m4 / car15 rifle

[airspirit]

It's the culture they are raised in that causes the higher incidence of crime. It is the whole "rage against the machine" badass machismo culture that causes the inner city black person's continued reliance on welfare, along with the welfare system itself. Since many of them are content to live off of government assistance in government projects, they have no drive to work, get educated, or excel in anything. With each passing generation the role models that the youth have are progressively worse, and causes them to push the envelope even further. Black people still insist that it is racism that keeps them in the squalor they are in. I would theorize that it is really their lack of motivation to achieve anything except gutter living that prevents them from pulling themselves out of their current status. It is ironic at this stage in American history that the most racist members of society are Black, hating everyone of other ethnicities with a burning passion, and hating themselves for not being on top of the socioeconomic ladder ... and hating themselves for not trying.

Since there aren't real role models for the black youth besides hatemongers such as Farrakhan (sp?), Jesse Jackson, that Not-So-Sharpton guy, and other assorted prophets of hate and discontent, it is no wonder that many of them cause trouble in school hampering not only their own educational progress but that of their black peers. The lack of education translates into a limitation on their income potential, so many of them turn to the same alternative income methods as their predecessors: crime. Since they have no role model for a good work ethic (their drunk/high parents in the ghetto living off of government welfare), they have no motivation to do what the rest of us have to do: work their way up to a comfortable position in life. They want everything now, and they don't want to work for it; hence, they turn to criminal activity. Once they get their first arrest it is even harder for an uneducated person to get legal employment and the criminal behavior continues.

What is interesting to note is the collective mentality of the black culture in the US: those that feel the most disadvantaged (welfare/poor families) try to drag their peers down with them rather than help them up. It is actually a popular decision in their youth culture to strive for illegal behavior. Is it any wonder why they have so many problems?

Another interesting fact to note: affirmative action actually does more harm than good to these minorities while simultaneously doing harm to the majority. Since they don't have to do as well as everyone else, there is less motivation to excel. Once they slide through college in minority programs, they end up in jobs they are not equipped to fill, and end up being a burden on the economy. This further erodes any collective work ethic that is left in their culture. As for the majority, they are excluded from opportunities even if they have pushed to excel. I am a case in point: I graduated from high school with one year of college completed, nearly an "A" average, a 1480 SAT, a perfect ACT, and multiple leadership and extracurricular activities in high school. While the DoD offered me a military scholarship, I couldn't even get accepted into certain colleges such as the U of Washington with my background at all, while minority students with sub-900 SAT scores, sub-"C" averages, and criminal backgrounds got early-accepted. I know this because I knew a black student who got an early acceptance letter when he was barely able to graduate. He thought it was fscked that I couldn't get in when I was infinitely more qualified.

Until the minority populations in the US (primarily the black and illegal mexican populations have this problem unlike most others, though I am of the firm belief that illegals should be deported and/or life imprisoned for repeat immigration offenses) are held to the same standards as the majority, there will be no incentive for them to try to improve their station. If everything is handed to you on a plate, why should you try? If you will lose your free government cheese and checks, why should you get a job? If you have to give up your boozing and playing, why should you work? If you have to actually work, why should you try?

It's sad, really. When I hear how disadvantaged minorities are I laugh. People are so deluded.

[Blackeagle]

The gun bill now being considered needs to get a quick boot.

But I won't bet on that happening.

This is a move by those who wish to ban ALL guns in time to get a good start. And their excuse for this is the risk of terrorism in the US. Yet the terrorist attacks that have been carried out havn't used guns. The terrorists have used fertilizer and fuel bomb in one instance, the Fed. building in Oaklahoma city, a bomb that I don't recall the make up of in the first world trade center attack, and airliners in the 9/11 attacks along with a few box cutter knives. SO WHY DON'T THEY BAN GUNS?? WHY NOT AIRLINERS, FERTILIZERS AND BOX KNIVES?? It's because that they are only useing the 9/11 attack as cover for passing legislation they have wanted for years, but couldn't pass.

I don't see any use for full automatic firearms in hunting or target shooting. But I most strongly support gun ownership of all other guns.

If the choice were to be banning all these other guns along with the fully automatics OR allowing unrestricted ownership of fully automatics I'd have to opt for the second choice.

Sadly so called gun control is, I think, best described two ways.

1) It's really people control by the goverment, not gun control.

2) Use both hands.

And why is it that Rosie O'donnel speaks out in favor of banning gun ownership for others? It makes no sense as she has armed body guards. She's in favor of them being armed to insure her & her loved ones safty. She's just aginst others with the will to protect themsilves to having the same right. I happen to think the joke regarding her is really a good one. "Saying guns cause crime, is like saying it's the foods fault Roise is fat."

The Clinton gun ban should be allowed to expire, not expanded.

[bigben2k]

For once, Airspirit and I see eye to eye! Note the date...

The few african-americans I've had the chance to meet, are actually doing well for themselves, but still carry that "black" thing with them.

Blackeagle: I'm glad to see we agree there too. There is no legitimate use for full autos. I'd like to see the ban on full autos continue, and if there's to be any expansion to it, it would be to force manufacturers to not make it so easy to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a full automatic. That's it.

Just like box cutters and airliners, semis do have a legitimate use and as such, they cannot be restricted, because it's part of our basic liberties. anything else would be considered opression. Any problems that arise as a result needs to be addressed, some other way. Airlines do it, shippers do it, so can law enforcement.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by airspirit
It's the culture they are raised in that causes the higher incidence of crime. It is the whole "rage against the machine" badass machismo culture that causes the inner city black person's continued reliance on welfare, along with the welfare system itself. Since many of them are content to live off of government assistance in government projects, they have no drive to work, get educated, or excel in anything. With each passing generation the role models that the youth have are progressively worse, and causes them to push the envelope even further. Black people still insist that it is racism that keeps them in the squalor they are in. I would theorize that it is really their lack of motivation to achieve anything except gutter living that prevents them from pulling themselves out of their current status. It is ironic at this stage in American history that the most racist members of society are Black, hating everyone of other ethnicities with a burning passion, and hating themselves for not being on top of the socioeconomic ladder ... and hating themselves for not trying.

Since there aren't real role models for the black youth besides hatemongers such as Farrakhan (sp?), Jesse Jackson, that Not-So-Sharpton guy, and other assorted prophets of hate and discontent, it is no wonder that many of them cause trouble in school hampering not only their own educational progress but that of their black peers. The lack of education translates into a limitation on their income potential, so many of them turn to the same alternative income methods as their predecessors: crime. Since they have no role model for a good work ethic (their drunk/high parents in the ghetto living off of government welfare), they have no motivation to do what the rest of us have to do: work their way up to a comfortable position in life. They want everything now, and they don't want to work for it; hence, they turn to criminal activity. Once they get their first arrest it is even harder for an uneducated person to get legal employment and the criminal behavior continues.

What is interesting to note is the collective mentality of the black culture in the US: those that feel the most disadvantaged (welfare/poor families) try to drag their peers down with them rather than help them up. It is actually a popular decision in their youth culture to strive for illegal behavior. Is it any wonder why they have so many problems?

Another interesting fact to note: affirmative action actually does more harm than good to these minorities while simultaneously doing harm to the majority. Since they don't have to do as well as everyone else, there is less motivation to excel. Once they slide through college in minority programs, they end up in jobs they are not equipped to fill, and end up being a burden on the economy. This further erodes any collective work ethic that is left in their culture. As for the majority, they are excluded from opportunities even if they have pushed to excel. I am a case in point: I graduated from high school with one year of college completed, nearly an "A" average, a 1480 SAT, a perfect ACT, and multiple leadership and extracurricular activities in high school. While the DoD offered me a military scholarship, I couldn't even get accepted into certain colleges such as the U of Washington with my background at all, while minority students with sub-900 SAT scores, sub-"C" averages, and criminal backgrounds got early-accepted. I know this because I knew a black student who got an early acceptance letter when he was barely able to graduate. He thought it was fscked that I couldn't get in when I was infinitely more qualified.

Until the minority populations in the US (primarily the black and illegal mexican populations have this problem unlike most others, though I am of the firm belief that illegals should be deported and/or life imprisoned for repeat immigration offenses) are held to the same standards as the majority, there will be no incentive for them to try to improve their station. If everything is handed to you on a plate, why should you try? If you will lose your free government cheese and checks, why should you get a job? If you have to give up your boozing and playing, why should you work? If you have to actually work, why should you try?

