What do you want? (Page 5): "Trying to build a country, Mugabe is a dictator, they are still in their infancy." - moldy It took the Russians a hundred years to over throw the Bolshevik...

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

moldyoldy wrote:

Trying to build a country, Mugabe is a dictator, they are still in their infancy.

"Trying to build a country, Mugabe is a dictator, they are still in their infancy." - moldy

It took the Russians a hundred years to over throw the Bolshevik Communists. How long do you think it will take the Rhodesians/Zimbabwians to overthrow the communist government out?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

eagleye13 wrote:

"Trying to build a country, Mugabe is a dictator, they are still in their infancy." - moldy

It took the Russians a hundred years to over throw the Bolshevik Communists. How long do you think it will take the Rhodesians/Zimbabwians to overthrow the communist government out?

Are you saying the Russian Bolshevik Communists, who came into power in 1917, retained power until 2017...last year

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

slatten49 wrote:

Are you saying the Russian Bolshevik Communists, who came into power in 1917, retained power until 2017...last year

Putin jailed and threw many of the Zionist oligarchs out.

RETW Loc: Washington

moldyoldy wrote:

Welcome to Zimbabwe
While from afar Zimbabwe's plight doesn't paint a rosy picture, the reality is different on the ground for tourists – most insist it's hands down one of the safest, friendliest and most spectacular countries in Africa.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/zimbabwe

Hopefully, you will move there. ?????????????????????????????

RETW Loc: Washington

slatten49 wrote:

I've always been amused by George Carlin's take on this issue....

"The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and 'Thou shalt not lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment."

Morgan

Liberty Tree wrote:

I am a strict Constitutionalist and would like to see the Federal Government do only those things that are allowed in the Constitution. I would like to see greater action under the 10th amendment which would send education, for example as a duty of the state and not the Federal government. I would like to see the Bill of Rights put into action as intended by the founders and not liberal judges. These are just starters.

Good, that takes the issue of abortion right off the table...finally.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

One of the earlier posters thought it only fair that the 'questioner answer the same questions.' It's only fair.
<Donning my flame-retardant suit> Here goes:
I'm pretty much 'middle-of-the-road' on almost all things. I don't agree with Jim Hightower, who said "the only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos."
On economics, it has to be modified capitalism. Unbridled capitalism where the beancounters run free leads to monopolies, unsafe workplaces, and massively screwed workforces. Unbridled socialism goes to the other extreme, where there is no incentive to do much since the state takes care of everything. Moderation.

On social issues, I go by the old adage "your civil rights end at my nose." I'll leave you well enough alone, so long as you do the same for me. You can believe in whatever religious practice you want, so long as it doesn't force me to believe in it too. Dogma has its place, but bringing it into the public square and forcing everybody else to live by it just doesn't hack it with me. There are a few issues that we can classify as wrong, like murder, theft, rape, child molestation, etc. But when we get into the areas like abortion, polygamy, and lifestyle choices, as long as there is no real public harm other than to the beliefs of somebody else, it ought to be OK. If I want to run through the streets naked and painted purple screaming epithets at people, so long as I don't physically assault anyone, or cause an accident, I can't see stopping me. (I don't want to hear about the visual on this one.)

On the social safety net, we can't be totally oblivious to the plight of people that find themselves bankrupt or retired with no savings or whatever. We have instituted Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and we have to live with the idea that those of us that have grown old with the idea that these programs will be there to help us. We can't abandon those recipients cold and tell them 'tough it out'.
There will always be a permanent underclass of people that are unable or unwilling to support themselves and who will cause civil unrest (read riot) if they are left totally without means of support. The expense to the society in losses of property and the cost of suppressing the riot is far greater long term than just giving them basic subsistence to begin with. And what do we do with the single mother with 8 kids living in a motel room? She can't work because of the child-care situation, and the foster care system is already overloaded. She probably doesn't have job skills to begin with, and can't take the time to get them. How do you solve this without a basic safety net?

