>So the only alternative to the
>institutionalised press is hearsay and
>gossip or lies ?

You haven't given me anything to think differently.

>What do you rely on ?
> Just CNN and a
>few newspapers ? And
>even so, even those report
>on atrocities committed in the
>name of your splendid capitalism.
> The Financial Times happens
>to be honest every now
>and then.

Well, yanno, I wasn't actually there when the travesties happened, so when I have CNN, along with other sources come up with the same opinion, then chances are I will believe them or at least find some kind of truth into what they are saying. Especially if I find that the sources are credible and the conversing view isn't.

>Did I say 'shut down' ?
> Nope. There's a
>difference between constant expansion when
>you're already the strongest by
>far and using that same
>public money for the public.

But there ISN'T constant expansion. The military has actually shrunk during Clinton's 2 terms of office. How much do you want it shrunk down to? A couple groups of toy soldiers?

>Funny, how come your government makes
>a deal with China so
>that it opens up its
>market to US COMPANIES ?
> That's not evidence of
>an ignorant government, it shows
>that big business has a)
>taken over the goverment and
>b) doesn't care about human
>rights.

Wrong. The pressure might have influenced the government but that doesn't mean they have taken over. Hey, I'm on your side this time, I don't think we should do a damn thing with the Chinese. I consider them a national enemy.
However, what is your solution on how to handle the Chinese? I mean, it can't be an embargo/sanctions, because after all, you want to lift sanctions in Cuba and they are guilty of the same kind of abuses China is. Are you suggesting that we invade China and overthrow the communist government? If so, then that means we are going to need that defense money aren't we?

>As I said, you have to
>make choices. There's only
>a limited amount of money,
>so there's priorities to be
>made.

LIMITED? The national budget is the biggest it's ever been! They are talking about a 5 trillion tax "surplus" coming. Limited indeed. And let me remind you that most of that money is spent on government programs and subsidies, not corporate welfare or defense spending. Both have been cut during Clinton's terms.

That happens today
>too : money flows to
>the military instead of a
>decent accessible health care system.

We've already been through this....free health care is not FREE, it costs MONEY, money that belongs to someone else in which you advocate taking it by force through government, in which you have no right to do so.

>My point is : this decision
>has not been supported by
>the public before it was
>taken, so it means you
>have to be convinced that
>it's a good thing.
>So that you would repeat
>rethoric on these boards.

You cannot have a referendum every time there is a national decision to be made. How many times I got to repeat this to you....that's why we have representatives. Representatives are there to make the decisions, and they are decided by democratic vote. It's not RHETORIC, it's the TRUTH. And you STILL haven't told me how you're going to implement your "effective democracy".

>Of course I'm not anti a
>decent army that can protect
>it's citizens. All I'm
>doing is questioning the amount
>of money that goes to
>the military (which mainly defends
>PRIVATE/BUSINESS interests abroad) at the
>expense of other necessary initiatives.

And the money has been cut, and the military has become a flimsy existence. As for private/business interests, they are still American intersts, therefore why not. And then what initiatives do you feel are worthy of military assistance other than turning the US Armed Forces into the Camoflauge Cross?

>Major independent studies show that trucks
>damage roads much more than
>cars, becos of a few
>reasons :


>a) less restrictions on fuel being
>used
>b) heavier weight
>c) the nature of the job
>leads to more accidents :
>drivers are often forced to
>drive over 10 hours without
>taking breaks
>d) an accident with a truck
>has much more impact, becos
>of its weight and size

Well of course individually they will, but there are far more privately own cars and vehicles out on the road than there are commericial vehicles. Besides, that still doesn't mean that the public does not use these same roads, therefore they should contribute in the construction and repair of them.

There's your explanation.

>Oh, so now all of a
>sudden it's ok for public
>money to flow to private
>businesses ? I don't
>get it : you mentioned
>something about shareholders being so
>stupid to stay on a
>sinking ship, suddenly it's ok
>to keep that ship from
>sinking ?

That is different. If I am a shareholder, and I see that a company is losing profits and value, then what good will it do me to stay on, regardless of whether or not government is going to bail me out? That's just common sense. Any smart shareholder would do that.

>Never heard of the Indians in
>reserves?

Native Americans are free to leave the reservations. I know a couple that have done so.

Never heard
>of shipping harddrugs on purpose
>to gettoes ?

Personal responsibility. If you offer me drugs does that mean I have to take them?

>If you're not interested just say
>so, don't blame it on
>the number of articles.
>I thought you were so
>keen on being informed ?

I will read some of them eventually, but if you are going to refer me to a columnist, in hopes to strengthen your argument, how about making sure you give me a specific article in which to read? Otherwise, it doesn't help you out any, because you can't even point to me what to read nor did you bother to summarize it and explain to me your point. I'll show you an example of such below.

>You want to know where I'm
>coming from ? Well
>it's all there. I
>can't summarize a process that's
>taken me 8 years in
>a few posts. Especially
>with you contradicting yourself and
>ignoring the topic/question.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm asking you to explain yourself specifically so that I may understand your point.

