Why is Pravda criticizing the United States for its recent adoption of Socialism?
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/ It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people. True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists. Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters. First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish. Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America. The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe. These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
Politics - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You know it's bad when the former communist mouthpiece see's what alot of Americans don't.
2 :
Because they know first hand how devastating it was in the old Soviet Union and can't believe that the American people are so blind as to just let it happen here.
3 :
yes we should, comrade! Congrats American peegs! Congrats on outlasting the "enemy" in a cold war and having a golden age of prosperity! Congrats on making long winded russians angry enough to waste the time of a cynical internet community! Americans are so dumb compared to us, comrade! oh and did you see that beast of prey Putin shot? totally scham-proof. damn, I'm hungry, where's my McDouble with extra pickles?
4 :
If you're so scared, vote them out in 2012. That's how this country works, remember?
Friday, June 28, 2013
Friday, June 14, 2013
How's my essay? Please give out any suggestions or opionions?
How's my essay? Please give out any suggestions or opionions?
Foreign aid policy of the United States is a program by which the United States of America interacts with other nations and set standards of interaction for its organizations, cooperations and citizens. The policy only spends a tiny portion of America’s annual budget (about 0.1% of the Gross National Product), but the United States still spends over billions of dollars the program. There have been arguments rising for the past few years about this policy. Some people feel that it is not enough and that we should spend a lot more helping other nations. Others criticize that we spend too much and that we should spend all money addressing problems our own problems. I think that we should spend all our money to solve our own problems before helping others. The Great Recession is an economic decline began started after Lehman Brother’s bank declared bankrupt in December 2007. The financial crisis has also been linked to reckless lending practices by financial institutions encouraged by the government in the United States. It spread around the world and affected much of the industrialized world and has caused a significant problem in the economic world. The effect of this depression has caused deceleration in economic activity across the globe. The financial crisis has caused people in America to loose their jobs and the rate of people without jobs to increase around 10%. The situation in Europe was a lot worse, with Iceland declared bankrupt and Greece announcing that it’s going to sell land to return debt. The condition of Spain isn’t so good either, with the unemployed rate up the roof, a staggering 20%. United States is one of the world’s most important economic world leaders and it should spend more money trying to improve its economics before helping others. If America improves their economy, it’s going to affect worldwide. During recent years, Public Colleges/Universities increased tuition to support the school due to shortage in funds. Increase in tuition has caused a problem in many of the poorer families since they couldn’t afford the school anymore. This would make those who can’t afford university lose the ability to compete with others and ultimately get eliminated. The result of this would cause the poverty to increase greatly, and for these people, they might rob/steal to try to survive in this world. The crime rates are going to rise and the society is going to be in chaos. To stop that from happening, the government of United States of America should stop spending billions of dollars to help others but to try to improve the student’s ability to afford tuition for school by offering more scholarship and/or support the public university/college. Some people might argue that foreign aid is vital for helping countries with major catastrophes and creates a safer and prosperous world to those who need help. Major Catastrophes like Haiti Earthquake that happened in the past few years is one of the most serious natural disasters that happened in January 12, 2010 with a magnitude of 7.0. This disaster has been responsible for the death of over 230,000 people. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere and the earthquake has completely destroyed Haiti’s ability to relieve victims of the disaster. Although America should preserve the funds of Foreign Aid Policy to solve the problems occurring within the country, the government should still send out resources and manpower to assist the survivors of the disaster. America should act as a leader for the rescue effort, coordinating rescue attempt between countries to make steady progress and avoid miscommunication or misunderstanding. I think that the Foreign Aid Policy should be canceled since the United States of America should spend the money on their own problems first before assisting others. We have to help ourselves before assisting anyone else or our own country will be in serious trouble. America should spend the fund from Foreign Aid policy on helping improving the economic situation and decreasing the tuition needed to go to Public college/university. After solving the issue within the states, then the country should help others with their problems.
Homework Help - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
it is awsome, i think u r a great writer!!!
2 :
Well, schools vary when it comes to writing essays, but if this is the format your teacher/professor will accept, then I say you did great!
