Judge Rejects NSA Phone Spying

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What about the fear of a complete government take over and loss of freedom that Varq and H have displayed. Isn’t that just as debilitating? [/quote]

No. It stimulates people to action and education (unless you meant the extreme paranoid prepper variety of the strawman). One only remains free as long as one is vigilant to watch and strike down growing largess from the government.

…

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

–Samuel Adams

[/quote]

Aragorn, we agree on a lot of things. I completely agree with everything you just wrote.

I love the Adams quote, but what does he mean by universally corrupt? The government, the people themselves, or something else? Do you honestly feel that the majority of Americans are corrupt? How about the government?

I see a lot of problems, real problems, with our people and the government, but corrupt is a strong word I wouldn’t throw around lightly.

Jefferson’s quote is another great one. I think ignorance more so than enlightenment in that the people are enlightened to the issues we face, the information is right there readily available, but ignorance is bliss.

The Anonymous quote is the best one by far, which is why I have not advocated we just sit back and ignore our problems. Rather we should face them head on and change.

I’m not arguing against anything you wrote. What I am saying is that we are not oppressed. Anyone that thinks the American people, at this point, are oppressed imo is going to far. Are we on a road to oppression? I can easily buy the argument. Should we do something about it? Yes, we should. [/quote]

He is using corruption in a different way than you are. Adams is not speaking of a power corruption or bribe taking, graft, anything like that. Corruption as he uses it indicates a loss of character, a self-gratifying and myopic view of the world, and a loss of values specifically like sacrifice, honor, and self-control. He is speaking of the things Varq, beans, and others have mentioned previously-- “a people whose manners are…corrupt” means a people whose only waking thought, taken as a whole, is how to best satisfy their desire for MORE, NOW. A people who have given up the ideal of self-control. A people who would so deeply care about the future they leave their kids that they would allow Congress to create a nation of debtors and a national debt that will make sure that they are the FIRST generation that will leave a nation in worse shape and a worse future for their kids since the founding of the country. And in this I think Adams is perfectly accurate.

No I do not think we are oppressed…yet. I think if you had simply said this last part straight out you would not have gotten near as much flak as what ended up happening. What we do have though is the perfect storm conditions for the genesis of oppression.

122

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Defense is necessary, I believe. Would you be in favor of allowing each citizen to determine how much(if any) he spends on defense, or do you believe the market would fail in that area?
[/quote]

I would only be in favor of letting people choose what their tax dollars go towards as long as a certain % of income is still collect for tax revenue.

If we start letting people pick and choose how much money or how often they pay for defense, then yes I believe the free market would fail. Some people wouldn’t ever contribute to defense even if WWIII started. Some would wait until WWIII started. I don’t think that’s a smart strategy or fair to let others reap the benefits paid for by others. In today’s world I see this as a necessary evil.

I beleive taxes are require to pay for necessary goods. I don’t think the gov needs to spend money on MP3 player R&D.

Yes, my statement can apply to everything government spends money on, which is why it should be our prioroty to constantly modify and limit what the government actually spends money on. That to me is the real issue.

[quote]
Why does the market only work in some areas for Republicans? Why must the government force people to purchase certain goods?[/quote]

I don’t believe a 100% free market works, which is why in my case (Not a Republican) I don’t think we should allow a 100% free market.

I don’t look at it like the government forces people to purchase some goods. I see it as, we the people, formed a union so collectively we can prosper and part of that union is paying for collective goods like roads, schools, a military etc…

Believe me, I fully support a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal Governmment. We can start by dismantalling Home Land Security and the DEA. I also fully support returning more of choice to state governments.

Not all government spending is bad though. Anecdotally, I use to work at Johns Hopkins setting up grants within our SAP system. Probably 95% of the Neurology grants came from DHHS NIH. We are talking research Parkinson, dementia, etc… All good things, imo.

123

Your positions are causing me to scratch my head usmc. You talk about dollars “entering” the economy because of war. Surely you realize if that is your metric dollars can “enter” the economy at any time as long as we have people to fund our debt. The military spending didn’t create those dollars, all the countries and people we are in debt to did that by funding it.

Then you mention that it’s debatable about whether or not we can afford the tax cuts. Which has me extremely curious on how your mind is working on these things (not trolling at all).

(I’m genuinely curious here with this next part)

The Bush tax cuts from anything I can find were estimated to total around 1.5 trillion dollars. These tax cuts were extended into President Obama’s term and in 2011 (last articles I can find) were estimated at 2.4 trillion dollars. Essentially we cut taxes while vastly increasing spending during the Bush presidency. I find tax and spend to be a very stupid way to do things. I find it infinitely more reasonable than cutting taxes and increasing spending though. This is akin to you quitting your job in the midst of increasing your personal spending. How can one talk about the need for all this spending and at the same time talk about how it’s debatable if the tax cuts were something we could afford.

