a good debate

dkondelik · Feb 21, 2003

Re: a good debate

Plywoody, On Skinnywaters's behalf,"Sorry". maybe netxt time we'll used more pictures and fewer words. And to an extent, I agree with you. Incremenatalism has been a tool of the left since FDR. Social Security. Great Society Personal Leave and Almost!,..............Hilary Care. Yup! incrementalism IS moving the Great Republic to a Socialist State. Man, your arguments would be good if you could just get your FACTS RIGHT! Your flawed premises make your arguments too easy to dismantle

plywoody · Feb 21, 2003

Re: a good debate

It is not fewer words that are necessary. It is words that have some comprehensible meaning that would be helpful. We are getting somewhere with your list, though. I think it would be wonderful for the right to campaign on a political platform that included dismantling SS, and all the other social programs implemented over the last 60 years or so. If that is what you all believe, be proud of it and announce it to the nation. What I find fundamentally dishonest is to claim, as Bush and every other Republican politician does, to be in favor of SS and the like, and yet establish economic policy designed to put us hopelessly in debt and make it next to impossible for future generations to fund it.

Skinnywater · Feb 21, 2003

Re: a good debate

plywoody wrote; "For the life of me, I cannot make heads or tails out of anything you said." Well I'd not worry about it then. Common sense and reason isn't a strong point of the liberal left. Take care.

dkondelik · Feb 22, 2003

Re: a good debate

I know that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but wasn't the subject of the thread "What type of political system is best"? Several replies: Representative Republic. I believe this to be the obvious "BEST" for an EDUCATED populace. Many arguments based on THIS as a premise have been presented. The Socialist Utopia has also been argued for based in sound principals of "your a meany" and "I don't get it" I'm not sure but from here it looks like that makes for a stronger argument for the EDUCATED Republic.

DJ · Feb 22, 2003

Re: a good debate

Klondike, "EDUCATED". Very good point! The sad truth is that an education is available to anyone here that wants it. Just look at the Judge appointee that is being blocked by the Dem's. Sad to say, that our society makes too much of "hanging" at the mall, playing video games or wearing our hats backwards than actually learning something of value. "Value". Now there is a word for a debate.

dkondelik · Feb 22, 2003

Re: a good debate

Hmmmm? Is that a que for a new thread? Some might "Value" the debate

plywoody · Feb 22, 2003

Re: a good debate

It is just as easy to say that your arguments from the right are illogical, contradictory, and confusing, as usual, but then that would be insult, rather than argument, as your statement about common sense was, and not fitting for a continued debate. And I have no idea who argued for a socialist "utopia" system--I must have missed that one--but simply because one system on the far side of the spectrum may not work, does not logically lead to a conclusion that the view from the opposite spectrum is correct. And while it may be in vogue and make a nifty sounding sound bite to suggest that "hanging in malls" is more respected than education, but the reality is there simply is no evidence for that conclusion. Enrollments at Universities has never been higher. To the extent that hanging in malls is a problem, it is a symptom of a different problem, and not the problem itself.

miloman · Feb 22, 2003

Re: a good debate

Since it was I who started this thread I think it only fair that I comment. My question was what from of government is best I expanded that by asking your opinions. Some were great,some were awful, and make me glad that you are not my neighbor.PLYWOOD SAID AND i QUOTE In short, there is no correct answer to the >question of which form of government is the >"best", as all forms of government are designed >to control its subject's behavior in some way, >be it for good or ill, and all are fraught with >dangers that require eternal vigilance to >maintain a proper, balanced course. I believe you to be correct in that assumption. A society such as ours was formed on free speech meaning the ability to comment, critize your country friend neighbor in any way you deem fit, wheather it be "politically correct or not" If that expression is the burning of a flag, a bible, or yelling at the top of your lungs to your neighbor and supporting views that contridict his. That is freedom. We dont have that I dont think any society has that. In fact I truly believe that society as a whole is in a state of anarcy, and as a whole we are lead to believe that our system is best regardless of which system of government we have, we believe that because as a whole society is modified by popular culture and we just dont know any better. So to answer my own question there is no political system that is best. They are all filled with conflict. We as a society require guidence, ethics, morals, law and order, and above all commerce. How we encase the above in a system founded on freedom is beyond me. We as humans have one fatal flaw...... GREED. Once that is eliminated then can we begin to form a society that in fact works..... I am sure that some of you will find flaws in my train of thought, so be it> At the pit of your stomach you know Im right