Foreign aid policy of the United States is a program by which the United States of America interacts with other nations and set standards of interaction for its organizations, cooperations and citizens. The policy only spends a tiny portion of America’s annual budget (about 0.1% of the Gross National Product), but the United States still spends over billions of dollars the program. There have been arguments rising for the past few years about this policy. Some people feel that it is not enough and that we should spend a lot more helping other nations. Others criticize that we spend too much and that we should spend all money addressing problems our own problems. I think that we should spend all our money to solve our own problems before helping others. The Great Recession is an economic decline began started after Lehman Brother’s bank declared bankrupt in December 2007. The financial crisis has also been linked to reckless lending practices by financial institutions encouraged by the government in the United States. It spread around the world and affected much of the industrialized world and has caused a significant problem in the economic world. The effect of this depression has caused deceleration in economic activity across the globe. The financial crisis has caused people in America to loose their jobs and the rate of people without jobs to increase around 10%. The situation in Europe was a lot worse, with Iceland declared bankrupt and Greece announcing that it’s going to sell land to return debt. The condition of Spain isn’t so good either, with the unemployed rate up the roof, a staggering 20%. United States is one of the world’s most important economic world leaders and it should spend more money trying to improve its economics before helping others. If America improves their economy, it’s going to affect worldwide. During recent years, Public Colleges/Universities increased tuition to support the school due to shortage in funds. Increase in tuition has caused a problem in many of the poorer families since they couldn’t afford the school anymore. This would make those who can’t afford university lose the ability to compete with others and ultimately get eliminated. The result of this would cause the poverty to increase greatly, and for these people, they might rob/steal to try to survive in this world. The crime rates are going to rise and the society is going to be in chaos. To stop that from happening, the government of United States of America should stop spending billions of dollars to help others but to try to improve the student’s ability to afford tuition for school by offering more scholarship and/or support the public university/college. Some people might argue that foreign aid is vital for helping countries with major catastrophes and creates a safer and prosperous world to those who need help. Major Catastrophes like Haiti Earthquake that happened in the past few years is one of the most serious natural disasters that happened in January 12, 2010 with a magnitude of 7.0. This disaster has been responsible for the death of over 230,000 people. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere and the earthquake has completely destroyed Haiti’s ability to relieve victims of the disaster. Although America should preserve the funds of Foreign Aid Policy to solve the problems occurring within the country, the government should still send out resources and manpower to assist the survivors of the disaster. America should act as a leader for the rescue effort, coordinating rescue attempt between countries to make steady progress and avoid miscommunication or misunderstanding. I think that the Foreign Aid Policy should be canceled since the United States of America should spend the money on their own problems first before assisting others. We have to help ourselves before assisting anyone else or our own country will be in serious trouble. America should spend the fund from Foreign Aid policy on helping improving the economic situation and decreasing the tuition needed to go to Public college/university. After solving the issue within the states, then the country should help others with their problems.
Homework Help - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
it is awsome, i think u r a great writer!!!
2 :
Well, schools vary when it comes to writing essays, but if this is the format your teacher/professor will accept, then I say you did great!
Friday, June 7, 2013
Isn't liberalism a predictable consequence of corrupt conservatism?
Isn't liberalism a predictable consequence of corrupt conservatism?
A genuine Conservative is supposed uphold the value of the free market, and yet few have anything to say about the governments involvement with corporate powers that have nothing to do with the consumer voting confidence of the people. Few speak of political greed and none about empathy. This directly affects the social order perpetuating apathy and mistrust. Many young people turn to liberalism because (and though most liberal leaders are just as greedy) they are being forced into identifying and associating capitalism with human greed due to conservative hostility, fear and con-art of words that seem to destroy their meaning almost on purpose. If the people in power really wanted what is best for this nation, they would work towards the kind of bipartisanship that doesn't assume human beings as units or members of groups and actively demonstrates individual liberty and the idea that conservatism and progressivism are both equal political imperatives and that joining any group that blindly promotes one over the other without a well defined issue to which a conservative or progressive decision is to be made is to miss the point entirely. I'd also like to know what the benefits of poverty are.. What good could come of it? Im no socialist but wouldn't it be grand if we as Americans grew up and realized our innate power and ability to cure and emancipate the people of conflict or war? That we have within us the potential to rehuminize by setting a new standard of living to which all humans are entitled. No man, woman or child deserves funding simply for having a lack of it. However when you realize money is nothing but units on a computer screen and that there are people dying and leading terrible lives all because of a lack of units on a computer screen it kind of changes the whole idea of what otto be done. Capitalism is in no way, shape or form obligated to praise gluttony or the putting of materialism and social status before humanity. If only we realized how little we would have to give up just so people can eat, have a comfortable home and have THE MEANS of supporting and educating themselves. Once all people in this freedom loving nation called The United States of America are given these basic necessities, we would see a drastic decrease in violence, crime, social apathy, greed, etc and a major surge in education, understanding, cooperation, compassion, determination and excellence. We can change how our neighbors around the world look at us (from the middle east all the way to china) just by making an effort to carpet bomb starved countries with the ridiculous (AND I DO MEAN RIDICULOUS) amount of food we waste rather bombing countries we feel home "terrorists" which are only "terrorists" because we disrespect and undermine them by setting up bases on land that doesn't belong to us. (as we have for decades now) 3000 children die of starvation each HOUR! If only they were constantly on our doorsteps crying in the excruciating pain they are experiencing even at this very moment. Perhaps then the media along with the American people would lighten up and give more than 0% of its attention to this issue. However we must focus on the problem here at home first... Foreign Policy Domestic Policy Monetary Policy EDUCATION Individual and Political Duty Government Purposes Commercial Purposes Mediocrity The forsaking of Social and Economic Freedom Social Conditioning and Propaganda The list goes on... rEVOLution anyone?
Politics - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Few conservatives had anything to saw about federal involvement in corporatations?! Strange but tell me again why the GOP lost power this recent time? I would have sworn it was due to them supporting a bailout....at least from the conservative side.
2 :
Yep, you got it; that pendulum swung pretty hard in '08 due to the RINO's. It's gonna swing back even harder in the fall of 2010, because Obama ran as a centrist, but he's really a hard leftist. The American people don't like feeling duped. Here's something to help with your bumper sticker, if you need it: http://sites.google.com/site/vetobama/ Who are these starving children? How is it that our kids are starving and yet we also have a historically unparalleled childhood obesity problem (among, INTERESTINGLY, our nation's poor)? So Michelle Obama's "beat childhood obesity" issue is just hot air? Are you a utopian liberal? Do you earn your own money yet? What color is the sky in your world?
3 :
Liberalism is the product of a dysfunctional educational system, grounded more in ideology than education. Need proof ? How many high school seniors can count back change, or even work out a simple math problem, without a calculator.? You may seek revolution, but be careful what you wish for. You may have it, yet.
4 :
I read the first couple of sentences, before I realized this was crap. If it was a trick question, Sorry.
5 :
The whole system is perverted by a far right lunatic fringe TV network. Agit-prop 24/7, Beck and Hannity are so obviously deranged, that O'Really and Huckabee seem almost reasonable.
6 :
I'm a registered Republican, a traditional conservative and a classical liberal. I believe Hobbes advanced the cause of the common man well in his day of feudal society in Europe. I believe Rousseau and Locke continued later by breaking the bonds of monarchy, then Humboldt and Mill (and to some extent Kant) further described the problem and the solution. Individual rights are in essence, the only thing that matters. Government should be small and of limited scope, primarily for protection. Aside from government, people were pretty much equal in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and much of the 19th Century as well. Today's Neo-liberals are all to happy to jump into bed with government and their circle of power-elites, granting them far to much authority over our lives. There is another power center that exists today, one that didn't exist in the Feudal Western World. As governments amass strength and concentrate power, corporations amass great wealth and hold ownership of the industrialized world. Were John Stuart Mill alive today, he would be arguing for the dismemberment of our corporations as vehemently as he would our governments. Neo-conservatives seem to be quite at home with the corporate titans. The problem is, power and money seem to be getting along together just fine while the citizen, the 99% of us, are left out in the cold. I can define the problem, but I don't know the answer. :( Oligarchic Corporatism seems to be the order of the day. The political problem is easier than the economic problem because the people still retain some small measure of control through elections. Even the Supreme Court is working against us when it comes to corporations. They may now speak right up to election day with however much money they care to spend. Here's what we might do: First, repeal the 17th Amendment, the one where we took the power away from our state governments to appoint Senators, and give that power back to them. We the people are sheep as a group and we will vote for whichever senatorial candidate our corporations tell us to vote for. This country was born on the premise of "one man, one vote" and we each have a representative in the House that is supposed to fight for us individually. The "one man, three votes" 17th Amendment gives too much power to whomever can afford to persuade us. Second, enact legislation that removes the liability limitations afforded officers, board members and major stock holders of corporations who want to do business in the United States. Let's see how many run-away Toyotas we see on the road after that legislation passes. In fact, with legislation like that on the books, we might actually be able to believe corporations when they say they are being good citizens. I recognize that you are looking for a redistribution of wealth, but I don't see how to make that happen in the real world. No brand of Socialism affords self-determination short of Anarchy, and a share of the wealth is meaningless under a tyrannical regime. Society as we know it would have to cease to exist and in the process tens or maybe hundreds of millions would die from hunger, exposure and preventable disease. It would take a generation or two, maybe longer to build another society and capital structure. And who's to say if it will be better? Stalin and Mao both tried. How did it work out for them? EDIT Here's a thought. What if employees elected corporate management instead of shareholders? With liability exposure, that might be the best long term solution to the corporate monstrocities.