Was talking about your up there post where you quoted the article by the way.

124

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What about the fear of a complete government take over and loss of freedom that Varq and H have displayed. Isn’t that just as debilitating? [/quote]

No. It stimulates people to action and education (unless you meant the extreme paranoid prepper variety of the strawman). One only remains free as long as one is vigilant to watch and strike down growing largess from the government.

…

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

–Samuel Adams

[/quote]

Aragorn, we agree on a lot of things. I completely agree with everything you just wrote.

I love the Adams quote, but what does he mean by universally corrupt? The government, the people themselves, or something else? Do you honestly feel that the majority of Americans are corrupt? How about the government?

I see a lot of problems, real problems, with our people and the government, but corrupt is a strong word I wouldn’t throw around lightly.

Jefferson’s quote is another great one. I think ignorance more so than enlightenment in that the people are enlightened to the issues we face, the information is right there readily available, but ignorance is bliss.

The Anonymous quote is the best one by far, which is why I have not advocated we just sit back and ignore our problems. Rather we should face them head on and change.

I’m not arguing against anything you wrote. What I am saying is that we are not oppressed. Anyone that thinks the American people, at this point, are oppressed imo is going to far. Are we on a road to oppression? I can easily buy the argument. Should we do something about it? Yes, we should. [/quote]

He is using corruption in a different way than you are. Adams is not speaking of a power corruption or bribe taking, graft, anything like that. Corruption as he uses it indicates a loss of character, a self-gratifying and myopic view of the world, and a loss of values specifically like sacrifice, honor, and self-control. He is speaking of the things Varq, beans, and others have mentioned previously-- “a people whose manners are…corrupt” means a people whose only waking thought, taken as a whole, is how to best satisfy their desire for MORE, NOW. A people who have given up the ideal of self-control. A people who would so deeply care about the future they leave their kids that they would allow Congress to create a nation of debtors and a national debt that will make sure that they are the FIRST generation that will leave a nation in worse shape and a worse future for their kids since the founding of the country. And in this I think Adams is perfectly accurate.

No I do not think we are oppressed…yet. I think if you had simply said this last part straight out you would not have gotten near as much flak as what ended up happening. What we do have though is the perfect storm conditions for the genesis of oppression.
[/quote]

I guess I just see the world differently. I do agree a loss of character has occurred. It’s my opinion that the scale and scope of this loss is simply a lot smaller than some posters and certain conservative media portray. That’s my personal opinion. I’ve worked with and been around too many men and women of character to think the majority of the 300MM+ Americans aren’t similiar. Are we a now generation, yes we are. Does the current generation need to basically grow up, yes we do. Many of us have and cultural shifts seems to be almost inevitable between generations.

My career really started at the beginning of the recession, many of the folks my age and younger are already learning or have learned that we can’t spend like we did in the early 2,000s. I’m confident we will see a shift towards more conservative values as my age and younger begin to asset themselves on a larger scale.

Heck, the Flak lead to some constructive learning on my part so oh well.

125

Who determines necessity?

You acknowledge that the citizens are incapable of defending themselves, correct? That being the case, what prevents the government from taking control of everything? A piece of parchment? That couple hundred-year old piece of parchment is capable of restraining the most powerful nation in the history of the world? Are the citizens capable of defending themselves from the government, or do we just have to trust that those we place(I guess “we” really don’t do that if we are weaker than they) in a position of absolute power will play by the rules?

126

[quote]H factor wrote:
Your positions are causing me to scratch my head usmc. You talk about dollars “entering” the economy because of war. Surely you realize if that is your metric dollars can “enter” the economy at any time as long as we have people to fund our debt. The military spending didn’t create those dollars, all the countries and people we are in debt to did that by funding it.
[/quote]

I am probably not explaining myself very well. Debt funds a lot of things. We borrow a lot. So I can see your point.

Look at it like this:

Company A takes on debt from Bank of America. They then hire you. You in turn use your income to purchase x, y, and z. The companies of x, y, and z see an increase in demand so they hire me. The cycle continue so on and so forth.

Now insert USMC for Company A and instead of Bank of America the Marine Corp is funded through tax revenue or government debt instruments. The USMC pays you, you go out and buy a 50" TV for your barracks room. Sony hires me to make more TVs for new Marines. At the same time, the companies that make uniforms, GoreTex(sp?) for example see an increase in demand.

At the same time we use our GDP to pay for our debt. That’s how I’m looking at it.

I don’t remember mentioning tax cuts? Can you point to the post?