>I'm not saying reality says they
>'should', REALITY SHOWS THEY DO.

It might show they do, but that's not the ideal way to handle it, especially how Clinton has constantly been using the country's defense for simple humanitarian missions.

>The US are all over this
>planet. I don't expect
>you to know it, since
>you're not interested in the
>world outside the US.

There are military bases all over this world, yes. Does that mean they are constantly active and involved in continuous conflict? No.

>Just cos you had access to
>them, means everyone can apply
>? You know what
>the situation is like in
>every US state ?
>How come you're so sure
>?

But how are you going to know if it doesn't if you don't look? Not to mention that there are federal and private funds available too. ESPECIALLY if you are a minority in this country. The problem is that people don't attempt to tap into them or do some research to find out they are there.

>And how come you're so sure
>about people not wanting to
>take the time to find
>'m ?

If they want to, they can. Public libraries, numbers to call your state government, federal government, etc, internet, infomercials, companies that specifically do scholarship searches, companies that give out student loans.....if you truly want to attend college you can. And ditto for a GED/diploma.

>You sound pretty allknowing for a
>22 year old.

Why thank you.

>'Glass ceiling' is a socialist fabrication
>right ?

Socialism makes the glass ceiling even lower.

>'Racism' a communist concept right ?
>'Sexism' only exists in my imagination
>?

More government control and democratic (mob) rule means more oppression on the minority, whether in racial or gender terms. Tell me something, if this country was fully democratic do you think....

1. Slavery would have been abolished in 1865?
2. Women would have been given the right to vote in 1922?
3. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 would have passed?
4. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 would have passed?

The answer? NO. The fact is if it wasn't for a constitutional republican form of government slavery would not have ended in 1865, women would not have been granted the right to vote, the Civil Rights and Voting Acts would not have been passed, and noone would have equal protection under the law. For your sake, let's just hope you agree with everything the majority says.

>Could you describe these ?
>That's a very general remark
>you make, I'm sure most
>people will find that's all
>the US does today.

Actually, I don't think the Kosovo conflict, or the Iraqi bombings had anything to do with protecting American interests. However, I feel that there should only be foreign military intervention when....

1. The lives of US citizens are in danger.
2. American business interests are threatened.
3. When a conflict threatens to become full scale war in which other countries may be drawn into.

And yes I do believe in embargoes/sanctions.

What do
>>you want to do, have
>>the federal government make an
>>international police force?

>The US does so now.

It does not do so now, but if you keep it in the hands of leftists it will. It is a known fact that Democrats/liberals are terrible at foreign policy.

>That would be true if those
>foreign governments weren't depending on
>and/or weren't client states
>of the US.

Client states? Explain.

>>I have no responsibility towards the
>>people of Guatemala or any
>>other country. I repeat,
>>that is the GOVERNMENT OF
>>GUATEMALA'S problem, not mine.
>>I'm not part of any
>>oppression or exploitation and hence
>>cannot be held accountable for
>>it.
>
>Look, young man. Read at
>least a few of those
>50 columns. Then comeback,
>okay ?

Even if it does say that businesses exploit citizens that doesn't mean I should be held responsible for the plight. Like I said, feel free to boycott to your heart's content.

>>I am a fascist because I
>>believe in earning what I
>>have? Reaping what I
>>sow? You got a
>>nerve.

>You are fascist cos you blame
>individuals for structural deficiencies that
>they have no impact on.
> You have no sense
>of solidarity or community.
>You'd probably blame a Vietnam war
>vet for loosing his leg
>or dying from the consequences
>of PCP, cos 'those are
>the risks of being a
>soldier'.

I believe in individualism, which covers all. Sweep around your own door before you try to do so to others. Groups are only as strong as it's weakest link, and I'd rather be in control of my own future instead of letting other people do so for me.
As for the Vietnam vet, soldiers are different. They are fighting so I won't have to. They are fighting to protect this country. Of course that is a responsibility of citizens to take care of the vets, but it is indeed the risks of being a soldier also.

>Missed my point again. How unbiased
>are these classes ?
>You assume, simply cos these
>classes exist, that they'll give
>you a fair view ?
>The existence of such a class
>doesn't automatically mean that it'll
>give you both sides.

You still have the chance to find out both sides of the story. The way the Green Party platform explains it all they are going to do is explain it like it is a fool-proof initiative, which is a lie.

>Exactly : unfortunately some people (but
>you seem to blame them
>for that) don't live in
>an area where those classes
>are organized, or have 2
>to 3 jobs and a
>family when they leave school,
>which hardly leaves time to
>be educated. Education is
>nice and all, but if
>you got no food on
>the table work comes first.

It's all about planning and strategy. You don't like the job you're at? Get another one. If you make time, you will always have time. Sometimes you gotta give a little to get a little.

>Of course you're not responsible individually
>for the exploitation of banana
>farmers who work for Chiquita.
> But still buying those
>bananas when you KNOW what
>really goes on, makes you
>volunteer responsibility.