7 :
Any particular reason you published this spam/rant here, or did we just end up the beneficiary of your off-topic fecal matter of the male bovine? Troll.
A genuine Conservative is supposed uphold the value of the free market, and yet few have anything to say about the governments involvement with corporate powers that have nothing to do with the consumer voting confidence of the people. Few speak of political greed and none about empathy. This directly affects the social order perpetuating apathy and mistrust. Many young people turn to liberalism because (and though most liberal leaders are just as greedy) they are being forced into identifying and associating capitalism with human greed due to conservative hostility, fear and con-art of words that seem to destroy their meaning almost on purpose. If the people in power really wanted what is best for this nation, they would work towards the kind of bipartisanship that doesn't assume human beings as units or members of groups and actively demonstrates individual liberty and the idea that conservatism and progressivism are both equal political imperatives and that joining any group that blindly promotes one over the other without a well defined issue to which a conservative or progressive decision is to be made is to miss the point entirely. I'd also like to know what the benefits of poverty are.. What good could come of it? Im no socialist but wouldn't it be grand if we as Americans grew up and realized our innate power and ability to cure and emancipate the people of conflict or war? That we have within us the potential to rehuminize by setting a new standard of living to which all humans are entitled. No man, woman or child deserves funding simply for having a lack of it. However when you realize money is nothing but units on a computer screen and that there are people dying and leading terrible lives all because of a lack of units on a computer screen it kind of changes the whole idea of what otto be done. Capitalism is in no way, shape or form obligated to praise gluttony or the putting of materialism and social status before humanity. If only we realized how little we would have to give up just so people can eat, have a comfortable home and have THE MEANS of supporting and educating themselves. Once all people in this freedom loving nation called The United States of America are given these basic necessities, we would see a drastic decrease in violence, crime, social apathy, greed, etc and a major surge in education, understanding, cooperation, compassion, determination and excellence. We can change how our neighbors around the world look at us (from the middle east all the way to china) just by making an effort to carpet bomb starved countries with the ridiculous (AND I DO MEAN RIDICULOUS) amount of food we waste rather bombing countries we feel home "terrorists" which are only "terrorists" because we disrespect and undermine them by setting up bases on land that doesn't belong to us. (as we have for decades now) 3000 children die of starvation each HOUR! If only they were constantly on our doorsteps crying in the excruciating pain they are experiencing even at this very moment. Perhaps then the media along with the American people would lighten up and give more than 0% of its attention to this issue. However we must focus on the problem here at home first... Foreign Policy Domestic Policy Monetary Policy EDUCATION Individual and Political Duty Government Purposes Commercial Purposes Mediocrity The forsaking of Social and Economic Freedom Social Conditioning and Propaganda The list goes on... rEVOLution anyone?
Politics - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Few conservatives had anything to saw about federal involvement in corporatations?! Strange but tell me again why the GOP lost power this recent time? I would have sworn it was due to them supporting a bailout....at least from the conservative side.
2 :
Yep, you got it; that pendulum swung pretty hard in '08 due to the RINO's. It's gonna swing back even harder in the fall of 2010, because Obama ran as a centrist, but he's really a hard leftist. The American people don't like feeling duped. Here's something to help with your bumper sticker, if you need it: http://sites.google.com/site/vetobama/ Who are these starving children? How is it that our kids are starving and yet we also have a historically unparalleled childhood obesity problem (among, INTERESTINGLY, our nation's poor)? So Michelle Obama's "beat childhood obesity" issue is just hot air? Are you a utopian liberal? Do you earn your own money yet? What color is the sky in your world?
3 :
Liberalism is the product of a dysfunctional educational system, grounded more in ideology than education. Need proof ? How many high school seniors can count back change, or even work out a simple math problem, without a calculator.? You may seek revolution, but be careful what you wish for. You may have it, yet.
4 :
I read the first couple of sentences, before I realized this was crap. If it was a trick question, Sorry.
5 :
The whole system is perverted by a far right lunatic fringe TV network. Agit-prop 24/7, Beck and Hannity are so obviously deranged, that O'Really and Huckabee seem almost reasonable.
