Wellcome to the USSA

[Patriot]

there were (nor was there ever any reason to believe) WMDs existed in Iraq. It was completely false, to the point that there was no reason to ever believe that.

Even more important than the democrats listed above, tell that to the Kurds. . .

 

[RyanB]

And those are just the Dems, most of whom have tried to stick the blame on Bush and the Republicans. There's some tasty quotes from the UN before we went in too. The thing I find most fascinating about the whole Iraq thing is this: either there's a massive international conspiracy involving many nations and their representatives working against the good of their own people, or Saddam pulled one of the best intelligence campaigns in history and managed to bluff nearly everyone involved from many nations and agencies, or he actually had researched them and they 'disappeared'. None of those options is very appealing. And yes, I did pull all those quotes from snopes. I'm too tired right now to do the fifteen minutes of research necessary to create a more diverse list.

First, let me say, I think the Iraq war is probably a "good" thing. Saddam led a very brutal and oppresive regime, and hopefully we can leave the region in a stable state some day (if the religious factions can ever get along, that is).

My point on the war is not that I agree/disagree with it; I really don't have a stance. My point is that there simply is no legal reason for an invasion. You don't simply invade countries because they might do something at some point. Every quote you linked also shares one common thing - none of them give any credible evidence that Iraq currently had WMDs. And as you pointed out, no WMDs were ever found. I do not solely blame Bush, although he was ultimately in charge at the time; everyone (dems included) was out to get those terrorist pigs after 9/11. If you remember, there was a lot of hype in the media tying Saddam to Al Qaeda as well, which of course was also pretty false.

As for the international conspiracy...there was none. The UN did not support us; virtually only US intelligence was being used as justification for the war, with support from the British. Of course, then there is the Downing Street memo...I won't quite call that a "smoking gun", but I do think it's much more credible than something spewed forth from Pelosi or Gore.

Further reading...I'd encourage anyone interested in the subject to read in its entirety:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Did Saddam have and use chemical weapons in the past? Absolutely. Was he trying to get them again and willing to use them? Likely. Did he have any real capability at the time? Absolutely no reason to ever believe that, nor was there any credible evidence at the time of the invasion.

As for Saddam being oppressive...I'm glad to see him gone.

 

[Odale]

I'm pretty sure this thread has already run its course... so...

I was watching a show today on Adult Swim and in it, the water company did not want to add any of the mandatory 1ppm of fluoride in the water system because it was costing them money. So this company made a public announcement in the town square saying that the government, specifically Obama, was putting fluoride in the water system to sterilize them (the citizens, it was made very obvious that the citizens didn't know what fluoride was). The citizens got all mad any started shooting off shot guns and grabbing pitch forks (it takes place in North Georgia) and started a physical war on water. Once the citizens started losing their teeth, they got mad at the government because they were losing their teeth.

It was hilarious and I believe a great satirical demonstration of typical US citizens (myself included).

 

[Patriot]

I'm pretty sure this thread has already run its course... so...

I was watching a show today on Adult Swim and in it, the water company did not want to add any of the mandatory 1ppm of fluoride in the water system because it was costing them money. So this company made a public announcement in the town square saying that the government, specifically Obama, was putting fluoride in the water system to sterilize them (the citizens, it was made very obvious that the citizens didn't know what fluoride was). The citizens got all mad any started shooting off shot guns and grabbing pitch forks (it takes place in North Georgia) and started a physical war on water. Once the citizens started losing their teeth, they got mad at the government because they were losing their teeth.

It was hilarious and I believe a great satirical demonstration of typical US citizens (myself included).

So the moral is. . .trust government (or perhaps Obama) because we are too stupid to know how to take care of ourselves?

Hmmmm.

 

[Elader Arkon]

My point on the war is not that I agree/disagree with it; I really don't have a stance. My point is that there simply is no legal reason for an invasion. You don't simply invade countries because they might do something at some point. Every quote you linked also shares one common thing - none of them give any credible evidence that Iraq currently had WMDs. And as you pointed out, no WMDs were ever found.

Define legal. We were still at war with them, and if there was any belief that Saddam wasn't playing nice, playtime's over. And if I recall, up to the point of the actual buildup and invasion, the shoe was on the other foot - you were out of your mind if you thought he didn't have any.
If Saddam had actually tried (or at least pretended to) go along with everything, maybe used a little bit of tact and diplomacy, the cease-fire might have lasted as long as the Korean one has (or at least until he died...).

Essentially we grew tired of him dancing around the line and since we were over there anyway might as well take out the trash (or finish the job, whichever is preferable). I do blame Bush for the current situation in Iraq, just not Bush Jr. If they'd have gone in and done it right the first time, there would be no need for a second time. But alas, the whole thing has shown everyone once again that hindsight is 20-20.

 

[Odale]

So the moral is. . .trust government (or perhaps Obama) because we are too stupid to know how to take care of ourselves?

Hmmmm.

Uh... lol, no.

The opposite. Do your homework and think critically about whats happening instead of getting mad and jumping on the bandwagon because you don't understand something.

Satire is the key word.

 

[OrryW]

And the sad part? We have the best political system in the world, period. I base this on the fact that we had checks and balances. Think about it like a large ship, with many ballasts that need to be breached before the thing goes under.

I'll have to disagree with that part, other countries also make sure no one person gets too much power, and many of them don't have what, in my opinion, is a major flaw with USA's system. That would be the set term limit, it leads to all campaigning and no real leadership, election campaigns start as soon as the previous one ended, and that seems to be a problem to me.

 

[RyanB]

Quite frankly, the fact that labor unions could do this before and companies could not makes no sense to me. Seems to me that the government shouldn't be restricting individuals or organizations or companies from contributing their own money to their desired political figure. If the government is allowed to restrict then I guarantee you they will tend to restrict one side more than the other (doesn't matter which) and that is wrong. Balance is a good thing.

Campaign reform is a sticky subject. I'll just say this...I (and most people) have very limited disposable income that I can throw at a candidate. Large corporations have billions. Take for example, a large oil company or a bank that can completely buy an election now for a pro oil/bank candidate. And those billions comes back to them hundred-fold when pro oil/bank policy is shoved down the pipe.

I'm not sure the best words to describe that (conflict of interest/bribery/etc), but "balance" is not one I would ever use. And yes, (most) labor unions are way too powerful, and have no place in 2010 in America.

I disagree. Jesus didn't come to establish an earthly kingdom. Nor is the United States going to be His seat of power. We are to be the salt and light to turn individuals to God, not to repair any earthly government.

Don't disagree with you there. "Fixing" America is not our primary goal; living for God and sharing the good news is. People are tossing around ideas on this thread about what does/doesn't work for government, so my point was that the problem isn't our system (which is great!), it's the people. Politicians aren't ultimately in power; voters are (unless you don't trust voting machines, that is).

So my point was that if we want to help America, we need to stop complaining about the government on an internet forum, and start reaching those around us...because the only (forseeable) path to "fixing" America is from the bottom up. Of course, God could do anything, and that's why I say "forseeable". But we can't really go wrong doing what we're put here for...two birds, one stone.

I'll have to disagree with that part, other countries also make sure no one person gets too much power, and many of them don't have what, in my opinion, is a major flaw with USA's system. That would be the set term limit, it leads to all campaigning and no real leadership, election campaigns start as soon as the previous one ended, and that seems to be a problem to me.

Not sure what term limit has to do with the campaigning, but I could jsut be missing something. I agree the ridiculous amount of campaigning is a problem, but this also ties up to the two points above. We need A) campaign reform, specifically where money is coming from and B) a voting public with integrity

My main point talking about the strength of our system is this: it didn't just take a few corrupt politicians for us to get here. It took each branch of the government AND the voters. That's about as fault-tolerant as you can get.

Edit: Also wanted to clarify what I meant by "we have the best system". Wasn't saying "hey, the US's democracy is better than anyone else's". What I was really saying was that a checks & balance democracy vs socialism etc is the best system due to fault tolerance.

 

[RyanB]

Define legal.

That's tough. After our government and ISPs illegally wiretapped without warrant, they granted immunity. The Patriot Act made warrantless wiretapping "legal". However, this directly violates the Fourth Ammendment. So is warrantless wiretapping legal? If you ask me, no, it is not. To make it legal, we would have to repeal or amend the Fourth Amendment. So my definition of legal would be: an action within laws that are passed where the authority exists to do so. I don't feel that it's "legal" to do something based off of a law/proclaimation that in itself is not legal.

As for the legality of the war, there's a few things to consider. From our standpoint, we simply need a declaration of congress (of course in this case, the war had never "ended"). So in that sense, it is. However, there are problems. The Bush administration intentionally misled the public (and congress, as far as I know) to drum up support for the war. I'm not a lawyer, but I think calling that illegal is an understatemtn.

As for international law, we invaded another country without cause (them thumbing their nose at us is not cause). We are torturing people and imprisoning non-combatants without trial. We have also had an incredible amount of laws of armed conflict violations.

Anyway, I really would urge you to read through the wiki...not saying it's an end-all-be-all, but there's a slew of information and it's well-sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

And if I recall, up to the point of the actual buildup and invasion, the shoe was on the other foot - you were out of your mind if you thought he didn't have any.

You are very correct. Normal citizens didn't have much reason to question our leaders at the time. I was certainly convinced; our leaders were telling us every day they had bombs, chemical gasses, etc., and were ready to use them. So yes, history is 20-20.

The problem is, our leaders who were telling us these things had no reason for saying so. There was no evidence. This is not some wacky conspiracy theory; it's the undeniable truth. I understand those are some horrific accusations, but it's the very ugly truth.

Again, I'm glad to see Saddam gone, and I honestly like to think that Bush had some good reasons (like a divine call from God) to invade. I'm simply saying there were no WMDs and that the press/media campaign led by the Bush administration was complete fabrication. We were lied to.



Anyway, I'm really, really not trying to sound anti-America or anything here...nor was I trying to derail this into some kind of Iraq War debate. My main point of all these posts is this:
We can't control the government directly...and our government is definitely doing some very shady things. But we need to let it go, move on, and do what we can within our own sphere of influence for God. Think of it like the serenity prayer.

 

[OrryW]

Not sure what term limit has to do with the campaigning, but I could jsut be missing something. I agree the ridiculous amount of campaigning is a problem, but this also ties up to the two points above. We need A) campaign reform, specifically where money is coming from and B) a voting public with integrity

Okay, in Canada, nobody knows when the election is going to take place, just that it will be some time within 6 years of the previous one. There is absolutely no campaigning for the federal election until the the Governor-General dissolves parliament, which is usually at the Prime Minister's request.

Knowing when the election is leads to people trying to get a head start in campaigning, to the point where if you aren't campaigning the entire time you have pretty much just lost the election. This is also present in some provinces where they have fixed the election dates.

 

[RyanB]

Okay, in Canada, nobody knows when the election is going to take place, just that it will be some time within 6 years of the previous one. There is absolutely no campaigning for the federal election until the the Governor-General dissolves parliament, which is usually at the Prime Minister's request.

Knowing when the election is leads to people trying to get a head start in campaigning, to the point where if you aren't campaigning the entire time you have pretty much just lost the election. This is also present in some provinces where they have fixed the election dates.

K, misunderstood you then. In US (as far as I know), we refer to "term limit" as the number of terms allowed to serve, not the duration of the term. I think a better election process could do wonders, and I could go on and on about how bad our election/campaigning process is, but it's not really something I focus on very much. I mean, who in congress is going to fix the system that is weighted in their favor? That's why I feel the only solution is bottom-up.


Was thinking "man this thread is off topic", so decided to go back and read the original post about the health modification thing:

The President’s desired lifestyle behavior modifications focus on:

* smoking cessation;
* proper nutrition;
* appropriate exercise;
* mental health;
* behavioral health;
* sedentary behavior;
* substance-use disorder; and
* domestic violence screenings.

I have to say I have no problem with this, and I don't defend Obama's policies very often, trust me. I mean, come on...they're trying to get people to quit smoking and start exercising. Out of all the things my tax dollars are wasted on...I think this is the least of our worries. Obama just doubled the funding for walking trails to $1.2bn, wheras our oil subsidies are ~$40bn (you know, alternate energy research). Bigger fish to fry.

Now, I do understand the "personal freedom" side of this...if someone wants to smoke until they die, why not let them? The problem with that rationale is that we live in a society that promotes personal freedom...until you start encroaching on others' personal freedom. And the fact of the matter is, smoking and obesity costs other people money, even before Obamacare was around. I pay more for my health plan at work because smokers and obese people are on it. In other words, it's not simply about their choices affecting just them. They're affecting me too.

Of course, the passage of the healthcare bill is really why this is coming about. People didn't care about it quite as much until there was a government plan involved...now they do. Abortion is another big issue that is seeing new light due to the idea of it being funded through taxes. But I think this piece of it (discouraging bad behavior) is still good.

But that is simple economics/sociology 101.

 

[Patriot]

RyanB, I'm not trying to pick on you. You just keep bringing up stuff that makes for good discussion.

Campaign reform is a sticky subject. I'll just say this...I (and most people) have very limited disposable income that I can throw at a candidate. Large corporations have billions. Take for example, a large oil company or a bank that can completely buy an election now for a pro oil/bank candidate. And those billions comes back to them hundred-fold when pro oil/bank policy is shoved down the pipe.

I'm not sure the best words to describe that (conflict of interest/bribery/etc), but "balance" is not one I would ever use. And yes, (most) labor unions are way too powerful, and have no place in 2010 in America.

But there will always be inequality even between individuals (consider people like Bill Gates). Do you trust government to properly level the playing field? And, does government have the legal power to do any leveling in the first place? If the government can place restrictions on corporations, what is to stop them from restricting individuals? Why should the government be able to tell me who I can give my money to? Why corporations?

Now, I do understand the "personal freedom" side of this...if someone wants to smoke until they die, why not let them? The problem with that rationale is that we live in a society that promotes personal freedom...until you start encroaching on others' personal freedom. And the fact of the matter is, smoking and obesity costs other people money, even before Obamacare was around. I pay more for my health plan at work because smokers and obese people are on it. In other words, it's not simply about their choices affecting just them. They're affecting me too.

You pay more for a plan you don't have to have (until Obamacare is fully implemented, at least). You have the right to switch insurance carriers or you have the right to forgo them altogether (again - this is excluding Obamacare). Their choices only affect you where you have willingly chosen to put your money with your own personal freedom.

But I think this piece of it (discouraging bad behavior) is still good.

The question here is whether government can tell what is good behavior and what is bad? What if the government decides that going to church is bad behavior? Then perhaps we might fight for the right to decide for ourselves and not let the nanny-state attempt to run our lives for us.

Of course, there is the argument that government punishes those who murder and steal, etc. So I guess it is a balancing act. I generally take the position that smaller government is ideal.

 

[RyanB]

RyanB, I'm not trying to pick on you. You just keep bringing up stuff that makes for good discussion.

Understood and ditto.

But there will always be inequality even between individuals (consider people like Bill Gates). Do you trust government to properly level the playing field? And, does government have the legal power to do any leveling in the first place? If the government can place restrictions on corporations, what is to stop them from restricting individuals? Why should the government be able to tell me who I can give my money to? Why corporations?

Bill Gates is limited to a donation of $2400, per campaign donation limits. Corporations (and not sure how this works) are free to donate as much as they want. I'm not really sure how that works. It's believed the recent supreme court decision will also allow labor unions to donate money out of their treasuries. Yay.

The thing is, it isn't necessarily about making everyone equal, although I am glad individuals have limits. It's about this - in society, I exist to serve me (talking from a socio-economic standpoint here). So my money serves my interests. A corporation is a completely different entity by definition. Corporations exist primarily for profit, and have a duty to shareholders to make said profit. Corporations do not donate money for a moral cause; they donate money because they expect more in return.

So the fundamental difference here is that if I donate $2400 to a candidate, I do so for my own purposes and expect nothing in return. If a corporation donates $100m, it's because they expect at least that much when the candidate secures them a large contract. Virtually any donation from a corporation implies bribe. Huge difference in scope and balance there.

You pay more for a plan you don't have to have (until Obamacare is fully implemented, at least). You have the right to switch insurance carriers or you have the right to forgo them altogether (again - this is excluding Obamacare). Their choices only affect you where you have willingly chosen to put your money with your own personal freedom.

So my choices are...pay more, leave my work plan (which is subsidized) and pay EVEN more somewhere else, or quit my job? There's no way to say smokers don't affect the rest of us. Saying "gee, you don't HAVE to have that plan" is like saying it's ok to segregate because non-whites don't HAVE to visit that restaurant. Sure it's an extreme example, but it gets the point across.

Simply put, it is impossible for everyone to have unlimited freedom, because one person's complete freedom will infringe upon another's. Our entire system of laws is completely designed around this point...can't stress that enough. In this case, smokers (really not trying to pick on them, btw!) affect others with higher rates, second hand smoke, etc.

Every law we have (or at least SHOULD have) is designed around maximizing personal freedom by only limiting us when a freedom would encroach on another's more important freedom.
Example 1: I don't have the freedom to kill as I please, because we feel the right to "life" is more important than the right to kill
Example 2: I do have the freedom to speak as I please, because we feel the right to speech is more important than others' right to not be offended

The question here is whether government can tell what is good behavior and what is bad? What if the government decides that going to church is bad behavior? Then perhaps we might fight for the right to decide for ourselves and not let the nanny-state attempt to run our lives for us.

