>Plus : it's more than just
>'taxes'. Cutting down on
>welfare and directing those 'savings'
>to the military benefits certain
>companies.

But that also helps out the country again, as we would be ready if a conflict breaks out. Besides the military is the weakest it's ever been for any respective American time period. Right now we wouldn't even be ready to fight Iraq. A national defense is important in protecting the US and it's interests.

>If a US company builds a
>new military plane, supported by
>the government, the money needed
>for the development of that
>plane will be taken from
>the public.

If a road needs to be constructed/fixed, that comes from public dollars. If government buildings needs to be constructed/fixed, that comes from public dollars. In other words, that's what public dollars are for. It's to support the public as a whole.

>Has anyone ever asked you if
>you agree with that ?
>
>Has any presidential candidate ever mentioned
>such a thing when they
>were campaigning ?
>Is your input asked when that
>plane turns out to be
>a plane that kills people
>with 'smart bombs' (another Orwellian
>term) ?

Of course. National security and defense is one of the most important measures in elections, if not THE most important. Why you think the Republicans get elected often? Because Regan, Nixon, Bush, and Eisenhower are considered better at this issue than their respective Democratic opponents in the election.

>Those representatives are NOT democratically elected
>(how many people go out
>and vote ?) Unless
>all citizens went out to
>vote (and even then) it's
>not democracy.

Now that's really naive. You actually think there is going to be 100% turnout to the polls??? The only way you're going to do that is by force. And you say, "and even then" it's not democracy. Well how can you provide effective democracy then? You got to have some kind of idea on how to implement this before you just go all out on these Green Party initiatives that you support.

>And since there's no effective democratic
>control on what those representatives
>do, companies can get away
>with paying/rewarding those representatives for
>supporting their plans, meaning making
>sure the public's money flows
>in.

The way to counter that is to make sure there are representatives coming in that will LESSEN the tax bracket and vote for more tax cuts. The problem is that people are being suckered into thinking that every tax cut is a tax cut for the rich. Clinton has had plenty of chances just in the past month to do this, but he vetoed the estate tax and the marriage penalty. Hence, you can't say there aren't representatives that aren't trying to reduce the size of government.

>Things may not seem like 1890
>in most parts of the
>US, but as I said
>on numerous occasions : the
>world is not just the
>US. You can say
>that you don't care about
>the rest of the world,
>but you can't say they
>don't exist.

But once again, it is not the US's job to continously intervene in foreign countries's domestic affairs. We have no soverignity in them. Hence, you need to hold the respective governments in those countries accountable, not the federal government.

>I prefer to look at WHY
>they feel discouraged. There's
>a reason/logic to this madness.
> People in power have
>all interest in alienating and
>marginalizing the people that aren't,
>since that means they won't
>even believe in the potential
>for change.

I think it's highly illogical. It's a simple fact that they don't understand the power they have in the process. Hell it's only been within the past 20 years where voting has went considerably down. Voting used to be considered a civic duty, something that most people felt proud to do. Black people used to fight for their right to have a voice in government through voting. Now, we take it for granted.

>Those who do persist, are labelled
>illegal or persecuted/intimidated/killed.

Since when? Who has been imprisioned for trying to improve voter registration and political awareness?

>>No citizen is denied access to
>>learn how to read, therefore
>>that is a lie.
>>Anyone that wants to learn
>>can learn. It's noone's
>>fault but their own if
>>they don't.
>
>Do you live on planet Earth,
>and if so : between
>people, or in some protected
>cocon ?
>
>Even if YOU had a decent
>education in a private school,
>what makes you think it's
>like that for everyone ?

I went to public, not private. I have a decent education. You have to have some sort of initiative in order to further your education. If you don't want to learn, you're not going to learn. If you want to learn, and you want to do whatever you can in order to learn it, you can learn.

>There's plenty of studies illustrating the
>reasons why people don't have
>access to education.

Those studies are wrong. Hell, as many programs on the books in which you can go to school and learn? Anyone in this country that wants to learn how to read, can. Anyone that wants a diploma, can. Anyone that wants to go to college, can. They might not go to the one they specifically want to go to, but they CAN go.

>>The public might finance things, and
>>are entitled to know a
>>certain portion behind the scenes
>>of government, but when you
>>talk about public, you don't
>>mean only this nation's public,
>>but the WROLD's public.
>>That's a whole new ballgame.
>
>Not if you understand that the
>world contributes to the US'
>wealth BIG TIME. Let's
>have some fair trade before
>I'll take that back.