It's sad, really. When I hear how disadvantaged minorities are I laugh. People are so deluded.

Doing some laundary now, think my reply might take a while.

[ymboc]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
To illustrate, compare Switzerland, which is among the most heavily armed of all countries yet has one of the lowest rates of gun violence, to the United States. What is the difference btwn. the two societies?

I thought I posted this earlier, but apparantly I must have hit cancel or something...

The difference with switzerland is that the reason it is among the most heavily armed nations is because those arms are provided by the swiss militia (army) -- they call it a militia.

Every 'man' between the ages of 20 and 26 gets drafted into the army (they're somewhat flexible about when you have to go so that it meshes well with studies or apprentiships). Everyone drafted gets issued an assault rifle -- usually they will keep it for the duration of their service. After the initial boot camp called 'RS' (for Rekrutenschule) they essentially become reservists but go on active duty for a few weeks to a couple months every couple of years (how often vs how long can vary).

Not everyone becomes reservists though you can chose to go profesional too. Another interesting fact...non swiss citizens living in the country or those who opt out of the draft (with medical, religious or other 'good' reason) have to pay an surtax (ontop of income tax) for the rest of their lives.

Naturally what you do in the army also largely depends on what you're studying on the outside...

Last I heard though the assault rifles they're issued to take home are semi-auto only... In addition I dont think the issued rifles are allowed to leave the home unless going to an army function (like the yearly schedualed target practise).

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by ymboc
...

The difference with switzerland is that the reason it is among the most heavily armed nations is because those arms are provided by the swiss militia (army) -- they call it a militia.

...

Be that as it may, they are still heavily armed, and my point stands. They tend not to go out killing their fellow Swiss, even though they have the means...

Not wanting to get too psycho-babbleish here, but it seems the underlying causation for much of the violence seen here is a sub-culturally enforced alienation. This kind of parallels the ascendancy of "multi-culturalism" and "hyphenated americans" in US society.

It would seem that the emphasis for most ethnically identifiable groups in America has shifted from one of acculturation and "blending in" to American society, to that of allowing, and even encouraging, separation of cultures. Calls for integration seem to mean "We want a shot at your money, but you can keep the culture that helped produce it".

This has been fostered, in large part, by politicians of a more liberal bent for political reasons. Narrowly defined interest groups are easier to pander to.

I also think that part of the reason this is less apparent/prevalent in other societies is due to factors of scale: there is so much more power/money to be garnered from these tactics in America, vis-a-vis the rest of the world. The stakes are simply higher here.

What to do? I am not sure. It would be nice to roll back the clock to 1950 or so, but that won't happen. I think the we could get back to a situation where one's ethnic background becomes less relevant to the quantity and type of preferences one acquires, but not soon. That would require too much courage on the part of the politicians.

Bob

[airspirit]

The solution is fivefold. First, remove diversity and affirmative action programs completely and outlaw their practices, simultaneously destroying anyone committing unlawful discrimination (not wanting to hire a transvestite at a bible store does NOT count as discrimination in my book, but refusing to hire a black man for a management job when he is the most qualified applicant IS, just like hiring a black man over a white man when the white man is the most qualified applicant IS). Ironically, this is what many of the true equality proponents of the 60s such as Martin Luther King wanted.

Secondly, up the stakes for welfare/assistance programs: if you can work, you have a maximum of six month's worth of welfare for every seven years MAXIMUM. If you are disabled beyond being able to work or if you have a disease that prevents work, that is different. If you have a sore leg, you can get a job behind a desk rather than collecting unemployment. Being stupid is NOT a disability, neither. Along with this, if you are a woman on welfare YOU WILL BE TEMPORARILY STERILIZED BY IMPLANT. If you can't afford to have a kid (or the kids you already have) you have no business having any more until you dig out of your hole ... and prevents kids turning into paychecks for drunks.

Third, close the borders to illegals by using military patrols. If you are caught here illegally, your information is recorded in a database and you are immediately deported NO EXCEPTIONS. If you are caught here illegally a second time, you will be imprisoned for the rest of your life at a work camp. This will provide jobs, reduce crime, reduce the welfare load, reduce taxes, and increase internal commerce. While you are at that work camp you will be doing manufacturing of the low pay varieties for NO PAY. There will be no forgiveness and NO EXCEPTIONS. This will open up more jobs for the unemployed and further reduce the welfare load.