What? Volunteer responsibility? Think about it, if noone bought them at all they wouldn't have jobs at all now would they? When businesses are losing money, you can guarantee one of the first things they are going to cut is labor.

And like I said, that is their GOVERNMENT'S problem not mine, regardless whether I know what's going on or not. Me buying and consuming a product is not a criminal activity, so therefore, tough luck.

>You can agree or not, but
>buying those bananas without saying
>anything/reacting to those injustices, makes
>you an accomplice. You
>don't have to argue that
>with me, talk to the
>farmers that are being sprayed
>with insecticide 4 times a
>day without being warned so
>that they can leave the
>plantation during spraying.

How is it MY personal fault if they aren't warned? That is not my problem. You talk as if everyone is supposed to be responsible for everyone else's problems. Last time I checked, Superman does not exist. You can't solve everyone's problems, and if you try, all you gonna do is make even more problems than before. That's what happens when you have the US constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign govenments.

>Your money may not be generated
>through exploitation, but your standard
>of living sure is, cos
>you can buy cheap goods
>that have been produced in
>inhumane circumstances

Once again, that's not my problem. It's nice you want to be a humanitarian, but that is your CHOICE. You can't force people to do so. That's reality.

>Then how come you think it's
>OK for companies to not
>give people the money they
>earn through hard work ?
> Pretty inconsistent ?
>Or are Indian or Indonesian
>people worth less than Americans
>?
>I'm not saying they should get
>12 dollars an hour when
>the standard of living is
>10 times lower than where
>you live.
>But their wages are something like
>25 times lower than those
>12 dollars. They simply
>don't get a proper pay,
>considering their reality.

Once again, you are not understanding me. That is not something that our federal government can enforce or even should enforce because we have no soverignty in those countries. Man if it was up to you there would be international conflicts starting up every week. You can't protect all the world.

>>The simple fact that you
>>feel you should make decisions
>>on what I should do
>>with my own money is
>>true fascism. It's the
>>essence of big government leftism.
>
>Nope. You're defending a system
>where many more people than
>just the few of us
>with Internet access and enough
>free time to discuss this
>are being exploited on a
>daily basis.

I'm not defending exploitation, I am defending isolationism and respecting foreign soverignities. I am also defending the right to possession. Money is a possession, in which you have no right to take from me and freely give it to another. I have a right to VOLUNTEER to give it to someone, but you have no right to take it away from me, whether you feel I am contributing to exploitation or not.

>You want the US to be
>more isolationist ? Good.
> Be consequent, don't rely
>on the exploitation abroad anymore.
> Let Americans cultivate those
>fruits and make those sneakers.
> See how much prices
>rise.

That is not what isolationist means. It means not interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries. To run in gung ho into a country and think you can stop all the crimes and tribulations going on in that country is being interventionist, and to think you can do that in every country around the world is unrealistic.

>>"Okay American citizens, let's get something
>>straight. Government is going
>>to take your money and hand it directly to >companies, whether
>>you like it or not.
>>You might as well
>>get used to it.
>>We're not even going
>>to let you
>>democratically vote for how everyone
>>wants that money spent.
>>If you're part of the
>>majority of people exploited becos of this >system's reliance on massive low wage labour
>>, tough shit.
>>Your money is ours now."

Who says it's got to be given to ANYBODY?? Why is tax cuts not a realistic idea? Instead of giving fake power to people by pretending everyone can choose and has a say in the matter, how about giving them their money back instead of keeping it and spending it? That way, they can support the businesses and charities of their choice.

>The majority of people on this
>planet is not on your
>side. They work for
>you, they experience the 'greatness'
>of your US dominance every
>single day. The majority
>of them don't know elections,
>don't have access to power
>at all.

Once again, there has never been a 100% election, and chances are never will be. Also, how is that fair to the minority? Why should the majority be given prescedence over the interests of the minority? What if the majority wins 51% to the minorities' 49. You mean to tell me that majority agenda should be held in higher consideration?

Let me remind you that you as an African-American are a minority. Are you willing to be oppressed by a white agenda, especially in areas in which the issue is parted between racial lines?

>What you call 'majority' is propaganda.
> It suits your logic,
>but it's not reality.

Well then tell me what is your definition of a majority?

>Democratic means would mean that people
>would first be giving the
>means to extricate themselves from
>the current propaganda system.

That's YOUR view of democracy. Once again, you don't know if that is the majority view of democracy or not. All you are doing is assuming. Dreams.

>Which is not the case today.

And rightfully so. Government should protect the individual through a republican form of government, a government which holds laws above the popular opinion of the people at that time. A Constitution that protects people from the oppression of government.

>My point is : don't complain/whine/be
>surprised when your embassy is
>blown up right at one
>of the centres of US
>exploitation. You reap what
>you sow.

Oh, and I'm sure we are supposed to sit back and say, "Hey, that's alright. We deserved it for all the things our companies did to you and we let go on in your country when your government was too lazy/corrupted to do their job. We won't retaliate, you owed us one." I hope for your sake you never has friends/family that work overseas and become victims of terrorism, due you will be eating those words.

I'll be back later to answer the rest.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee