If I were in charge...

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

I thought you might be interested in this article.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/PovertyNowComesWithAColorTV.aspx

Quote

"In terms of the items people have ... it amazes me the number of people who are at or near the poverty line that have color TVs, cable, washer, dryer, microwave," says Michael Cosgrove, an economist at the University of Dallas in Irving, Texas. That's not to ignore the hardships of poverty, he adds, "but the conveniences they have are in fact pretty good."

Quote

The Census report also compares, from 1992 through 1998, people's perceptions of whether basic needs were being met. More than 92% of Americans below the poverty line said they had enough food, as of 1998. Some 86% said they had no unmet need for a doctor, 89% had no roof leaks, and 87% said they had no unpaid rent or mortgage.

Rationalizing socialized medicine which would benefit only a few by pointing out we have socialized law enforcement etc, which benefits many doesn't make sense.



-

The few whose early deaths bring our life expectancy down to the level of Cuba's? The few whose infants die before the age of one year, making our infant mortality rates look almost third world? Sure, fuck them, the undeserving bastards.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mikkey 0]

An interesting discussion... in regard to health care, I never understood the negative attitude in the US towards universal health care which every western country I lived in had. For those who could afford it (mysef insluded) additional private health insurance makes up fo the flaws in the system. I remember seeing a stats that showed that the US system is very expensive to run because of the red tape caused by the insurance system.....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

An interesting discussion... in regard to health care, I never understood the negative attitude in the US towards universal health care which every western country I lived in had.

Me either.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If we didn't interfere in the affairs of other countries so much (think Iran, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, Iraq...) we wouldn't need to be able to crush the people we've pissed off.

Partly true, partly wrong.

What other countries do, with the exception of gross humanitarian mistreatment or genocide, is simply none of our business whatsoever. If a country decides that it wants to rule by monarchy or theocracy, it's none of our business whatsoever.

That said, the absolute best defense is for other countries to know, without any shadow of a doubt that any attack at all upon the U.S. will bring about swift and conclusive retribution. While this does mean defensive capabilities, it's impossible to have only defensive capabilities of this nature without them also being able to be offensive.

So, actually, we do need to have the capability to crush. We also need to know when to use it and more importantly, when not to .

I haven't noticed many countries lining up to invade Switzerland or Sweden. Do they have a "crushing" capability that deters potential aggressors? No, they just don't piss their neighbors off the way we do, and they have effective defense forces that aren't bankrupting them. The USA spends more on so-called defense than the next 8 nations COMBINED. There is no need for overkill like that unless we truly intend to be offensive rather than defensive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html

In Neutral Switzerland, A Rising Radicalism
Islamic Extremists Newly Seen as Threat

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A14

BERN, Switzerland -- For centuries, this Alpine nation has successfully relied on a strict policy of political neutrality to insulate it from the wars, invasions and revolutions that have raged outside its borders. These days, a new threat has emerged: one from within.

As they have elsewhere in Europe, Islamic radicals are making inroads in Switzerland. Last month, Swiss officials announced the arrests of a dozen suspects who allegedly conspired to shoot down an Israeli airliner flying from Geneva to Tel Aviv. In a related case, a North African man has been charged with organizing a plot from Swiss soil to blow up the Spanish supreme court in Madrid.

For years, even after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Swiss officials assumed that their country was one of the last places Islamic radicals would look to attack. Long considered a slice of neutral territory in a world full of conflicts, Switzerland trades on its status as home to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other diplomatic institutions.

As the global jihad movement becomes more decentralized and fragmented, however, Swiss security officials are warning that their country could become a target.

In an intelligence report completed in May, the Swiss Federal Police reversed previous assessments that the domestic risk of terrorism was nearly nonexistent. The report concluded that Switzerland had become "a jihadi field of operation" and predicted that terrorist attacks were "an increasing possibility."

"It would be dishonest to say that these groups are ready to act in Europe but that Switzerland is an island and that these groups could not be active in Switzerland, too," Jean-Luc Vez, director of the federal police, said in an interview here in the Swiss capital. "It is very, very important for us to say this to the Swiss politicians and the Swiss people."

The changes in Switzerland mirror those in other smaller European nations that, until recently, didn't see themselves as likely targets for Islamic terrorists.

In Sweden, another country with a long history of neutrality, prosecutors last month convened a top-secret closed trial of three terrorism suspects in the southern city of Malmo. Authorities have not identified the suspects or disclosed any evidence. But Swedish media have reported that the arrests were made at the request of British counterterrorism investigators.

