Anyone else ever think we could do a better job?

Post Reply New Topic

people are allowed to vote, if they don't like the policies, go vote for new people. people are allowed to contact the people in office, write or call. But shut the hell up in public. Is it that complicated to understand yapping in public isn't good for the our military in Iraq, you morons are getting them killed by egging on the people they are fighting against and making their job harder.

The US congress including the democraps and the last president where convinced the country was trying to build WMD and for all you idiots know they could have found all sorts of proof they where doing just that, but sure as hell aren't going to let every other nation on the planet know it's possable for any backwards country to do the same, so might have very well said they found nothing and you yapping morons go on and on about something you know nothing about.

now go to wal-mart, they probably have nail polish on sale or hair dye and leave running the country to the smart people who know what is going on.

god bless the USA and the great president george bush

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."

"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?"

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die."

"I think that the vice president is a person reflecting a half-glass-full mentality."

"You're working hard to put food on your family."

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses."

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

"Africa is a nation that suffers incredible disease."

"This investigation is taking a long time, kind of being drug out."

"and there are jobs Americans aren't doing ... If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about."

"I think war is a dangerous place."

Wikipedia Link

Holy crap. Do I need to respond to this one? You are truly sick, and you obviously don't give a damn about freedom of any sort. Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. The sad thing is that what you proposed is actually being set up in real life by FEMA. Bush has given himself power to dissolve the Reichstag-I mean Congress- establish himself as military dictator, and herd American citizens into forced-labor camps. Our "Great Leader" huh? You start to sound more and more like a Commie with such statements. Maybe you'd like to go live in Red China, or maybe you want to bring back the Soviet Union. Seems like the kind of place you would like.


But those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. Are you truly so delusional that you still believe we have voting in this country? In a free society, we should be able to criticize our government as much as we please, this isn't Soviet Russia, is it? And stop trying to tell me that my exercise of freedom gets troops killed. It doesn't. And if you believe that the troops are dying to protect our freedom (they're not, they're dying to protect corporate profits) you should see every expression of criticism against the government as a victory in the larger war for freedom and liberty.

What I mean is basically that we keep rotating who has control of the government. The whitehouse changes every 4-8 years, the House every 2 years, and the Senate get's one-third of its members replaced every 2 years. Even with all the incumbents, the policy changes from administration to administration, and is further modified based on who has control of congress. I've heard Bush talk about plans for the 2030s or 2050s, but he won't be in office nearly long enough to see them through. Furthermore, as soon as a Democrat comes into office, or even a Republican who disagrees with him, everything he was trying to do goes flying out the window and we start over from scratch.

This is one of the big problems with fixing social security, since everyone has their own idea of how to do it, but no one's in control long enough to actually carry it out. I mean, putting the worst possible plan into effect now would be better than sitting around and doing nothing.

Furthermore, democracies are always subject to the whims of the people, which creates alot of problems levying taxes and making other unpopular but necessary decisions.



Bush himself said that there were WOMD in Iraq. He announced this to congress as a reason for them to give him the money and freedom to fight the war. It is now clear, however, that there were no WOMD, and Bush probably lied (or else was lied to and listened).



And yet you criticize dictators like Saddam and communist countries like Russia because they take away people's freedom and kill those who oppose them. How is your proposal different?



"Bad guys?" So, we're going into Iraq with the presumption that everyone over there who resists us in any way is "bad," rather than...oh, say defending their homeland? Trying to force out an invading power?

BTW, it's amazing how many of my statements you overlooked.



We're not even addressing the insurgents in Iraq. In all probability, they're totally unaware we exist. We're addressing our government. We will not do that quietly, because that makes us easy to ignore. By doing it publically, it makes the politicians who refuse to address our arguments look bad, hence costing them votes. For that reason, doing it publically is more effective.

BTW, have you ever wondered why our Founding Fathers put the first amendment in the constitution? It was probably because they didn't want people giving the government too much trust because they wouldn't speak out in public.