International affairs means trade. It's all economics, more than anything else. In this day and age, we can't afford to be isolationist, but we can't be globalist either. We will never be able to compete with cheap labor in third-world countries, so we have to find a way to keep our workers busy, while still making it economical for companies to manufacture here at home. It's a dicey proposition, and there's no easy solution. Maybe de-technologizing some work will be the answer. An example … the guy that used to have a pushcart and broom that swept the streets. We've replaced him with an automated street-sweeper. But we lost the eyes-and-ears of the on-the-ground police patrol. The street sweeper knew what cars belonged on the street, who they hadn't seen in a while and needed checking up on … in short, it stopped a lot of crime before it even started, and provided meaningful employment to people that probably would have been on welfare otherwise. There's a lot of things that this principle can be applied to.

International other than trade, we've got a strong military, but that doesn't solve everything. We can't brute-force our way out of every international dispute. Fair negotiation and agreement is the only way that we can co-exist with the rest of the world, but we can't be the world's policeman, either.

There's more, but that's a starter.

Morgan

whitnebrat wrote:

One of the earlier posters thought it only fair that the 'questioner answer the same questions.' It's only fair.
<Donning my flame-retardant suit> Here goes:
I'm pretty much 'middle-of-the-road' on almost all things. I don't agree with Jim Hightower, who said "the only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos."
On economics, it has to be modified capitalism. Unbridled capitalism where the beancounters run free leads to monopolies, unsafe workplaces, and massively screwed workforces. Unbridled socialism goes to the other extreme, where there is no incentive to do much since the state takes care of everything. Moderation.

On social issues, I go by the old adage "your civil rights end at my nose." I'll leave you well enough alone, so long as you do the same for me. You can believe in whatever religious practice you want, so long as it doesn't force me to believe in it too. Dogma has its place, but bringing it into the public square and forcing everybody else to live by it just doesn't hack it with me. There are a few issues that we can classify as wrong, like murder, theft, rape, child molestation, etc. But when we get into the areas like abortion, polygamy, and lifestyle choices, as long as there is no real public harm other than to the beliefs of somebody else, it ought to be OK. If I want to run through the streets naked and painted purple screaming epithets at people, so long as I don't physically assault anyone, or cause an accident, I can't see stopping me. (I don't want to hear about the visual on this one.)

On the social safety net, we can't be totally oblivious to the plight of people that find themselves bankrupt or retired with no savings or whatever. We have instituted Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and we have to live with the idea that those of us that have grown old with the idea that these programs will be there to help us. We can't abandon those recipients cold and tell them 'tough it out'.
There will always be a permanent underclass of people that are unable or unwilling to support themselves and who will cause civil unrest (read riot) if they are left totally without means of support. The expense to the society in losses of property and the cost of suppressing the riot is far greater long term than just giving them basic subsistence to begin with. And what do we do with the single mother with 8 kids living in a motel room? She can't work because of the child-care situation, and the foster care system is already overloaded. She probably doesn't have job skills to begin with, and can't take the time to get them. How do you solve this without a basic safety net?

International affairs means trade. It's all economics, more than anything else. In this day and age, we can't afford to be isolationist, but we can't be globalist either. We will never be able to compete with cheap labor in third-world countries, so we have to find a way to keep our workers busy, while still making it economical for companies to manufacture here at home. It's a dicey proposition, and there's no easy solution. Maybe de-technologizing some work will be the answer. An example … the guy that used to have a pushcart and broom that swept the streets. We've replaced him with an automated street-sweeper. But we lost the eyes-and-ears of the on-the-ground police patrol. The street sweeper knew what cars belonged on the street, who they hadn't seen in a while and needed checking up on … in short, it stopped a lot of crime before it even started, and provided meaningful employment to people that probably would have been on welfare otherwise. There's a lot of things that this principle can be applied to.