sundancer270 · Feb 22, 2003

Re: a good debate

Plywoody: All I can say is Emotional Ignorance.

Skinnywater · Feb 22, 2003

Re: a good debate

Miloman writes; >So to answer my own question there is no political system that is best. >They are all filled with conflict. >We as a society require guidence, ethics, morals, law and order, and above >all commerce. How we encase the above in a system founded on freedom is >beyond me. We as humans have one fatal flaw...... GREED. Once that is >eliminated then can we begin to form a society that in fact works..... I am >sure that some of you will find flaws in my train of thought, so be it> At >the pit of your stomach you know Im right I'd agree that nobody here has experienced the best political system. Maybe nobody has since the Boston tea party or the Lewis and Clark expedition. Conflict and adversity should make us more experienced and stronger by learning from it. Conflict usually arises when original laws or misinterpretations of those laws are tested or broken. The proper correction would be reunite with those original laws. Not make new ones. The absolute original intent of the Constitution was to form Constitutional Republic. This document being so important that its perfect ideals were passed to me by my parents and by teachers. I pledge allegiance to it, officials swear under oath to defend and uphold it. People willingly die courageously for it. Millions gave all they had from far reaches of the globe to be part of it. Great world powers at that time were in awe of our Constitution. I believe our Constitution answers all the questions pertaining to a near perfect government. And yet I know we don't have a Constitutional Republic and we depart further from it. I agree completely with your statements on society. However, I believe that our society is a product of our incremental departure of the Constitution AND the morals and spirit of its authors. In the pit of my stomach I believe a genuine correction to a Constitutional Republic would correct the moral issues you mention. Contrary to what may be believed by some. It isn't differing views I haven't respect for. It is the endorsement of immoral leaders and political policies that either promote immorality or depart from our Constitution and its intent, that I haven't respect for. "There is an option still left to the United States of America, that it is in their choice and depends upon their conduct, whether they will be respectable and prosperous or contemptible and miserable as a Nation." -- George Washington

miloman · Feb 23, 2003

Re: a good debate

Contrary to what may be believed by some. It isn't differing views I haven't respect for. It is the endorsement of immoral leaders and political policies that either promote immorality or depart from our Constitution and its intent, that I haven't respect for. Very good point but ultimetly flawed. The constitution was created in an era when the creation of a society was formingn and the forming members were wealthy. In todays climate men are enticed to enter politics not for the betterment of society ( sure they say that) but ultimetly for the celebrity like status and the greed for financial prosperity. That is something that your forfathers never accounted for in the constitition. I do believe that the document in its era was perfection, but today it is in severe need for modification. A prime example of that is the right to bear arms. In the era of creation the right to bear arms made sense, today arms encompasses semi automatic guns hand guns etc... the majority of there weapons are not meant to shoot an animal but were created for the sole purpose of killing another human. I live in a city of 5 million people but yet we have less then 7o murders a year, because the right to bear arms is not a right but a privlidge can that be said for a comprable American city. hence a flaw. I dont want flak over this, I believe that American and Canada are great countries, with flawed leadership and flawed political systems