Fourth, if this causes certain products such as food to be more expensive than imported products, impose tariffs at the border to discourage importation of competitive products. This will lower the trade deficit, increase the wages of US citizens since the products can be sold at a decent rate, stem the flow of jobs offshore since it would be economically feasable to stay in the US, and further revitalize our economy.

Fifth, stop being the charity provider for the world. Lower the taxes of US citizens, cut off foreign aid, and focus on helping those in the US that genuinely need it. Invest in our infrastructure to keep our economy robust. It's time the US stopped carrying the weight of the rest of the world on their shoulders, especially since most of them made it clear that they didn't want our help anyway.

I don't think any of those things are unfair, but unfortunately our politicians are a bunch of spineless pussies that are afraid to actually fix our situation. It is sad when someone such as myself can come up with a perfect solution. Fsck political correctness, anyway.

[bigben2k]

#1 is good.

#2 is anti constitutional, and would never pass (sterilization), but otherwise sounds good. Similar to Canada.

#3 would require an amendment to an old law that states that as soon as you set foot on US soil, you are legitimately able to claim asylum.

#4 would go against NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), and possibly a bunch of others. Being Canadian, I thought NAFTA was a bad idea, but that moron Mulroney passed it anyways, without any protest or amendments. The result is that US companies are now able to sell some products openly in Canada, including Quebec which has a law that states that all labeling must be in French, at least, but defeated by NAFTA. So US products either make it unscated, or don't make it at all in Quebec. . It's otherwise good.

#5 With the US being one of the richest countries in the world, it does bear a certain responsability in the world, wether the help is wanted or not. Is it taking it too far? Maybe. I agree that it seems rather silly for me to see us send aircraft carriers halfway around the world, but have to drive by a homeless man on my way to work in the morning.

Strangely, what you propose (infrastructure build/expansion) is one of the best things a government can do. Hitler is a prime example of this: his first mandate was to take the (then) poor country of Germany, and rebuild it into an economic super power. He took EVERYONE that was unemployed, and had them build highways everywhere. The result was increased trade. He also promoted the education system, as Germany used to be the chemical super brain of the world. Now it's well known for it's excellent engineering. (Never mind that propaganda was part of the school books, and that manufacturing plants could easily be converted to produce machines of war!).

Clinton's I2 (Internet 2) might be that superhighway of the future.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by ymboc
I thought I posted this earlier, but apparantly I must have hit cancel or something...

The difference with switzerland is that the reason it is among the most heavily armed nations is because those arms are provided by the swiss militia (army) -- they call it a militia.

Every 'man' between the ages of 20 and 26 gets drafted into the army (they're somewhat flexible about when you have to go so that it meshes well with studies or apprentiships). Everyone drafted gets issued an assault rifle -- usually they will keep it for the duration of their service. After the initial boot camp called 'RS' (for Rekrutenschule) they essentially become reservists but go on active duty for a few weeks to a couple months every couple of years (how often vs how long can vary).

Not everyone becomes reservists though you can chose to go profesional too. Another interesting fact...non swiss citizens living in the country or those who opt out of the draft (with medical, religious or other 'good' reason) have to pay an surtax (ontop of income tax) for the rest of their lives.

Naturally what you do in the army also largely depends on what you're studying on the outside...

Last I heard though the assault rifles they're issued to take home are semi-auto only... In addition I dont think the issued rifles are allowed to leave the home unless going to an army function (like the yearly schedualed target practise).

In Sweden every boy has to do a recruit test when he quites high school and if you have working eyes and ears then you automatically get drafted 3-15months of military service, and you can become anything from radio operator to special forces. Then after your military service anyone who which may become professional. Every soldier has a AK-5 which is a assault rifle equal to a M16A2. You have free travels to your home every month and you may not bring the rifle home. If you don't want to be a professional military, you can join the national guard and the run around in the woods every month and have weekly meetings. Their task is to defend the local cities where you live. And if there is a war, everyone between 16-70 years old are forced to if called upon, to join the army and fight.

