Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
HMTKSteve: Neo-Con, Libertarian, Neo-Nazi or just plain ignorant? You decide
- For purposes of this discussion (I would create a poll but I don't know how):
- Neo-Con is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counterculture of the 1960s.
- Libertarian is a broad spectrum of political philosophies, each sharing the common overall priority of maximum limitation of government combined with optimum possible individual liberty.
- Neo-Nazi The term refers to post-World War II ideologies, political movements, and social movements seeking to revive Nazism, or some variant that echos its aspects such as racial or ethnic nationalism or Völkish integralism
- Ignorant is the condition of being uninformed or uneducated, lacking knowledge or information.
I agreed with going into Iraq not for nation building purposes but because I felt enough lines had been drawn in the sand and that further lines being drawn was just a waste of time and money. It was either put-up or shut-up time. I have been very disappointed with the political side of the Iraq battle since right after the Iraqi army was disbanded. The armed forces have done their job admirably but a lack of decisive leadership at the top has prolonged this for far too long. I would love a clear exit strategy that does not involve the US losing face or the region falling into more turmoil than it was in before we got there.
Administration of George W. Bush
The Bush campaign and the early Bush Administration did not exhibit strong support for neoconservative principles. As a candidate Bush argued for a restrained foreign policy, stating his opposition to the idea of nation-building[19] and an early foreign policy confrontation with China was handled without the vociferousness suggested by some neoconservatives.[20]. Also early in the Administration, some neoconservatives criticized Bush's Administration as insufficiently supportive of Israel, and suggested Bush's foreign policies were not substantially different from those of President Clinton.[21]
Bush's policies changed dramatically immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to columnist Gerard Baker,[22]
It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet — that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world — as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism.
Bush laid out his vision of the future in his State of the Union speech in January 2002, following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The speech, written by neoconservative David Frum, named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as states that "constitute an axis of evil" and "pose a grave and growing danger." Bush suggested the possibility of preemptive war: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."[23][24]
My views on same-sex marriage have evolved over time and my current thoughts can be read in the California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban thread. My general view is that it is going to have to be marriage because anything less will be a monumental legal hassle and it does not hurt anyone (except bigots and homophobes). My more specific view is that marriage should be removed from the hands of the state and the state should simply license out "personal partnerships" that work 100% the same as a regular marriage license and leave the word marriage to the religious people.
On social Issues I feel that anything that helps without creating dependency is good. I'm of the "teach a man to fish" school of thought.
On economic issues I feel that the laws of supply and demand tend to work very well in most situations. Tampering with the markets only leads to more tampering to offset the ripples you were not expecting to appear when you last stuck your hand in. If something is essential but not profitable then it likely should receive a subsidy. Subsidies should not be given out to force things that do not work onto the public or the market (ethanol). They should also not be provided for companies that are profitable (big agro and big oil fall in here).
Taxes should be the same no matter how much money you make. I do not believe in a "progressive" tax system. Excessive or unfair taxation policies lead to companies moving offshore to hide their profits. I also do not believe in punitive taxes. I do not like the way the tax code is used for social engineering by punishing or rewarding certain behavior.
I do not believe a universal health care system will work. This is mostly because I believe you get what you pay for and you value things more when you earn them. If your health care is free you will not think twice about going in and getting looked at for something that you would normally not even consider paying a $20 co-pay for.
I believe that society should be color-blind. however, I also recognize that some racial groups are not on equal footing with others due to past injustices and problems that are endemic to those racial groups. I feel education and fixing family bonds can fix most of those problems. however, since the hey day of the Civil rights movement there have been fractures in the various minority groups. Where once the goal was integration the rise of multiculturalism has changed that to "preservation of racial identity". You can preserve your ethnic heritage at home while integrating with society as a whole.
Calling oneself a hyphen-American is divisive. As is saying, "it's a [insert racial group here] thing, you wouldn't understand." The Civil rights Movement needs to come together and decide what the goal is. I would prefer we get back to being the melting pot.
I'm trying to be as open and honest as my ignorant background allows me to be. I did not attend college but I am well-read.
I also believe in a limited government and states rights. Some things are obviously necessary for a modern free society to function while others are not. don't ask me for specifics on this one because I am far too ignorant of the vastness of government to give an educated answer on which items should be cut and which should be saved.
Comments
Why do you post like this?
There is a potential solution of writing a script to traverse the database and modify every comment, but with so many comments, there are sure to be some that get destroyed. It is very hard to perfect that sort of thing.
At the moment, no matter what country you are in, the social less fortunate are often members of minorities. Most of them are born into poverty and due to this are worse educated and only can apply for and/or get offered more unhealthy or potentially dangerous jobs e.g. construction work. In addition, crime and accident rates are also by far higher for those social groups, as well as sexual related factors, may it be STDs or pregnancy and the risks thereof. Those people in most cases can't afford health care and would actually benefit the most from a social health care system and it would also help them to gain equal footing to other more fortunate social groups.
I would fully support a program that trains unskilled workers as long as the persons are interested in working.
The funny thing about the "labor camp" idea is that it is a parallel of the military. When you join the military you exchange several years of your life for training. Once you begin that training you live in a very structured and locked-down environment until after your training is complete. This might have changed some since I went through basic and AIT in the early 90's but when I was in training trainees had to live in the barracks and could not even have a car on base. Your freedom was severely restricted and unless you had permission you could not go off base.
Would it be possible to create a work force analogous to the military where people sign up to work on the infrastructure of the US? In exchange for getting the specialized training you sign away five years of your life to work in this government group. I know some states will pay for your college in exchange for an agreement to work in state. I believe Alaska has had programs in the past like this which they used to get skilled jobs filled such as doctors and teachers.
I would fully support such an undertaking here in the US. Once someone mustered out of this force they could get a job with their local public works system in their town or state.
See, I have no problem with the government paying for your education (college) if you in turn agree to a work contract after your education is complete. Want to become a doctor? Well, the government will pay for your med school but you have to be willing to work wherever the government chooses to send you after graduation. Once you complete your "tour of duty" you are free to remain on or seek employment in the private sector.
I also support education for non-violent criminals in the prison population.
You in jail on drug charges? Why are you there? Did you get involved with the drug scene because of a lack of education? Wouldn't getting an education while in prison be a better way of making you a functional member of society upon release?
In what regard do you think is socialized health care a broken system? After all it works everywhere else.
I also believe that the numbers the U.S. people get reported are highly exaggerated. I had three operations in my life so far (22 years old). Unfortunately my tonsil operation is too far back to remember the exact waiting time, but I doubt it was longer than three days after the diagnosis that they were removed.
When I broke my right knee when I was thirteen, I went that evening to the hospital, got my operation the next day and was out of the hospital the day after that.
I broke my left knee in the same manner when I was eighteen (some defect I was born with apparently). It happened during physical education. I was transported from the school to the hospital where a doctor looked at it within 30 minutes. I was given a bed, the day after that I had the operation and two days later I went home.
The only procedures that I know about that are treated with longer waiting periods are completely non-urgent ones that solely are done to increase ones quality in life, e.g. correction of bowlegs.