broken treaties between nations, not individuals. In fact, there were many Native American slaves, particularly in Louisiana, but throughout the south. And while I will not argue with the term genocide, I will argue that it is not what they are being paid for.
Do the Republicans stand a chance?
I'm gonna go with Dave on this. It looks like an all New York cast to me, and Billary v Jillulianini is gonna be a very close race. Dems don't hate Mr. Mayor the way some conservatives hate Mrs Pres I would be pretty comfortable with either one, so i guess I'm lucky. Even though they would never admit it, their foreign policies would be pretty close to identical. I really think think it's one of the two. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see them team up in some fashion after the outcome is determined. Romulin is a robot, and Borat is just too pretty. But I do think it's anybodies race. That is if anybody is Hillary and Rudy. Rudalary?
I really do think it is that simple. If we (the country) felt that strongly about Iran, we should go through the UN. If we refuse to use that resource and opt for a solo campaign against Iran (beginning with sanctions) then the leaders of this country reveal their true intentions (see Sasha's questions)."
Because we have all seen how effective the U.N has been in places like Afghanistan (can somebody say NATO), Iraq (one bomb and they pull their precious staff out of country), Sudan, The Balkans....I think an stronger argument could be made to the effect that the Bush Administration had Iran in mind from the beginning. We do have our forces to the east and to the west of them. I would not call the U.N. a resource. Oil, on the other hand...