[airspirit]

Ah, but you see, I've already thought of those concerns. These ideas are not new to me, and some others have thought of similar but flawed versions of the same thing like that dimwit Buchanan.

#2: nothing in the constitution promises that you can live on the government's dime. Welfare is a service, and is not one of your protected rights. As a service, any sterilization requirement would be voluntary even if it is a REQUIREMENT for the service. You see, if you want to keep popping out children even though you can't feed them, the government has no right to stop you, but it sure as hell doesn't have to help you. It is basically telling people to be responsible.

An alternative would be to tell women that if they become pregnant or have a child while on welfare that they will immediately lose their benefits. This isn't unfair, since there hasn't been one case of immaculate conception in at least the last thousand years. Again: responsibility comes first, and without responsibility they won't be able to get off of welfare anyway.

#3: I'm not saying that people seeking POLITICAL asylum can't stay. Neither am I saying that immigration should be halted ... on the contrary, I'm all for people going through the proper channels to become US citizens. With that said, though, you shouldn't be claiming political asylum because you can't get a job that pays enough in your home country, or because you want to get free medical care or whatnot. If you can prove that you are being unlawfully opressed in your home nation (ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, etc), then we will consider it just like we do today.

What I'm aiming to stop is the flood of illegal mexicans, islanders, chinese, etc that are pouring across our borders daily, and by some estimates comprise over 3% of the US population. If you don't want to go about immigrating properly, you shouldn't be here. Similarly, if you are not a citizen, you will NOT receive any government welfare support. Also, if you are not a citizen, or you don't have legal paperwork demonstrating your right to be here (Visa, etc) and you arrive at a hospital demanding medical care, you will NOT be treated unless you can pay at the time of service and you WILL be deported. If our own citizens can't afford care or insurance because of all the charity care for illegals (who almost NEVER pay but require more care do to their lifestyles), we should not be treating illegals in our nation. If this is the second time they are caught, they WILL receive care ... once they reach the prison they will spend the rest of their life in.

#4: Repeal NAFTA. It hurts the US and turns us into a welfare supplier for Canada and Mexico ... we actually are paying welfare and social security for a large number of Mexicans, believe it or not. As a nation, we deserve to control our own destiny and finances, and we need to be able to protect our workforce.

#5: If a country popularly reviles us, they do not deserve our aid. Do you realize that we are still pouring aid into North Korea? China? Iran? Egypt gets more than anyone, yet they hate us. The UK, France, Spain, Germany, damn near every nation on Earth: they all receive aid. Why the hell should we give them funds when most of them don't seem to want it. If you don't want to be our friend, you will receive nothing. It makes sense to me.

I do realize that many of these suggestions are similar to things Hitler did, though I believe that it can be done through capitalistic means rather than the socialist ones he stood for. I don't like most of the things he stood for, but he did a damn good job of dragging a nation out of the gutter. If it wasn't for the fact that he was a psychopath and expansionist he could have done good things. In the end, though, he turned into a hatemonger and a mass murderer, and all the things he gave his people before the war were taken away again.

[winewood]

I CANT belive that I agree with near everything in a non-technical post from airspirit. Man, you are very well read on this subject! *clap clap calp* I would comment more, but with the discrimination stance, and government regulation its a logical conclusion in which I can't argue.
The only comment I have is that the illegals in TX (in which I live) are some of the hardest, best workers in our labor market. They are motivated because their desire isn't to bleed the system (because frankly most don't know they can). With families here or abroad, they will do what most consider beneath them. This willingness keeps our low tech labor force costs low. ie. homebuilding, janitorial etc. Their heart is in the right place with protecting family, and most do have good moral convictions.
As for putting them in jail.. I have mixed understandings on this. I read that it takes 40k a year to jail someone. I doubt that the manual labor savings minus the over head of security would produce 40k in gains per inmate. Therefore, with the overhead of the much larger military border, I do not see how this will keep costs low. After this economic impact, the housing market and low tech job cost will rise, as the labor pool drops. The losses may not out weigh the gains. Just a thought.
Just so I'm not hijacking the thread.. m4's gooood, total ban's bad, auto-ban questionable as to benifit to populace.. dead is dead.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by airspirit
Ah, but you see, I've already thought of those concerns. These ideas are not new to me, and some others have thought of similar but flawed versions of the same thing like that dimwit Buchanan.