6 :
I'm a registered Republican, a traditional conservative and a classical liberal. I believe Hobbes advanced the cause of the common man well in his day of feudal society in Europe. I believe Rousseau and Locke continued later by breaking the bonds of monarchy, then Humboldt and Mill (and to some extent Kant) further described the problem and the solution. Individual rights are in essence, the only thing that matters. Government should be small and of limited scope, primarily for protection. Aside from government, people were pretty much equal in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and much of the 19th Century as well. Today's Neo-liberals are all to happy to jump into bed with government and their circle of power-elites, granting them far to much authority over our lives. There is another power center that exists today, one that didn't exist in the Feudal Western World. As governments amass strength and concentrate power, corporations amass great wealth and hold ownership of the industrialized world. Were John Stuart Mill alive today, he would be arguing for the dismemberment of our corporations as vehemently as he would our governments. Neo-conservatives seem to be quite at home with the corporate titans. The problem is, power and money seem to be getting along together just fine while the citizen, the 99% of us, are left out in the cold. I can define the problem, but I don't know the answer. :( Oligarchic Corporatism seems to be the order of the day. The political problem is easier than the economic problem because the people still retain some small measure of control through elections. Even the Supreme Court is working against us when it comes to corporations. They may now speak right up to election day with however much money they care to spend. Here's what we might do: First, repeal the 17th Amendment, the one where we took the power away from our state governments to appoint Senators, and give that power back to them. We the people are sheep as a group and we will vote for whichever senatorial candidate our corporations tell us to vote for. This country was born on the premise of "one man, one vote" and we each have a representative in the House that is supposed to fight for us individually. The "one man, three votes" 17th Amendment gives too much power to whomever can afford to persuade us. Second, enact legislation that removes the liability limitations afforded officers, board members and major stock holders of corporations who want to do business in the United States. Let's see how many run-away Toyotas we see on the road after that legislation passes. In fact, with legislation like that on the books, we might actually be able to believe corporations when they say they are being good citizens. I recognize that you are looking for a redistribution of wealth, but I don't see how to make that happen in the real world. No brand of Socialism affords self-determination short of Anarchy, and a share of the wealth is meaningless under a tyrannical regime. Society as we know it would have to cease to exist and in the process tens or maybe hundreds of millions would die from hunger, exposure and preventable disease. It would take a generation or two, maybe longer to build another society and capital structure. And who's to say if it will be better? Stalin and Mao both tried. How did it work out for them? EDIT Here's a thought. What if employees elected corporate management instead of shareholders? With liability exposure, that might be the best long term solution to the corporate monstrocities.
7 :
Any particular reason you published this spam/rant here, or did we just end up the beneficiary of your off-topic fecal matter of the male bovine? Troll.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Would you support your state seceding from the United States if...?
Would you support your state seceding from the United States if...?
You understood a few things would happen. For instance : 1. There would no longer be a need to spend 20% of the government budget on the military, or have to fight in wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, or base troops on foreign soil. There would be no need to finance a military with a massive offensive capability; only a force strong enough to defend the state. 2. You would pay a lot less in taxes. No more Federal income tax, no Social Security or Medicare tax, or FICA tax. You would still pay your state income tax (if you have one), but you still take home more money at the same rate of pay you make now. It would be just like you got a 20% pay raise. 3. You will pay less for certain goods. When the Federal tax is removed from an item, like cigarettes, they will be cheaper to purchase, even if the state raises the state tax on them. Don't smoke? What about gas? We pay 19 cents per gallon of gas in Federal tax. Your state can raise its gas tax by 10 cents, and you would still pay less for gas. 4. Your state can negate any Federal law that the citizens of the state disagree with, whether it is legalizing drugs and gay marriage, banning NAFTA and guns, instituting card check, or banning abortion, stronger immigration enforcement, and requiring balanced budgets. 5. Your state and its taxpayers would no longer be a party to the $12 trillion debt, or the $100 trillion+ in unfunded mandates like Social Security and Medicare, so when the U.S defaults on its debt obligations, and it will, since right now paying interest on the debt is third highest on the list of our government's annual expenditures, behind only Social Security and Medicare, your state's economy won't be destroyed like the rest of America's will be. Think of the people on the Titanic. There has to come a time when you decide to abandon ship. The longer you wait, the less likely you will survive. JeepDiva, I am NOT advocating a dictatorship. The Confederacy wasn't a dictatorship, they were a republic, just like the U.S. And we seceded from Britain; are we a dictatorship? Pay better attention in your history class next time. Golden, you're an idiot. Cigarettes are taxes if they are SOLD in the U.S. not grown there. I would hope my parents were smart enough to save for themselves and not need Social Security; if they didn't , why shoudl every one else pay for thier failure to plan? And why would the Russians or anyone else attack us, especially if we leave them alone? The Russians haven't attacked Japan, and they could easily conquer them? And, by the way, I graduated from public school with a 3.8 GPA and a 143 IQ.