Highly unlikely. Bush knew that if the WMDs were keep secret it would hurt his popularity. Furthermore, as I already said, alot of the information was found to be shaky. In fact, the documentation of yellowcake in the country was later found to be forged. If you don't believe me, look here:

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

Last edited by WatcherAzazel on 08 Sep 2007, 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ok. I understand what you mean about the rotation of decision makers etc...

In the UK the control of Central Bank Interest Rates has been removed from this problem - in the past every time the politicians changed they would mess with the CBIR for their own short term view, but now it is controlled by a non-political group that has rules and targets for making decisions and makes them objectively. This has been successful.

It would be good if most/all areas of policy were de-politicised in the same way : what would be needed is for the country to set objective goals for each area of policy and an objective body execute any actions it deems necessary to reach them ... for instance, in healthcare the goals might be (a). increase lifespan by 1% per year, (b). reduce waiting lists to max 28 weeks etc...


But still I think you are missing the point in some ways. You do not live in a democracy. Bush and your government are not trying to make democratic decisions ... they implement the wishes of the powerful only. This is the key problem beyond the changing decision makers.

In fact what a country is, is a set of tools and powers (including the military, the law, other state controls) that can be used by anyone in power to make money for itself. The Dem/Rep parties represent different groups of rich people who want to get control of the country's tools and power in order to print money for its members. The Iraq war has been a fantastic success, having made vast quantities of money (and power) for the Republican's sponsors.

You cannot look at the Iraq war and think, oh what a disaster, it's a tragedy soldiers died etc..., because all that is irrelevant and not part of the aims of the war, the aims are just to increase the wealth/power of the people in government and their supporters, and this mission has been completed successfully.
.
.

Yeah, I know, we live in a Republic. But we have democratic element which are supposed to allow us to provide checks on government corruption, yet we don't use them. If we got rid of changing decision makers, we could at least stick with one plan. Frank Herbert said that the difference between a good administrator and a bad administrator is:

1) A good administrator makes decisions quickly and decisively. Regardless of what the decision was, it can usually then be made to work.

and

2) A good administrator admits his mistakes while they can still be fixed (this is the area in which Bush is lacking).

The problem with our system really comes with the first one. Even when we have leaders who are decisive, we can't make their decisions work if we don't stick with them

?
Their decisions do work. Bush/Cheney/OilIndustry/MiltiaryIndustry/PoliticalLobbyist are all making $$$$$$$$$$$$.

Yeah, but you can't assume that they're being completely heartless, either. I'm sure they're trying to fix some of our problems, and it would be easier if they were in office longer (although Bush may be an exception, since he's completely incompetant).

The government pretty much has us in a cripple....only letting us decide between the Republican'ts and the Democraps, so pretty much anyone I would like to vote for doesn't get a fair chance in any election.

Plus, how do you even know if I protest in public or not? I don't actually, but when I do drive by people holding up signs next to the Federal building saying "Honk if you want Bush impeached" you're darn tootin' I'll slap on my horn.

Not to mention saying "Withdraw now!" isn't "egging" people on. If the signs said "Go insurgents! Kill our troops!" , then you'd actually have a competent accusation.

Also, they found zero proof of these "WMDs". They found a few small chemical weapons, sure, but if you're going to overthrow any country's government for having those, we'd be overthrowing a lot of other nation's governments (not to mention we have more nukes than anyone else in the world, so telling other people they can't have them is extremely hypocritical).

If those who were in charge were intelligent, open-minded, knew how to make compromises, knew how to strategize, were respectful, gave back to the people, not greedy, can deal with pressure, can come up with solutions that work, and can use common sense, then maybe we'd have some good people running the country. Do most people have those qualities? I'd say not. Really I think the government itself is corrupt because the way it's run right now doesn't help. I think the government and political system could use a redesign. Then maybe we might get some better people elected into office.

Most of todays dangerous jobs are far from neccessary and could be either elimineted or made safer, but it's all about money and as long as it makes peasants lives more confy, they have no problem with people dying for their confort. They don't really want to pay the cost to ensure the safety of the workers or do without the cheap service provided.