Of course, there is the argument that government punishes those who murder and steal, etc. So I guess it is a balancing act. I generally take the position that smaller government is ideal.

I do not believe the government should be in charge of dictating good/bad, and apologize if I didn't explain that better. I do think smoking is "bad", of course, but God gave us freedom, why shouldn't the government? It simply comes down to behavior (whether good OR bad!) affecting me negatively.

I should note...it isn't like the government is straight up outlawing smoking. Smokers can still smoke, cause cancer for themselves, and push up my premiums. What they are doing is discouraging. In Oklahoma, we have a smoke tax where the money goes directly towards subsidizing health insurance for small businesses. This is a scenario where everyone wins. Smokers can still smoke, but they have to pay a little extra to offset the cost they are putting on others.

 

[Patriot]

Bill Gates is limited to a donation of $2400, per campaign donation limits. Corporations (and not sure how this works) are free to donate as much as they want. I'm not really sure how that works. It's believed the recent supreme court decision will also allow labor unions to donate money out of their treasuries. Yay.

The thing is, it isn't necessarily about making everyone equal, although I am glad individuals have limits. It's about this - in society, I exist to serve me (talking from a socio-economic standpoint here). So my money serves my interests. A corporation is a completely different entity by definition. Corporations exist primarily for profit, and have a duty to shareholders to make said profit. Corporations do not donate money for a moral cause; they donate money because they expect more in return.

So the fundamental difference here is that if I donate $2400 to a candidate, I do so for my own purposes and expect nothing in return. If a corporation donates $100m, it's because they expect at least that much when the candidate secures them a large contract. Virtually any donation from a corporation implies bribe. Huge difference in scope and balance there.

Part of the problem is that individuals with larger personal wealth have such a greater advantage when it comes to campaigning. If my individual supporters can only send $2400 each (assuming they spend the whole amount) then I would never stand a chance against someone with a vast personal fortune since they are not limited in using their own funds. However, if I get backed by some kind of organization I might be able to give Mr. Millionaire a run for his money. As you are describing it, we essentially ensure rule by the rich. Of course, we pretty much are already ruled by the rich, so what is the difference?

So my choices are...pay more, leave my work plan (which is subsidized) and pay EVEN more somewhere else, or quit my job? There's no way to say smokers don't affect the rest of us. Saying "gee, you don't HAVE to have that plan" is like saying it's ok to segregate because non-whites don't HAVE to visit that restaurant. Sure it's an extreme example, but it gets the point across.

Except in the case of your racial argument the different races would have the option to change their race. For example, if we use a non-smoking restaurant instead of a segregated restaurant instead. It's okay to have a non-smoking restaurant. But smokers have the option of whether to smoke or not as do non-smokers. Both are free to go in the restaurant, but they must follow the rules while inside.

Simply put, it is impossible for everyone to have unlimited freedom, because one person's complete freedom will infringe upon another's. Our entire system of laws is completely designed around this point...can't stress that enough. In this case, smokers (really not trying to pick on them, btw!) affect others with higher rates, second hand smoke, etc.

I despise cigarette smoke, it makes me want to vomit. 90% of the smokers I've dealt with tend to not care that other people don't want to inhale their poisons nor deal with their littered butts all over the ground. That being said, I don't think higher insurance premiums is a good reason for government to restrict smoking. That is an issue that should be dealt with at the provider level (charge smoking customers more, etc.) not at a government level. Now, you might be able to make a case for government legislation regarding 2nd hand smoke.

I do not believe the government should be in charge of dictating good/bad, and apologize if I didn't explain that better. I do think smoking is "bad", of course, but God gave us freedom, why shouldn't the government? It simply comes down to behavior (whether good OR bad!) affecting me negatively.

I should note...it isn't like the government is straight up outlawing smoking. Smokers can still smoke, cause cancer for themselves, and push up my premiums. What they are doing is discouraging. In Oklahoma, we have a smoke tax where the money goes directly towards subsidizing health insurance for small businesses. This is a scenario where everyone wins. Smokers can still smoke, but they have to pay a little extra to offset the cost they are putting on others.

It kind of scares me when government specifically targets a particular product for extra taxes or subsidy. The power government has to prop up a business that cannot sustain itself or kill a business that is flourishing can be very detrimental to the capitalist system (and our underlying economic stability).