Politics - 18 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Although much of that sounds good..no.
2 :
I would support a state seceding from the union if: A. The state were California; and B. We could send all the illegals there first.
3 :
Yes, if it sent a message to the federal government for them to clean up their act. Secession is one of the last defenses against an oppressive federal govt. We could eventually rejoin the union.
4 :
I'm sure the international community would have so much respect for the republic of South Dakota or what not.
5 :
Not while that failure Granholm is in charge.
6 :
No
7 :
However, you would also not get the benefits of 1. Millions in DOT funds for highways and roads 2. Millions in federal matching funds for schools and community 3. the US military to keep some rogue nation for attacking you Also your forgetting the possibility of a lincoln like president who really really wants you to stay
8 :
Sounds like you're advocating a dictatorship. Let's keep things the way they are. People like you could be very dangerous. Who did Jefferson Davis beat in the "Confederacy Election?" You're an idiot.
9 :
there are few states that have the resources to stand as their own nation. the unexpected hassles and international trade laws not to mention those citizens not in favor of secession would be hard to deal with. now if several states were willing to form a coalition or federation...say something along the lines of Cascadia or Ecotopia I might back that.
10 :
1. as nice as that would be its not realistic 2. that would be a positive step 3. ending government intervention in prices would be great 4. as long as it followed the constitution, I still want to speak, practice religion etc. 5. if that would work than that would be great. Id rather the US do these things but if they cant and the US is a sinking ship than I guess it would be better to get on another ship.
11 :
No, The Civil war was bloody, but If certain states want to bow to corporatism then I do not wish to pay for their mistakes. It is clear that some do not accept the Democratic process and I am tired of fighting them. Let them live in the cesspool that they worship and maybe then they will understand what the founding fathers meant. Bethy, I am pleasantly surprised.
12 :
as to the titanic scenario, it would have been death to abandon ship,secession from the u.s. is not allowed by the constitution the military is necessary for security reasons, no one is required to fight in the military the path to your utopian society is through intelligent selection of govt leaders unlike the last general election however Intelligent selection of leaders must start in municipal govt and then expand to state and then federal govt
13 :
No, as a liberal and a progressive, I actually love America and its democratic values. Those things you complained about are similar in ALL industrial nations. It's part of being in the first world. Sorry to burst your bubble, that is just how rich societies are run, just look at any other rich country that has been wealthy for some time.
14 :
hahaha. you're funny. you say cigarettes would be cheaper. lol. where you planning on getting these cheap ciggys? going to import them from the usa? (remember, you will no longer be a part of us). think you can make it on your own? not going to pay into social security? what will you do with your parents when they get old? don't want the military? who will defend your state? not us, remember, we are out of the picture. oh, think some boys with deer rifles can hold off russian bombers? tanks? nothing you say here make any sense whatsoever. it's like you've never read a book. homeschooled? but hey, if you don't like usa, maybe you would like Somalia better.
15 :
i live in CA so no. if CA succeeded it would turn complete communist, and would not receive the federal bailout money it is so desperately counting on. they would probably build a wall around it to keep workers in like the USSR did. interestingly- in 2009 Californians Finance Director Mike Genest looked into going back to "territory" status so it would no longer be responsible for some of its debts. ALSO- in CA state taxes on things like gas, and cigs are higher then the feds taxes, our sales tax is also highest in the nation. so again that wouldn't help us. guess progressive governments don't work huh?
16 :
Hahaha @ the 2nd poster "EL": I'm in CA and we are broke. Be prepared to bail us out like GM. God, I hate saying that. And please fight it for all you are worth, we need to cut services and not figure out how others can pay for them. Off my high horse now :) Could you seceded? Yes. If that's what you want to do; absolutely. The primary reason for a federal government system (per our founders and our Constitution) was for nationhood. You know, such as raise an army and navy, operate a court system, provide for standard weights and measures, coin money, and operate a post office. Those are aspects of nationhood with which the states would no longer be concerned. However, the states retained for themselves the power to legislate for the health, safety, welfare and morality of people in the states. (Hence why AZ's law against illegal immigration is perfectly fine) You can argue the pros and cons, but I think it's best to remain part of the US for reasons of nationhood. That said, if things get so bad or wrong - then seceding from the nation is still your option. You will, however, have to start paying more for those services the feds once provided. It's an option, but an option you should weigh heavily upon. Just vote the bums out in November and pray it doesn't come to your state seceding. God bless.