[quote]
(I’m genuinely curious here with this next part)

The Bush tax cuts from anything I can find were estimated to total around 1.5 trillion dollars. These tax cuts were extended into President Obama’s term and in 2011 (last articles I can find) were estimated at 2.4 trillion dollars. Essentially we cut taxes while vastly increasing spending during the Bush presidency. I find tax and spend to be a very stupid way to do things. I find it infinitely more reasonable than cutting taxes and increasing spending though. This is akin to you quitting your job in the midst of increasing your personal spending. How can one talk about the need for all this spending and at the same time talk about how it’s debatable if we tax cuts were something we could afford.

Was talking about your up there post where you quoted the article by the way. [/quote]

I will re-look at what I wrote, I don’t remember mentioning tax cuts. What I will say, is I understand the concept behind offering tax cut in an effort to jump start the economy. I don’t think (I’d have to look it up) it really worked because companies essentially horded the money vs. hiring, which was the point. Obviously unemployment numbers speak for themselves.

“This is akin to you quitting your job in the midst of increasing your personal spending.” I agree except I’d say it’s more like taking a pay cut while increasing spending (Government didn’t stop collecting taxes after all). It’s doable and in some cases can lead to increased pay in the future (Think moving to another company with growth potential).

Again, like I said, I’m all for a reduction of spending across the board including in the military.

127

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Who determines necessity?
[/quote]

We the people do.

Depends. I think individually we can protect our homes and communities. I think expecting the people to come together, especially in today’s world, to defend a nation w/out central leadership would be extremely challenging.

No, we do with our guns. The government should never control our guns.

[quote]
Are the citizens capable of defending themselves from the government, or do we just have to trust that those we place(I guess “we” really don’t do that if we are weaker than they) in a position of absolute power will play by the rules?[/quote]

Yes, I think we are capable of defending ourselves against our government if the need were to arise.

128

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:Tax cuts we can’t afford, Is that demostrably true?
[/quote]

This is where I got tax cuts from.

129

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:Tax cuts we can’t afford, Is that demostrably true?
[/quote]

This is where I got tax cuts from. [/quote]

I’m asking, is it demonstrably true that we could not afford the Bush tax cuts? That was one of the claims in the article.

It was a question not a statement.

I also apologize, I did not proof read that post and it’s rough, lol.

130

[quote]H factor wrote:
In my opinion it’s a very common economic myth that war is good for the economy.

[/quote]

I couldn’t care less if it’s good or bad for the economy. Americans (and our allies) were killed because of these wars. That is an absolute loss of freedom. To try and find some bright side when it comes to the wars like they may have been good for the economy is ridiculous.

131

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I think we are capable of defending ourselves against our government if the need were to arise. [/quote]

We are capable of defending ourselves against our own government, which is capable of and needed for defense from other countries, from which we are incapable of defending ourselves?

The citizens are capable of defending themselves from the local police, which is capable of and needed for defense from criminals, from which we are incapable of defending ourselves?

132

FWIW I think Republicans over the last 30 years have used tax cuts as candy for voters. Lowered taxes plays well with EVERYONE. Who doesn’t want to pay less taxes. Lowered spending plays poorly (and showing examples of Republicans lowering spending over the last 30 years is impossible because it didn’t happen) and the Republicans have a lot of big government stuff they love (war and military is obvious, no child left behind, medicare part d, etc.)

Democrats at LEAST understand that taxes need to go up if spending is going to go up. They want the wealthy to do this. I don’t support this thinking one iota…but at least they are acknowledging that someone needs to pay for all the ponies. Republicans like to talk about someone paying for all the ponies, but then lower what pays for them while also increasing ponies.

Personally (and I know I’m a broken record on this forum but all people who post often are) I think we are flat screwed if we continue to let the two major parties in this country have power. Neither has the solutions to issues in the way I think would work best.

133

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:Tax cuts we can’t afford, Is that demostrably true?
[/quote]

This is where I got tax cuts from. [/quote]

I’m asking, is it demonstrably true that we could not afford the Bush tax cuts? That was one of the claims in the article.

It was a question not a statement.

I also apologize, I did not proof read that post and it’s rough, lol. [/quote]

This is impossible to prove though either way. We could theoretically cut taxes to 0 right now and continue to pay for things as long as we can get credit.

A day is coming where the bill is going to become due for all this though. And when that day comes I feel really bad for whoever is in charge that gets blamed for something his predecessors (and we by extension) did because we thought we could afford it.