jee70611 · Feb 23, 2003

Re: a good debate

Miloman, Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I have yet to see someone truly convince me that any gun has gotten up on its own and shot someone for the heck of it. More people are killed in car accidents every year, however, there aren't any movements to outlaw them. No matter what kind of gun it is, they can all be used to kill for good or for bad. It is the person behind said gun that is the threat. It is primarily gunophobia that drives such movements. Why do you think that the second amendement was the second and not the fourth, fiffth, eigth and so on? It's because the founding fathers had a great mistrust of government and they believed that it was VERY important. Just read some of their publications on the issue. As long as the populace is armed the government isn't all powerful. You take that away and you are no longer a citizen, you are a subject. Anyway, guns are old technology. I could make one in my garage. The answer is not to make new laws, but to enforce those already on the books. For that matter, I could go down to home depot and buy a sixteen penny nail gun and an air compressor. Pull the safety back on the thing with a claw hammer and keep you outta my yard for two and a half hours. Nest thing you know some little fourteen year old will get mad and shoot up his bible class with a box of finishin nails. Then all the bleeding heart liberals will be after nail guns. You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

dkondelik · Feb 23, 2003

Re: a good debate

Populations that have had there "right to bear arms" taken away: Germany - Under Hitler Russia - Under Stalin China - Under Mao Laos - Pol Pot etcetera, etcetera, etcetera All for the betrerment and safty of their respective societies. BUT Wait! Thats not what this thread is all about. It's supposed to be about the Perfect System of Government. Hmmmmm? Is there a point here?

DJ · Feb 23, 2003

Re: a good debate

"Hangin in malls", is a symptom. A symptom of neglectfull parents that are too busy trying to keep their heads above a confiscatory tax system. And yes, some that just don't care. As for universities, yes, enrollments are up. That does not mean they are learning anything of value. In my business, I see many so called bright youngsters that have been taught what to think and not how to think. A big difference. What is value or values. To me it is repecting the rights of my neighbor as long as they do not inflict damage to me. Physical, mental or financial. THe right to bear arms has noithing to do with hunting. It is quite clear what the founding fathers meant. It is the right to protect oneself against a tyranical government. Disarm and uneducate the populace and you will have subjects ready to do anything you want them to-for a while. That has been proven throughout history. I still believe the representative republic is an excellent form of governance. The problem with ours is that we have allowed the chosen few to seek one form of elected office after another. This continuance in the public life has built many power bases that are hard to break. Remember, it's all about power-the ultimate aphrodisiac.

sundancer270 · Feb 23, 2003

Re: a good debate

Miloman. What city do you live in ? What was the weapon of choice in the 70 Murders ?

Skinnywater · Feb 23, 2003

Re: a good debate

The only flaw in the Constitution is the 16th ammendment. It clearly isn't within the original intent. The Federal Reserve is clearly in all violation. The fact that these corruptions are allowed to stand is a powerful indication that the Constitution is already irrelevant. The second ammendment is the ammendment that will protect against further deterioration of the Constitution. It is likely that the second ammendment will ultimately force justice upon future corruption. Stateing our Constitution is flawed and in need of severe modification is like saying the 10 Commandments are in need of modification. I'm passing the good ideals on to my children. I'll remind them of near perfect systems and hope for future corrections against corruption, evil and bad moral characture. If it truely is your thought that we are all in a state of Anarchy why would you not be armed? Or is it in actuality that you readily dismiss an admitted near perfect form of government while hoping for a better one around the corner? If you couldn't help in preserving the near perfect one why would you do better with the next one? Since you say elimination of GREED will be our salvation, common sense should tell you it won't be clubs and pitchforks that will eliminate the greed, corruption and evil. You mentioned previously in reference to good or bad nieghbors. Certainly law abiding citizens who are armed, or not, with good moral characture and values are not an indication of being a bad nieghbor or friend. I'm happy for you that as a Canadian you've found peace in your convictions on gun control. While your point of view is worthy for debate, I'd rather be part of a patriotic movement that will prove to be the line drawn in the sand against my government exceeding its powers against me as an AMERICAN CITIZEN. You can be rest assured that to maintain and preserve my right to bear arms that I conduct my affairs in all accordance with the law. Since I am permitted to carry concealed, I treat others with respect and I AVOID conflict with strict determination. What I consider inalienable right and duty to my family and country, you consider a flaw. I'm seeing a pattern of a very cynical view.