#2: nothing in the constitution promises that you can live on the government's dime. Welfare is a service, and is not one of your protected rights. As a service, any sterilization requirement would be voluntary even if it is a REQUIREMENT for the service. You see, if you want to keep popping out children even though you can't feed them, the government has no right to stop you, but it sure as hell doesn't have to help you. It is basically telling people to be responsible.

An alternative would be to tell women that if they become pregnant or have a child while on welfare that they will immediately lose their benefits. This isn't unfair, since there hasn't been one case of immaculate conception in at least the last thousand years. Again: responsibility comes first, and without responsibility they won't be able to get off of welfare anyway.

#3: I'm not saying that people seeking POLITICAL asylum can't stay. Neither am I saying that immigration should be halted ... on the contrary, I'm all for people going through the proper channels to become US citizens. With that said, though, you shouldn't be claiming political asylum because you can't get a job that pays enough in your home country, or because you want to get free medical care or whatnot. If you can prove that you are being unlawfully opressed in your home nation (ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, etc), then we will consider it just like we do today.

What I'm aiming to stop is the flood of illegal mexicans, islanders, chinese, etc that are pouring across our borders daily, and by some estimates comprise over 3% of the US population. If you don't want to go about immigrating properly, you shouldn't be here. Similarly, if you are not a citizen, you will NOT receive any government welfare support. Also, if you are not a citizen, or you don't have legal paperwork demonstrating your right to be here (Visa, etc) and you arrive at a hospital demanding medical care, you will NOT be treated unless you can pay at the time of service and you WILL be deported. If our own citizens can't afford care or insurance because of all the charity care for illegals (who almost NEVER pay but require more care do to their lifestyles), we should not be treating illegals in our nation. If this is the second time they are caught, they WILL receive care ... once they reach the prison they will spend the rest of their life in.

#4: Repeal NAFTA. It hurts the US and turns us into a welfare supplier for Canada and Mexico ... we actually are paying welfare and social security for a large number of Mexicans, believe it or not. As a nation, we deserve to control our own destiny and finances, and we need to be able to protect our workforce.

#5: If a country popularly reviles us, they do not deserve our aid. Do you realize that we are still pouring aid into North Korea? China? Iran? Egypt gets more than anyone, yet they hate us. The UK, France, Spain, Germany, damn near every nation on Earth: they all receive aid. Why the hell should we give them funds when most of them don't seem to want it. If you don't want to be our friend, you will receive nothing. It makes sense to me.

I do realize that many of these suggestions are similar to things Hitler did, though I believe that it can be done through capitalistic means rather than the socialist ones he stood for. I don't like most of the things he stood for, but he did a damn good job of dragging a nation out of the gutter. If it wasn't for the fact that he was a psychopath and expansionist he could have done good things. In the end, though, he turned into a hatemonger and a mass murderer, and all the things he gave his people before the war were taken away again.

islanders?

[ymboc]

NAFTA. It hurts the US and turns us into a welfare supplier for Canada and Mexico

Now you've touched a nerve... (Could this thread get anymore offtopic - we should really start a new thread titled "airspirit tells all" or something)

I dont know about mexico but I dont know how the hell you can say the US has become a welfare supplier for Canada NAFTA or not. What are you basing this claim on? Can you provide a source?

Look I know the softwood lumber situation sucked from the US POV but you're missing a key point... the US government has done something about it (sky high tarrifs)... The fact that its (unfairly) screwing the canadian lumber producers pisses the canadians off a bit but the fact remains that the US is doing something about it (successfully).

... Mind you part the reason why the canadians are so 'upity' about the tarrifs and calling them unfair is that US companies have had the same effect on some canadian markets that the canadian lumber producers are having on the US lumber market. The only difference was that when it happened to the canadian markets the canadian government let it slide because nafta said we had to. To many the perception is that the US in favor of NAFTA so long as its benefiting the US but once its not entirely beneficial, the US ignores nafta and puts tarrifs in place.

Personally I have mixed feelings about the lumber dispute. The US should and does have a right to protect its markets but where do you draw the line? You cant just 'take, take, take'. You have to give a little too.