So what it comes down to is as long as people are dying to make live confy and to put more wealth into the pockets of the average peasant, they have no problem, but if the super rich use some peasants to wage some war to maybe enrich themselves at the expense of the average peon people suddenly have a problem with the super wealthy beneifting from blood money, but can justify blood when they deterime it's neccessary for their peasant way of life.

Yes, and if we can make them safer, so be it. But you're supporting a war in which we PAY TAX DOLLARS to make many young people (our soldiers) LESS SAFE, and there's no real benefit to it.

As for those jobs not being necessary, without construction workers we'd lack shelter, withouth truckers we wouldn't be able to move food to where it's needed, ect.

BTW, kind of funny how you're getting away from the war topic as soon as everything you say is discredited.



Having someone drive in a large truck across the country cannot be defined as "blood money" simply because it's possible for him to have a wreck. Having a guy building a skyscraper cannot be defined as "blood money" simply because his harness might fall. The trucker could die in a car crash while in some other occupation, and the construction worker could fall from a great distance.

BTW, please sho me statistics for those jobs being as hazardous as fighting a war in a Middle Eastern country?

I thought it was going on the national charge card.

What would it take to convince you people they want to kill america's, a pull out and disband home land security and a american grammer school of 500 children getting blown to bits ?




so your saying high rise buildings have to be built in a country with a trillion acres of open space and food wouldn't exsist if truckers weren't pushed to wotk 100 hours a week and drive like crazy people over loads of cheerioe's some stupid yuppie waited until the last minute to order and beat down transpotation prices so bad truckers are working 100 hours a week and driving while fatuiged



what makes you think a read much of the propaganda people posted and would waste my time argueing with people who have their minds made up after sucking up endless propaganda



have you ever done it ? I have and know trucking is a 911 every year and nobody gives a damn and most of it is preventable yet no outrage at all. The solution would cost money and as can be scene with the so called war, it's all about money, people have been lead to believe it's costing them money and are outraged, not outraged about human life or they would be outraged about the slaughter on our roads.

oh wow, now I get it! for a while there, I thought you were for real.
I have the Syndrome du'jour and sometimes it takes me a while to feel a person out to see if they are for real. I have to admit, you are very subtle in your irony a la " The Colbert Report" or "The Onion" but you are very very good! Have you considered writing for either?


Merle

The point is, you were saying we should spend lots of money keeping people of those other professions safe, while spending MORE money getting our soldiers killed.



No one's denying that we need to fight terror, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The problem is, people like you don't understand that everyone in the Middle East isn't out to kill us. In fact, most people in the Middle East aren't out to kill us. We need to determine who is before we go in, guns blazing like GI Joe. Also, it's convenient to know why they want to kill us (because we have troops all throughout the Middle East). The bottom line is that prior to the invasion of Iraq, the people in that particular country didn't like us, but weren't likely to come after us. Now, some of them are.



We kind of need that open space for growing crops, trees, and preserving wildlife. As for the truckers, alot of people live in land that isn't arable, they need food. And you're still trying to shift away from the original topic, because you can't defend your own stance.




We have our minds made up? You seem pretty intent on your opinion too. We at least try to understand the situation, while you seem to think that anything can be solved by blowing things up.

Um... the Iraqi's don't really want to do anything like that. They just want us out of their country. America was once one of the best-loved nations in the world. Our foreign policies have managed to change all that.



All right then, let's work on solving those problems as best we can. Let's be outraged at it all we want. But the facct that there is a problem in one area doesn't mean it's okay to just ignore another problem, which has already cost a million human lives, crippled huge numbers of people, devastated an entire nation's economy, and is threatening to lead to the collapse of the US monetary system. As I said, we should address the issues you've brought up. But we should also address the issue of us illegally sending troops to kill innocent civilians. You keep trying to back off into a side issue after being obviously refuted on the real issues. And you have no problem throwing insults around when you disagree.
Insults are the arguements employed by those who are in the wrong.-Rousseau