In Denmark, counterterrorism authorities say they remain on high alert after a Danish newspaper printed cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that spurred boycotts, death threats and violent protests in Islamic countries.

And in the Netherlands, the Dutch government has classified the risk of a terrorist attack as "substantial," a threat level proportionally higher than in the United States, where homeland security officials judge the risk as "elevated." The Dutch government established its threat-ranking system in November 2004, when an Islamic radical killed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

Like Denmark, the Netherlands has contributed troops and other support to U.S.-led military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. But until the van Gogh killing, Dutch officials had played down the threat of terrorism at home.

Since then, the number of Islamic radicals in the country has increased, as has the number of fundamentalist imams who are seeking to recruit new followers, said Tjibbe Joustra, the Dutch national coordinator for counterterrorism. He said international conflicts such as the war in Iraq are fueling the problem, although the Netherlands has also been polarized over its difficulties in assimilating Muslim immigrants.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What changes would you make if you were in charge?

Ahem!!!

I KNOW I don't have the market cornered when it comes to ideas. What would you do?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

What changes would you make if you were in charge?

Ahem!!!

I KNOW I don't have the market cornered when it comes to ideas. What would you do?

Problem is you ask a rational question to those who have an irrational hatred for GWB and cannot help themselves in blaming all the worlds problems on him.

You expected something else?

-

[martin-o 0]

Although the article is mostly inaccurate, I must take the opportunity to thank the coalition that creates more terrorists. I feel so much freer now than before…

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What changes would you make if you were in charge?

Ahem!!!

I KNOW I don't have the market cornered when it comes to ideas. What would you do?

Problem is you ask a rational question to those who have an irrational hatred for GWB and cannot help themselves in blaming all the worlds problems on him.

You expected something else?

Hmm, bear with me while I flick through the thread, attacks on Bush, where are those attacks on Bush...... Ah, Found it! One post from one person (who, lets face it, I wouldn't expect any better from)

But no, you're right, everyone here is a radical liberal stooge! Tunnel vision much?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Everything but #5

Education is terribly over funded today. The problem is not money, it is the simple fact that success in the education system mean high attendance (that is how they get paid) Give parents choices and get rid of poor performers and there is more than enough money there already

Streamline administration.
Fix special education.

An example: About 1/4 of the budget of LAUSD goes to special education, for about 1/10 of the students. This doesn't even account for all the legal fees for special education lawsuits filed by parents (about 1/3 of the budget of PYLUSD last year). (I'm citing data I acquired from the districts for a special education law research project)

Sure, there's enough money. They're just not spending it in the right places. LAUSD, with its multi-level management and huge administration overhead is just ridiculous. Also, I'm not saying special ed is the wrong place, but there's just something wrong with forcing school districts to defend lawsuit after lawsuit using taxpayer money. That's millions of dollars that should be going to educate kids that's ending up funding legal battles instead. Education funds shouldn't be paying lawyers until every kid has a textbook. Accepting IDEA and waiving our 11th amendment sovereign immunity rights was one of the dumbest things California has done.

[livetofall 0]

Bill, Bill, Bill... I am talking about the last 25 yrs of overseas immigrants that first got special political amnesty deals..all which came out of SS which was paid into by working Americans to supply themn with a retirement and our government WITHOUT VOTE of thePEOPLE decide to make it a slush fund. it was NEVER intended for that. I did say what they paid into it. IF you get SSI, your benefit will depend on how much you put in (worked). The real BS part was when they got immigration by finaincial amnesty as in the last wave of russians AFTER the wall fell. If they werent lazy there they could have made a democracy work. Why should I have to work 50 years to get the same benefit they get for landing their ass here..on top of a welfare deal they get, on top of the loands that were given. Now I ahve nothig against someone who has immgrated here and has worked hours in. SS actually WAS a 401k in the sense that it was a retierment fund. Now we all hope their will be some left for our generation since our gov continues to feed the vultures out of it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What changes would you make if you were in charge?

Ahem!!!

I KNOW I don't have the market cornered when it comes to ideas. What would you do?

Problem is you ask a rational question to those who have an irrational hatred for GWB and cannot help themselves in blaming all the worlds problems on him.

You expected something else?