What scares many canadians is what happens when the americans essentially demand (under NAFTA) that the canadians supply them with drinking water.

[airspirit]

Islanders, in that specific use = Jamaica, Haiti, Cuba, etc.

Yes, we give massive amounts of money to Canada, though not nearly as much as we do to most other countries. I don't have the faintest notion why, however, and it just ticks me off. I have nothing against Canadians at all, because they're not the ones that are pouring across the US border trying to hijack a nation and society for their own personal gain. Canadians are kind of like Americans in a way ... though generally quite leftist (I guess that makes them like Berkeley Americans) and with strange accents (the word "aboot" just about sends me twitching).

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by airspirit
Yes, we give massive amounts of money to Canada, though not nearly as much as we do to most other countries. ... and with strange accents (the word "aboot" just about sends me twitching).

That's news to me! What's your source?

I don't know about "aboot", seems british to me, but I know what you mean, eh?

[airspirit]

I wish I had a copy of it, but I found a breakdown of cash foreign aid once for the year 1999 that was quite troubling to me. Nearly every nation on earth including most of the tiny one island nations in the Pacific are beneficiaries of CASH foreign aid beside the other aid such as AIDS aid (another fantastic waste of money since no amount of money will stop the behavior that causes infection in Africa), military aid (I don't argue about this since it is up to the US to keep the world from nuking itself ... the impotent UN proved its inability to act), and food (can you believe we're still feeding North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and other hostile nations?). The money we give to other nations has no formal strings attached ... and it is a wonder that they still publicly revile us. I say fsck em all. After their free l00t runs out they'll maybe have a change of heart.

[ymboc]

You know... I don't think you have considered the possiblity (fact?) that alot of that 'foreign aid' is used as 'incentives' to get other nations to do what the US wants... (ie: You do that for us, we will give you this in return.)

And dubbing foreign aid as welfare isn't exactly fair either.

You have to understand... World Stability is in the US's favour. You *could* flip everyone the bird and tell them to go f themselves... but at the end of the day the resulting world instability would likely end up hurting the US significantly more than you might think.

Bottom line: I'm sure they've run their Cost/Benefit analysies and aren't shelling out more cash in foreign aid than what it's bringing back into (or doing for) the US (directly or indirectly).

On top of all this... we have no idea how far reaching and broad a term 'foreign aid' is and what it entails... could be a great place to hide things you dont want others to see in the budget.

airspirit... some of your (of-base?) opinions/generalisations deeply trouble me... (Rhetorical:) Just what group of people don't you "have issues with" (hate?) and how exclusive is that group?

[airspirit]

I don't exclusively hate any group except for the ignorant. I do, however, believe in protecting my nation from taking a dive into the sewer that the left is pushing it into. I also don't believe in giving aid to people that slap your face in return.

If you take a look at my posts, you'll see a few recurrent themes in them: diversity is perversity if diversity is a tool of segregation, take care of yourself and don't expect others to do it for you, political correctness is just a form of newspeak to prevent independent critical thought, generalization is a crucial tool for examining large groups/statistics and there will ALWAYS be exceptions, don't try to present speculation as fact, and that if a person insists on demonstrating blatant ignorance after being corrected it is my solemn duty to rub their nose in it like a dog that peed on the carpet (and yes, this happens to me on occassion courtesy of some of our resident tech Gods ... hi guys!).

I guess I don't worry about what other people think of my opinions. I'm not one of those ninnies that worries about offending with my every word and that is why I come across as harsh sometimes. I just throw my ideas out there however blunt they may be. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong ... and if I'm right, I normally get told how mean sounding I am. I just don't believe in backing down if I have a good reason to believe I'm right, and under most circumstances I try to ensure I have the science of the issue backing me up, and I try not to go off half-cocked like many of the others in this forum (those that argue out of emotion rather than reason). In arguments like the above, since there really isn't a politically correct science allowed by our newspeak overlords from Berkeley and NYU, I just go off of observation and economic study. Maybe I'm not right, but I know I could make one hell of a case for it being the right way to go.

[ymboc]

pfft. /me departs this thread.

[cybrsamurai]

I don't exclusively hate any group except for the ignorant.

Wow hate is a really strong word. Especially for something as relative as ignorance. Only history will tell us who is ignorant and who is visionary.