The world might contribute, but that doesn't mean the world are doing for the US interests, and it doesn't mean that they aren't going to use it for the demise of this country. Once again, not everyone is sweet and innocent. Therefore, some things are not for the public to know.

As far as "fair" trade, please elaborate.
>You obviously don't know what the
>world is like.

Once again, it's about life here, not about life there. We cannot be held responsible for the rest of the world.

>>After 30 years, if you haven't
>>saved enough money to retire
>>with, then tell me, who's
>>fault is that?
>
>Too low minimum wages ?

No excuse. There are actually people that don't work minimum wage, you know. There are actually jobs available that doesn't pay minimum wage. Besides, that's why they call it MINIMUM wage....even if you bring it up, it's still the bottom of the barrel. Therefore, you can raise it up to $12 or $100, it's STILL going to be the poverty level.

>What about sweatshop and plantation workers
>in Guatemala ? They're
>forced to give up (a
>part of) their life (not
>even luxury) to enable your
>wellbeing.
>But that's not a problem, since
>they're not Americans, right ?

Right. Hold the Guatemala government accountable for allowing such practices. You can't help people who don't help themselves.

>Problem is that government/business doesn't want
>people to solve their problems
>themselves. So people are
>not expecting government to solve
>it, they're expecting equal opportunities.

You know why? Because people like free money and luxuries. Why you think the Democrats get elected? Because they constantly promise us all these programs and all these benefits in order to prostitute the poor's votes. Therefore, they are going to CONTINUE to try to solve the people's problems, and it's the same as the Green Party.

>And if you have the money
>to pay for it (minor
>detail). Then of course,
>if you don't have any
>money, that's probably your own
>fault, right ?

Sure is.

>>Well duh, the things taught in
>>school are designed to reflect
>>the society we are in.
>>It's a school, not
>>a brain washing scheme.
>
>Then why should a school in
>a democratic society not reflect
>democratic idea(l)s ?
>
>Which means you just took back
>your criticism of Nader on
>this point ?

Nope. Because there is a difference between brainwashing and education. The problem is that you want to tell children of the greatness of democracy, instead of telling both sides of the story.

>>That is their choice to take
>>the money just as it
>>yours not to take it.
>> Whether you believe in
>>it or not, you don't
>>have a right to tell
>>them what and what not
>>to invest/work in.
>
>Yes I have if I'm concerned
>with human rights. Them
>making that money is DIRECTLY
>related to the exploitation/oppression of
>people.

NO, you sure don't. If they aren't directly involved with the abuses that goes in in international affairs, then they aren't to be held accountable for them. You don't have any right to tell anyone what to do/believe in just like I don't have any right to tell you what to do/believe in. Just because you think it's wrong does not mean you or anyone else have a right to control the actions of other people. If that was the case, then everyone in Western civilization should be punished, because we all have had some advantage gained, regardless what race, in the historical oppression of nations and groups in past time periods. Such an idea is not feasible.

>I guess you don't oppose kidnapping
>and prostituting children either ?

Those are DIRECT crimes. However, you can't hold the car company accountable that provided the car to the person who kidnapped someone.

>Wrong again. You keep talking
>about this 'government', referring to
>its current state. In
>my view, 'government' represents the
>public, which has democratic control
>over it.

But you haven't even provided me a concrete example on how you plan on imposing effective democracy! You keep saying democracy, but you can't even tell me how you plan on imposing this democracy effective enough that it protects minority interests as well as majority. Your view on government, until you do such, is nothing more than a dream.

>Who's protecting me from big business
>today ?

Yourself.

>Who protects workers in the Third
>World today ?

Themselves.

>Not if that government is elected
>and controlled democratically

You keep saying that, but HOW???

>It already has. Wait until
>you're fired one day, and
>loose all your privileges that
>come with your role as
>an accomplice in capitalism.

I will simply find another job, and until then I will save up, in case such an occasion comes up. However, if things get rough, I won't blame it on government because of my situation.

>>And a PROUD black conservative.
>
>should be PROUD fascist actually ...

I suggest you look up the definition of fascist. Fascism means advocation of the power of big government and suppression of the opposition through censorship and persecution. Democracy is way closer to fascism than libertarian conservatism. I suggest you look into the principles of Hitler and Mussolini. You'd be shocked.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,
expertise.rm)

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the
light"

Expertise@rocketmail.com or
therealexpert@hotmail.com



Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.