Hmm, bear with me while I flick through the thread, attacks on Bush, where are those attacks on Bush...... Ah, Found it! One post from one person (who, lets face it, I wouldn't expect any better from)

But no, you're right, everyone here is a radical liberal stooge! Tunnel vision much?

You need to remove your shoes. I count 5. Did I hit a nerve?

Hmmm... I can't seem to find where you responded to the O.P. questions.

Oh...that's right, you didn't.

I suppose I should have included shit-stirrers in my observation.

-

[kallend 1,647]

Seems to confirm what I was writing. (a) terrorists are not countries, (b) they aren't attacking Switzerland,, (c) Netherlands has a long record of foreign entanglements.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GQ_jumper 4]

To the original post, for the most part I agree with your ideas, I might want to make a few changes here or there, but the one that gets me, #2(I'm sure we all guessed the one I would jump on).

First could you clarify a bit what you intend to change about an individuals right to bear arms.

As for using a militia as a solely defensive tool, if your policy would be to stay out of any and all matters which could lead to an offensive action, that's your call, I can understand that. But assuming a part-time underfunded militia could stop a full-time well equipped military, that's nonsense. If a leaders policy is going to be to only use us in a defensive capactiy I could understand(although I would disagree with) slimming our numbers and thus reducing the cost of keeping us well equipped, but if you drop it down to a militia, then if someone invaded the result would be a struggle much like we are seeing in Iraq.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Seems to confirm what I was writing. (a) terrorists are not countries, (b) they aren't attacking Switzerland,, (c) Netherlands has a long record of foreign entanglements.

For now Switzerland is becoming a haven for terrorist and a place where they feel they can launch attacks against other European Countries and Israel. As the Swiss Govt. is forced to crack down and incarcerate Muslim terrorists, they will come under attacks for the demand to release prisoners.

-

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Seems to confirm what I was writing. (a) terrorists are not countries, (b) they aren't attacking Switzerland,, (c) Netherlands has a long record of foreign entanglements.

For now Switzerland is becoming a haven for terrorist and a place where they feel they can launch attacks against other European Countries and Israel. As the Swiss Govt. is forced to crack down and incarcerate Muslim terrorists, they will come under attacks for the demand to release prisoners.

-

Well, the solution is obvious.

Switzerland should raise a mighty army, decide on some middle eastern nation to invade (throw of a die will do, it doesn't really matter), display some fake intel at the UN, invade and occupy said land, declare "mission accomplished" and put a puppet government in place, all in the name of fighting terrorism. That would show the terrorists. A well proven formula, guaranteed success.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

6

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

To the original post, for the most part I agree with your ideas, I might want to make a few changes here or there, but the one that gets me, #2(I'm sure we all guessed the one I would jump on).

Relax. First, I would keep the best trained of our military on active duty. Second, I'm not in charge.

Quote

First could you clarify a bit what you intend to change about an individuals right to bear arms.

I don't really want to "change" anything. I would like to see the right to bear arms clarified to clearly apply to individuals. I would also like it clarified that our primary means of defense be a citizen militia. Personally, I think this is along the same lines as what the Founding Fathers intended, but it is arguably the most debated part of the Constitution, so my opinion is but one of 300,000,000.

Quote

As for using a militia as a solely defensive tool, if your policy would be to stay out of any and all matters which could lead to an offensive action, that's your call, I can understand that. But assuming a part-time underfunded militia could stop a full-time well equipped military, that's nonsense.

First, I should clarify. I don't want to eliminate the standing military in its entirety. For example, we have Marines for a reason. We have rapid deployment units for a reason. Sometimes you have to be somewhere else RIGHT NOW.

Our military does not need to account for half of the world's military expenditures either. I believe our second amendment does more to deter attacks on American soil than our bloated military does. No one want to go fight an armed populace on foreign soil.

However, I recognize that from time to time in the course of a nation's life, there may come times when the nation has to send citizens into harms way in a foreign land. (Sound foreign policy can minimize this risk.) However, a million man army requires only one of every 300 Americans volunteer. If the cause is worthy, the soldiers will be there.

Finally, I think people underestimate the strength of a citizen fighting for his home in his homeland. Remember, it was with our militia that we defeated one of the most powerful empires in the world. The most powerful defensive weapon is a man fighting for his home and family. No amount of training or funding is ever going to cause a soldier or militiaman to reach deeper for that last bit of strength to fight on just a bit more.