International other than trade, we've got a strong military, but that doesn't solve everything. We can't brute-force our way out of every international dispute. Fair negotiation and agreement is the only way that we can co-exist with the rest of the world, but we can't be the world's policeman, either.

There's more, but that's a starter.

One of the earlier posters thought it only fair th... (show quote)

I agree, when it comes to moral and personal issues, that is not a place for the government especially when it intrudes on the rights of an individual and their free choice, as you say as long as it doesn't involve harm. People argue the harm to the unborn child, we live in the day and age where unwanted pregnancies are completely unnecessary, we have pills for that. It's a lot cheaper to hand out pills than to support a child in the system for their entire formative years, not to mention many under some form of abuse and who will then pass it on to their children and the cycle continues.

Socially we have to decide what kind of country do we want to move forward with, a low evolved one, that is willing to cast aside the elderly, who have helped support our country their entire adult life and possibly due to medical bills now need assistance or do we become a lower primitive unevolved Ayn Rand society of each man for himself,you're on your own pal, sorry, sucks to be you, ideology. I hope we strive for the higher plateau.

Economically I'm beginning to believe we should close our door a while and some isolation isn't such a bad thing, as you say we can't compete with foreign labor, importing their cheap merchandise, in the long run, it has only hurt us. We need to be producing more goods and not just things like pharmaceuticals.

Economically how are we preparing for the possible fall of the dollar? How can we? Maybe the end of the petrodollar is a good thing?

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

whitnebrat wrote:

One of the earlier posters thought it only fair that the 'questioner answer the same questions.' It's only fair.
<Donning my flame-retardant suit> Here goes:
I'm pretty much 'middle-of-the-road' on almost all things. I don't agree with Jim Hightower, who said "the only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos."
On economics, it has to be modified capitalism. Unbridled capitalism where the beancounters run free leads to monopolies, unsafe workplaces, and massively screwed workforces. Unbridled socialism goes to the other extreme, where there is no incentive to do much since the state takes care of everything. Moderation.

On social issues, I go by the old adage "your civil rights end at my nose." I'll leave you well enough alone, so long as you do the same for me. You can believe in whatever religious practice you want, so long as it doesn't force me to believe in it too. Dogma has its place, but bringing it into the public square and forcing everybody else to live by it just doesn't hack it with me. There are a few issues that we can classify as wrong, like murder, theft, rape, child molestation, etc. But when we get into the areas like abortion, polygamy, and lifestyle choices, as long as there is no real public harm other than to the beliefs of somebody else, it ought to be OK. If I want to run through the streets naked and painted purple screaming epithets at people, so long as I don't physically assault anyone, or cause an accident, I can't see stopping me. (I don't want to hear about the visual on this one.)

On the social safety net, we can't be totally oblivious to the plight of people that find themselves bankrupt or retired with no savings or whatever. We have instituted Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and we have to live with the idea that those of us that have grown old with the idea that these programs will be there to help us. We can't abandon those recipients cold and tell them 'tough it out'.
There will always be a permanent underclass of people that are unable or unwilling to support themselves and who will cause civil unrest (read riot) if they are left totally without means of support. The expense to the society in losses of property and the cost of suppressing the riot is far greater long term than just giving them basic subsistence to begin with. And what do we do with the single mother with 8 kids living in a motel room? She can't work because of the child-care situation, and the foster care system is already overloaded. She probably doesn't have job skills to begin with, and can't take the time to get them. How do you solve this without a basic safety net?

International affairs means trade. It's all economics, more than anything else. In this day and age, we can't afford to be isolationist, but we can't be globalist either. We will never be able to compete with cheap labor in third-world countries, so we have to find a way to keep our workers busy, while still making it economical for companies to manufacture here at home. It's a dicey proposition, and there's no easy solution. Maybe de-technologizing some work will be the answer. An example … the guy that used to have a pushcart and broom that swept the streets. We've replaced him with an automated street-sweeper. But we lost the eyes-and-ears of the on-the-ground police patrol. The street sweeper knew what cars belonged on the street, who they hadn't seen in a while and needed checking up on … in short, it stopped a lot of crime before it even started, and provided meaningful employment to people that probably would have been on welfare otherwise. There's a lot of things that this principle can be applied to.

International other than trade, we've got a strong military, but that doesn't solve everything. We can't brute-force our way out of every international dispute. Fair negotiation and agreement is the only way that we can co-exist with the rest of the world, but we can't be the world's policeman, either.

There's more, but that's a starter.

One of the earlier posters thought it only fair th... (show quote)

Mostly all good takes.
Basically, moderation in most cases.
Some socialism/charity is good and needed; but making handouts more preferable to working, got us in this mess.
Un-bridled war mongering also got us in this mess. Being the policeman of the world has cost Americans Trillions. Who creates the boogeyman?

goofball Loc: timbucktoo

whitnebrat wrote:

One of the earlier posters thought it only fair that the 'questioner answer the same questions.' It's only fair.
<Donning my flame-retardant suit> Here goes:
I'm pretty much 'middle-of-the-road' on almost all things. I don't agree with Jim Hightower, who said "the only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos."
On economics, it has to be modified capitalism. Unbridled capitalism where the beancounters run free leads to monopolies, unsafe workplaces, and massively screwed workforces. Unbridled socialism goes to the other extreme, where there is no incentive to do much since the state takes care of everything. Moderation.

On social issues, I go by the old adage "your civil rights end at my nose." I'll leave you well enough alone, so long as you do the same for me. You can believe in whatever religious practice you want, so long as it doesn't force me to believe in it too. Dogma has its place, but bringing it into the public square and forcing everybody else to live by it just doesn't hack it with me. There are a few issues that we can classify as wrong, like murder, theft, rape, child molestation, etc. But when we get into the areas like abortion, polygamy, and lifestyle choices, as long as there is no real public harm other than to the beliefs of somebody else, it ought to be OK. If I want to run through the streets naked and painted purple screaming epithets at people, so long as I don't physically assault anyone, or cause an accident, I can't see stopping me. (I don't want to hear about the visual on this one.)

On the social safety net, we can't be totally oblivious to the plight of people that find themselves bankrupt or retired with no savings or whatever. We have instituted Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and we have to live with the idea that those of us that have grown old with the idea that these programs will be there to help us. We can't abandon those recipients cold and tell them 'tough it out'.
There will always be a permanent underclass of people that are unable or unwilling to support themselves and who will cause civil unrest (read riot) if they are left totally without means of support. The expense to the society in losses of property and the cost of suppressing the riot is far greater long term than just giving them basic subsistence to begin with. And what do we do with the single mother with 8 kids living in a motel room? She can't work because of the child-care situation, and the foster care system is already overloaded. She probably doesn't have job skills to begin with, and can't take the time to get them. How do you solve this without a basic safety net?

International affairs means trade. It's all economics, more than anything else. In this day and age, we can't afford to be isolationist, but we can't be globalist either. We will never be able to compete with cheap labor in third-world countries, so we have to find a way to keep our workers busy, while still making it economical for companies to manufacture here at home. It's a dicey proposition, and there's no easy solution. Maybe de-technologizing some work will be the answer. An example … the guy that used to have a pushcart and broom that swept the streets. We've replaced him with an automated street-sweeper. But we lost the eyes-and-ears of the on-the-ground police patrol. The street sweeper knew what cars belonged on the street, who they hadn't seen in a while and needed checking up on … in short, it stopped a lot of crime before it even started, and provided meaningful employment to people that probably would have been on welfare otherwise. There's a lot of things that this principle can be applied to.

International other than trade, we've got a strong military, but that doesn't solve everything. We can't brute-force our way out of every international dispute. Fair negotiation and agreement is the only way that we can co-exist with the rest of the world, but we can't be the world's policeman, either.

There's more, but that's a starter.