17 :
Living in California I would have to say yes.
18 :
No never...its not fiscally sound and you would not save any money..indeed it would cost more. The feds pay for our military, so 20% of the state budget would still be spent on the military...fica, medicare and social securitywouldnt be taken from you...but you also wouldnt get the services..if the state wanted to implement them, then taxes would be raised...you would be paying the same amount, just to a differant gov...Unless you have refineries in your state or grow tabacco, you would have to pay import and shipping fees...being a seperate country would mean no free trade or even favored nation status with the other 49...try buying gas or american cigs in europe, both cost way more than they do in the US...all 50 states contributed to the national debt. Even if your state didnt contribute..you sent 2 senators and X reps to congress to represent you, and they were a party to the over spending and subsequent debt...the debt is all of ours, not the "federal governments". In summation i dont think your contentions are compelling nor are they true(except #4). Its all for not anyway, no state would be allowed to secede...and no state except CA would be able to sustain itself and maintain the standard of living of its citizens. Everything from water rights to power supply would be cut off...all federal services and money would be cut off to the state and local goverments. Many cities and most states are dependent on federal funding...without it they would crumble and collapse
You understood a few things would happen. For instance : 1. There would no longer be a need to spend 20% of the government budget on the military, or have to fight in wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, or base troops on foreign soil. There would be no need to finance a military with a massive offensive capability; only a force strong enough to defend the state. 2. You would pay a lot less in taxes. No more Federal income tax, no Social Security or Medicare tax, or FICA tax. You would still pay your state income tax (if you have one), but you still take home more money at the same rate of pay you make now. It would be just like you got a 20% pay raise. 3. You will pay less for certain goods. When the Federal tax is removed from an item, like cigarettes, they will be cheaper to purchase, even if the state raises the state tax on them. Don't smoke? What about gas? We pay 19 cents per gallon of gas in Federal tax. Your state can raise its gas tax by 10 cents, and you would still pay less for gas. 4. Your state can negate any Federal law that the citizens of the state disagree with, whether it is legalizing drugs and gay marriage, banning NAFTA and guns, instituting card check, or banning abortion, stronger immigration enforcement, and requiring balanced budgets. 5. Your state and its taxpayers would no longer be a party to the $12 trillion debt, or the $100 trillion+ in unfunded mandates like Social Security and Medicare, so when the U.S defaults on its debt obligations, and it will, since right now paying interest on the debt is third highest on the list of our government's annual expenditures, behind only Social Security and Medicare, your state's economy won't be destroyed like the rest of America's will be. Think of the people on the Titanic. There has to come a time when you decide to abandon ship. The longer you wait, the less likely you will survive. JeepDiva, I am NOT advocating a dictatorship. The Confederacy wasn't a dictatorship, they were a republic, just like the U.S. And we seceded from Britain; are we a dictatorship? Pay better attention in your history class next time. Golden, you're an idiot. Cigarettes are taxes if they are SOLD in the U.S. not grown there. I would hope my parents were smart enough to save for themselves and not need Social Security; if they didn't , why shoudl every one else pay for thier failure to plan? And why would the Russians or anyone else attack us, especially if we leave them alone? The Russians haven't attacked Japan, and they could easily conquer them? And, by the way, I graduated from public school with a 3.8 GPA and a 143 IQ.
Politics - 18 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Although much of that sounds good..no.
2 :
I would support a state seceding from the union if: A. The state were California; and B. We could send all the illegals there first.
3 :
Yes, if it sent a message to the federal government for them to clean up their act. Secession is one of the last defenses against an oppressive federal govt. We could eventually rejoin the union.
4 :
I'm sure the international community would have so much respect for the republic of South Dakota or what not.
5 :
Not while that failure Granholm is in charge.
6 :
No
7 :
However, you would also not get the benefits of 1. Millions in DOT funds for highways and roads 2. Millions in federal matching funds for schools and community 3. the US military to keep some rogue nation for attacking you Also your forgetting the possibility of a lincoln like president who really really wants you to stay
8 :
Sounds like you're advocating a dictatorship. Let's keep things the way they are. People like you could be very dangerous. Who did Jefferson Davis beat in the "Confederacy Election?" You're an idiot.
9 :
there are few states that have the resources to stand as their own nation. the unexpected hassles and international trade laws not to mention those citizens not in favor of secession would be hard to deal with. now if several states were willing to form a coalition or federation...say something along the lines of Cascadia or Ecotopia I might back that.