134

[quote]H factor wrote:
FWIW I think Republicans over the last 30 years have used tax cuts as candy for voters. Lowered taxes plays well with EVERYONE. Who doesn’t want to pay less taxes. Lowered spending plays poorly (and showing examples of Republicans lowering spending over the last 30 years is impossible because it didn’t happen) and the Republicans have a lot of big government stuff they love (war and military is obvious, no child left behind, medicare part d, etc.)

Democrats at LEAST understand that taxes need to go up if spending is going to go up. They want the wealthy to do this. I don’t support this thinking one iota…but at least they are acknowledging that someone needs to pay for all the ponies. Republicans like to talk about someone paying for all the ponies, but then lower what pays for them while also increasing ponies.

Personally (and I know I’m a broken record on this forum but all people who post often are) I think we are flat screwed if we continue to let the two major parties in this country have power. Neither has the solutions to issues in the way I think would work best. [/quote]

I don’t think Republicans even claim to be for lower tax revenue. Republicans claim that MORE tax revenue will be generated by allowing the people more profit. Both sides love the state and hate the individual.

135

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Yes, I think we are capable of defending ourselves against our government if the need were to arise. [/quote]

We are capable of defending ourselves against our own government, which is capable of and needed for defense from other countries, from which we are incapable of defending ourselves?

The citizens are capable of defending themselves from the local police, which is capable of and needed for defense from criminals, from which we are incapable of defending ourselves?[/quote]

No.

Individuals are capable of defending against other individuals.

Individuals are capable of pulling resources and defending their community and possibly their county and state.

It would be extremely diffucult to mobolize, in todays world, individuals to defend the entire nation before a nation, like China, miliatrily takes control of America.

Having a well established standing army of citizens allows for protection against foreign powers that in a matter of hours/days could be on our shores. That same standing army of citizens would not likely, imo, turn on their fellow American, at least not over night. Worst case scenario factions split similiar to the civil war.

136

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:Tax cuts we can’t afford, Is that demostrably true?
[/quote]

This is where I got tax cuts from. [/quote]

I’m asking, is it demonstrably true that we could not afford the Bush tax cuts? That was one of the claims in the article.

It was a question not a statement.

I also apologize, I did not proof read that post and it’s rough, lol. [/quote]

This is impossible to prove though either way. We could theoretically cut taxes to 0 right now and continue to pay for things as long as we can get credit.

A day is coming where the bill is going to become due for all this though. And when that day comes I feel really bad for whoever is in charge that gets blamed for something his predecessors (and we by extension) did because we thought we could afford it. [/quote]

True, but who would give us credit if we collected no tax revenue? I agree that that day is coming.

137

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Both sides love the state and hate the individual.[/quote]

What a massive generalization.

138

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:Tax cuts we can’t afford, Is that demostrably true?
[/quote]

This is where I got tax cuts from. [/quote]

I’m asking, is it demonstrably true that we could not afford the Bush tax cuts? That was one of the claims in the article.

It was a question not a statement.

I also apologize, I did not proof read that post and it’s rough, lol. [/quote]

This is impossible to prove though either way. We could theoretically cut taxes to 0 right now and continue to pay for things as long as we can get credit.

A day is coming where the bill is going to become due for all this though. And when that day comes I feel really bad for whoever is in charge that gets blamed for something his predecessors (and we by extension) did because we thought we could afford it. [/quote]

True, but who would give us credit if we collected no tax revenue? I agree that that day is coming.[/quote]

Who will give us credit when our debt reaches levels we cannot afford though? This is precisely the faulty logic behind we can afford to cut taxes to really low levels while getting more ponies.

139

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:Tax cuts we can’t afford, Is that demostrably true?
[/quote]

This is where I got tax cuts from. [/quote]

I’m asking, is it demonstrably true that we could not afford the Bush tax cuts? That was one of the claims in the article.

It was a question not a statement.

I also apologize, I did not proof read that post and it’s rough, lol. [/quote]

This is impossible to prove though either way. We could theoretically cut taxes to 0 right now and continue to pay for things as long as we can get credit.

A day is coming where the bill is going to become due for all this though. And when that day comes I feel really bad for whoever is in charge that gets blamed for something his predecessors (and we by extension) did because we thought we could afford it. [/quote]

True, but who would give us credit if we collected no tax revenue? I agree that that day is coming.[/quote]

Who will give us credit when our debt reaches levels we cannot afford though? This is precisely the faulty logic behind we can afford to cut taxes to really low levels while getting more ponies. [/quote]

I doubt anyone will give us credit once we reach those levels.

I don’t necessarily agree that tax cuts and increased spending makes sense. I 'd rather see tax cuts and decreased spending, but I can appreciate the argument.

I think tax rates should stay put while we lower spending. Lowering spending should be our #1 priority, imo. Then we can talk about a reduction in rates.

140

H,

I don’t want more ponies.