dkondelik · Feb 24, 2003

Re: a good debate

The PERFETCT FORM OF GOVERNMENT! Here it is........... A Monarchy! And I AM THE KING! I won't outlaw guns cuz,............... Then ONLY the bad guys have 'em. And when the bad guys know that they are safe in the perpetration of a crime, they are more likely to commit the crime. Your humble King

plywoody · Feb 25, 2003

Re: a good debate

Just a couple of statistics: Canada has approximately 10% the population of the US Canada has an annual homicide rate by firearms of approximately 150 per year. In contrast, the US has over 11,000 per year. Now I offer these just for information purposes. I am not supportive of Canada's new policy of registering all sporting arms. I think it is wild overkill. OTOH, one of the policies that Canada has that we don't is the concept of owner responsibility of guns. In Canada, if the gun you own is involved in a crime, or a shooting, and you did not have it properly stored and locked, you are held criminally liable for the use of that gun. Here in Washington State, we just had a recent case of a sheriff's deputy leaving 3 of his service handguns laying around, apparently loaded, and unlocked. His 12 year old son got hold of one, and killed his 10 year old daughter. His 12 year old son is being held for prosecution. The deputy is not being disciplined in any way. Justice in action.

dkondelik · Feb 25, 2003

Re: a good debate

Plywoody, I ALMOST belive it. From what I know of the Peoples-Republic-of-Washington, I expect that charges (if not criminal, at least civil) will be filed against the gun itself, the gun manufacturer, Ammunition manufacturer, Tire manufacturers (if not for tires on the car, the gun could have not come home), the home builder (as the gun could not have otherwise been there)and someday, maybe, some charge may be pressed against the cop. Perhaps here we agree! For the past 30+ years, situational ethics have been taught, by schools as well as the media. The result; there is no right or wrong, good or bad. "Its all subjective". And with this, NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! After all, whats "right" for you, may not be "right" for me. Case in point. If you poor hot coffee on your crotch, of course it is McDonalds fault. I don't know about Washington state but in Indiana, 12year old boys DO understand what a gun is and what it can do. All of the cops I know always have a loaded firearm within reach. A seemingly smart condition given the distain that BAD GUYS have for cops. The sheriff may carry some culpability but all of the evidence is not yet in. By the way, in Indiana personal responsibility is being legislated (perhaps too far). If a juvenile is convicted of certain criminal behavior, the perps parents may be prosecuted. Tough call. Yes, parents are responsible, in a large part, for the character development of their children. But between the media blitz of if it feels good, DO IT, the school taught situational ethics and the apparent existence of just plain bad seeds, its hard for me to argue that a parent is responsible for a 17 year old robbing a liquor store. (Is this the lead-in to a new thread?)

plywoody · Feb 25, 2003

Re: a good debate

Due to juvenile requirements, we do not, and probably will not, know all the facts in the case. We don't know whether the 12 year old wanted to kill his sister, or it was an accident. I think you are assuming that I think the 12 year old be held harmless-which is not the case...I have no idea what he knew or didn't know or anything about it... What we do know is the sheriff's deputy was not at home at the time of the incident, so having the guns at the ready at his home was probably not going to help him against the "bad guys", at least at that point in time.

a good debate

Chief Petty Officer

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Commander

Chief Petty Officer

DJ

Guest

Chief Petty Officer

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Lieutenant Junior Grade

Seaman Apprentice

Commander

Lieutenant Junior Grade

Petty Officer 1st Class

Chief Petty Officer

DJ

Guest

Seaman Apprentice

Commander

Chief Petty Officer

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Chief Petty Officer

Senior Chief Petty Officer