10 :
1. as nice as that would be its not realistic 2. that would be a positive step 3. ending government intervention in prices would be great 4. as long as it followed the constitution, I still want to speak, practice religion etc. 5. if that would work than that would be great. Id rather the US do these things but if they cant and the US is a sinking ship than I guess it would be better to get on another ship.
11 :
No, The Civil war was bloody, but If certain states want to bow to corporatism then I do not wish to pay for their mistakes. It is clear that some do not accept the Democratic process and I am tired of fighting them. Let them live in the cesspool that they worship and maybe then they will understand what the founding fathers meant. Bethy, I am pleasantly surprised.
12 :
as to the titanic scenario, it would have been death to abandon ship,secession from the u.s. is not allowed by the constitution the military is necessary for security reasons, no one is required to fight in the military the path to your utopian society is through intelligent selection of govt leaders unlike the last general election however Intelligent selection of leaders must start in municipal govt and then expand to state and then federal govt
13 :
No, as a liberal and a progressive, I actually love America and its democratic values. Those things you complained about are similar in ALL industrial nations. It's part of being in the first world. Sorry to burst your bubble, that is just how rich societies are run, just look at any other rich country that has been wealthy for some time.
14 :
hahaha. you're funny. you say cigarettes would be cheaper. lol. where you planning on getting these cheap ciggys? going to import them from the usa? (remember, you will no longer be a part of us). think you can make it on your own? not going to pay into social security? what will you do with your parents when they get old? don't want the military? who will defend your state? not us, remember, we are out of the picture. oh, think some boys with deer rifles can hold off russian bombers? tanks? nothing you say here make any sense whatsoever. it's like you've never read a book. homeschooled? but hey, if you don't like usa, maybe you would like Somalia better.
15 :
i live in CA so no. if CA succeeded it would turn complete communist, and would not receive the federal bailout money it is so desperately counting on. they would probably build a wall around it to keep workers in like the USSR did. interestingly- in 2009 Californians Finance Director Mike Genest looked into going back to "territory" status so it would no longer be responsible for some of its debts. ALSO- in CA state taxes on things like gas, and cigs are higher then the feds taxes, our sales tax is also highest in the nation. so again that wouldn't help us. guess progressive governments don't work huh?
16 :
Hahaha @ the 2nd poster "EL": I'm in CA and we are broke. Be prepared to bail us out like GM. God, I hate saying that. And please fight it for all you are worth, we need to cut services and not figure out how others can pay for them. Off my high horse now :) Could you seceded? Yes. If that's what you want to do; absolutely. The primary reason for a federal government system (per our founders and our Constitution) was for nationhood. You know, such as raise an army and navy, operate a court system, provide for standard weights and measures, coin money, and operate a post office. Those are aspects of nationhood with which the states would no longer be concerned. However, the states retained for themselves the power to legislate for the health, safety, welfare and morality of people in the states. (Hence why AZ's law against illegal immigration is perfectly fine) You can argue the pros and cons, but I think it's best to remain part of the US for reasons of nationhood. That said, if things get so bad or wrong - then seceding from the nation is still your option. You will, however, have to start paying more for those services the feds once provided. It's an option, but an option you should weigh heavily upon. Just vote the bums out in November and pray it doesn't come to your state seceding. God bless.
17 :
Living in California I would have to say yes.
18 :
No never...its not fiscally sound and you would not save any money..indeed it would cost more. The feds pay for our military, so 20% of the state budget would still be spent on the military...fica, medicare and social securitywouldnt be taken from you...but you also wouldnt get the services..if the state wanted to implement them, then taxes would be raised...you would be paying the same amount, just to a differant gov...Unless you have refineries in your state or grow tabacco, you would have to pay import and shipping fees...being a seperate country would mean no free trade or even favored nation status with the other 49...try buying gas or american cigs in europe, both cost way more than they do in the US...all 50 states contributed to the national debt. Even if your state didnt contribute..you sent 2 senators and X reps to congress to represent you, and they were a party to the over spending and subsequent debt...the debt is all of ours, not the "federal governments". In summation i dont think your contentions are compelling nor are they true(except #4). Its all for not anyway, no state would be allowed to secede...and no state except CA would be able to sustain itself and maintain the standard of living of its citizens. Everything from water rights to power supply would be cut off...all federal services and money would be cut off to the state and local goverments. Many cities and most states are dependent on federal funding...without it they would crumble and collapse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)