One of the earlier posters thought it only fair th... (show quote)

Great start, I agree with 90%

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

whitnebrat wrote:

One of the earlier posters thought it only fair that the 'questioner answer the same questions.' It's only fair.
<Donning my flame-retardant suit> Here goes:
I'm pretty much 'middle-of-the-road' on almost all things. I don't agree with Jim Hightower, who said "the only thing in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillos."
On economics, it has to be modified capitalism. Unbridled capitalism where the beancounters run free leads to monopolies, unsafe workplaces, and massively screwed workforces. Unbridled socialism goes to the other extreme, where there is no incentive to do much since the state takes care of everything. Moderation.

On social issues, I go by the old adage "your civil rights end at my nose." I'll leave you well enough alone, so long as you do the same for me. You can believe in whatever religious practice you want, so long as it doesn't force me to believe in it too. Dogma has its place, but bringing it into the public square and forcing everybody else to live by it just doesn't hack it with me. There are a few issues that we can classify as wrong, like murder, theft, rape, child molestation, etc. But when we get into the areas like abortion, polygamy, and lifestyle choices, as long as there is no real public harm other than to the beliefs of somebody else, it ought to be OK. If I want to run through the streets naked and painted purple screaming epithets at people, so long as I don't physically assault anyone, or cause an accident, I can't see stopping me. (I don't want to hear about the visual on this one.)

On the social safety net, we can't be totally oblivious to the plight of people that find themselves bankrupt or retired with no savings or whatever. We have instituted Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and we have to live with the idea that those of us that have grown old with the idea that these programs will be there to help us. We can't abandon those recipients cold and tell them 'tough it out'.
There will always be a permanent underclass of people that are unable or unwilling to support themselves and who will cause civil unrest (read riot) if they are left totally without means of support. The expense to the society in losses of property and the cost of suppressing the riot is far greater long term than just giving them basic subsistence to begin with. And what do we do with the single mother with 8 kids living in a motel room? She can't work because of the child-care situation, and the foster care system is already overloaded. She probably doesn't have job skills to begin with, and can't take the time to get them. How do you solve this without a basic safety net?

International affairs means trade. It's all economics, more than anything else. In this day and age, we can't afford to be isolationist, but we can't be globalist either. We will never be able to compete with cheap labor in third-world countries, so we have to find a way to keep our workers busy, while still making it economical for companies to manufacture here at home. It's a dicey proposition, and there's no easy solution. Maybe de-technologizing some work will be the answer. An example … the guy that used to have a pushcart and broom that swept the streets. We've replaced him with an automated street-sweeper. But we lost the eyes-and-ears of the on-the-ground police patrol. The street sweeper knew what cars belonged on the street, who they hadn't seen in a while and needed checking up on … in short, it stopped a lot of crime before it even started, and provided meaningful employment to people that probably would have been on welfare otherwise. There's a lot of things that this principle can be applied to.

International other than trade, we've got a strong military, but that doesn't solve everything. We can't brute-force our way out of every international dispute. Fair negotiation and agreement is the only way that we can co-exist with the rest of the world, but we can't be the world's policeman, either.

There's more, but that's a starter.

One of the earlier posters thought it only fair th... (show quote)

As is usual for you, a precise and sensible posting.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

slatten49 wrote:

I've always been amused by George Carlin's take on this issue....

"The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and 'Thou shalt not lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment."

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

slatten49 wrote:
I've always been amused by George Carlin's take on this issue....

"The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and 'Thou shalt not lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment."

Yep; hostile and frustrated.
No more inadvertent pat-downs in the work place.

GmanTerry

slatten49 wrote:

Are you saying the Russian Bolshevik Communists, who came into power in 1917, retained power until 2017...last year

I lived in Africa for eight years. The entire continent is run by corrupt leaders who steal the treasury and then move to another country. That's the reason there is no middle class. You are either wealthy or poor. Looter or looted.

Semper Fi