I know I have a hard time really considering your political views when I feel that you are attacking my ideas. Rather than attacking ideas and saying tactless things like "I do, however, believe in protecting my nation from taking a dive into the sewer that the left is pushing it into." You could say that you think liberal policies on whatever are causing a specific problem. Additionaly you could offer some evidence to back your political beliefs

By my past voting record I would be considered "left" because you wrote what you wrote I am less inclined to think about what you wrote and tend to react to your attack. If you truely want to defend your country from what you believe are poor policies than a good way is to persuade others with evidence rather than antics.

[bigben2k]

Diplomacy is not one of Airspirit's best qualities

That said, the US does suffer from its incessant drive towards capitalism, and could certainly use a few socialist ideas, something that would benefit the people, instead of the money makers.

Capitalism depends on growth to survive, and that can be a real trap.

[winewood]

ahem,
If you look at the trends of the federal government: welfare, heathcare, education assistance, environmental regulation, ETC. then you are driving toward a socialistic governmental structure.
Capitolism in its pure form would not enclude ANY of these. If we were driving toward a more capitolistic form, we would just be repealing laws right now.
The top 6% of people pay 56% of the tax base. Therefore, if you wished to be ABLE to take care of the people in a more socialistic fashion, you would need to encourage economic growth on top end to pay for the bottom 40% which pay 3% of our tax base. Socialism only takes care fo the people providing you have money to do so.

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Diplomacy is not one of Airspirit's best qualities

That said, the US does suffer from its incessant drive towards capitalism, and could certainly use a few socialist ideas, something that would benefit the people, instead of the money makers.

Capitalism depends on growth to survive, and that can be a real trap.

Ben, your canadian side is showing.:shrug:

As winewood stated, the US has been driving toward socialism, and AWAY from Capitalism for a long time. Much to our detriment.

Socialism is merely a way for those less able to leech off of those more able, and then feel morally superior about it. The worst thing about it, is that the so-called "money-makers" sanction their victimhood by supporting such a philosophy (witness most senate democrats - nearly all millionaires or better).

advocating socialism is morally tantamount to advocating armed robbery.

Bob

[cybrsamurai]

advocating socialism is morally tantamount to advocating armed robbery.

I don't know what to say except you are wrong. Armed robbery is a violent crime, Socialism is not.

Personally I wouldn’t mind paying for other people to live. As long as it improves my quality of life to do so. This is where the debate comes in. Will it improve my quality of life? I believe it will.

If you look at the current state of our country the people in power (liberals and conservatives) are raping our country in order to make them selves more wealthy. They are changing laws in order to give more power to corporations; they take money from big business and do their bidding. This is not the capitalism our country was founded on. There are supposed to be checks and balances with media, and government. Now all those are gone business controls all the check and balances as well. I see this as a crime. I would compare this to another crime but we have yet to write a law that compares to the enslavement of a generation.

[winewood]

HAHHAHA!!

Armed robbery is a violent crime, Socialism is not

No, its not a violent CRIME But a crime none the less.
Please refer to my previous post on who pays the taxes. If you want more taxes, you give incentives to the wealthy who pay 50+% of them. So each change you make benifiting them, the more revenue you derive to spend on the group that provides 3% of the revenue.
So theoretically, if you don't understand this, wish to tax MORE, and want to get votes from leeches, you promise the biggest cuts to 50%the people who only provide 3%. This way you buy votes with the least amount of money, while keeping a disproportionately high tax burden on the rich. And you do this all in the name of "human goodness". This politician realises that he/she can spend more of the money of those whom didn't vote them in to buy more for the people who didn't work for it.
People don't understand that if you wish to cut taxes, you must do it for the middle class and rich. A tax cut to the people giving the 3% really isn't a cut at all! So, if you cut that 3% tax burden, you are actually promoting them to contribute to society even LESS with incentives.
If you lower taxes on the upper middle, you allow them to accumulate THEIR wealth and they get raised into the higher tax bracket. If they do that you allow them to become the highest contributers in the entire equation. What I don't understand is the highest contributers which pay wages for the rest of the country are the bad guys. Evil Evil Evil hand that feeds me. Creating wealth in a country NEVER hurt the economy that feeds everyone.