Quote

If a leaders policy is going to be to only use us in a defensive capactiy I could understand(although I would disagree with) slimming our numbers and thus reducing the cost of keeping us well equipped, but if you drop it down to a militia, then if someone invaded the result would be a struggle much like we are seeing in Iraq.

If funding and training were all there was to having a powerful military, we wouldn't be bogged down in Iraq. The funding is there. The training is there. But many of those who are fighting the American occupation fight on, because they fight for their homes and their families.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Amazon 7]

Hey at least I am consistent in my non-support for aspersion, backbiting, deceit, deception, dishonesty, disinformation, distortion, evasion, fabrication, falsification, greed, inaccuracy, incompetence, mendacity, misrepresentation, misstatement, perjury, prevarication, and terminological inexactitude.

Others on here seem to support it hook, line and sinker. And what is worse expect the rest of us to do it as well.

[rickjump1 0]

The Swiss were neutral in WWII in name only. Sure they didn't send troops anywhere. They were too busy buying up looted gold from the Nazis and helping to keep them from going bankrupt. It's no secret where the gold came from. ***The swiss partnership with the Nazis didn't end there. From the Swiss, the Nazis received munitions, machine tools, and electrical equipment throughout the war. The munitions, in particular, worried Secretary Cordell Hull. In a letter to Admiral William Leahy he wrote that the Swiss were "materially decreasing the military effectiveness of our air attacks on the Axis." Leahy agreed. He replied that the Swiss were increasing Nazi munitions supplies "at the very time that the British and American combined bomber offensive is beginning to substantially affect German production of munitions." An Allied blockade of Switzerland was discussed, but never but into effect.ROOSEVELT AND THE HOLOCAUST Robert L. Beir with Brian Josepher.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Gravitymaster 0]

There is evidence today that a Swiss Bank is involved in funding terrorism.

***(AR) GENEVA -- To protect America from terrorist attack, the United States must investigate illicit trade in biological weapons and trace the movement of terrorist money. A good starting point is a controversial Swiss bank that may have facilitated the sale of hazardous biological materials to Islamic militants.
The bank, Banca del Gottardo in Lugano, appears to have handled one or more sales from a known Russian biological weapons producer to a Swiss company with links to several radical Islamic groups.

The bank denies involvement, and no document has appeared which might confirm an illicit bioweapons trade. Nevertheless, an examination of documents here, interviews and other sources raise enough red flags to suggest that those tracing terror money might look closely at such deals.

A December 1993 list of contracts with the Interplastica company obtained by this reporter lists a $20 million purchase of "injectables" by Biopreparat, the Russian state developer of biological weapons. According to two former Soviet Biopreparat insiders, bioweapons production at the plant was hidden under the cover of pharmaceutical work.

Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, who was the administrative head of Biopreparat, defected to Britain in 1989 and revealed to British intelligence the true nature of Biopreparat. Dr. Kenneth Alibek, a former deputy director of Biopreparat who also defected and came to the United States in 1992, told the same to the CIA.

[GQ_jumper 4]

I think we gree on just about everything on this one, we'll chalk it up to being lost in translation.

The military, yes the rapid deployment units are a must, but dont' forget once you get them there you must sustain the fight, i feel that there are many ways we could streamline our military, but don't forget to many the military is an opportunity, could you imagine what would happen if we chopped the number of opportunities in the military, quite a few people would be SOL. IMO with the military it is better to have and not need than need and not have, although as i have said before there are ways to slim it down to make it more cost effective.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[rickjump1 0]

Swiss neutrality is a myth.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

The Swiss were neutral in WWII in name only. Sure they didn't send troops anywhere. They were too busy buying up looted gold from the Nazis and helping to keep them from going bankrupt. It's no secret where the gold came from. ***The swiss partnership with the Nazis didn't end there. From the Swiss, the Nazis received munitions, machine tools, and electrical equipment throughout the war. The munitions, in particular, worried Secretary Cordell Hull. In a letter to Admiral William Leahy he wrote that the Swiss were "materially decreasing the military effectiveness of our air attacks on the Axis." Leahy agreed. He replied that the Swiss were increasing Nazi munitions supplies "at the very time that the British and American combined bomber offensive is beginning to substantially affect German production of munitions." An Allied blockade of Switzerland was discussed, but never but into effect.ROOSEVELT AND THE HOLOCAUST Robert L. Beir with Brian Josepher.

You might want to check on US dealings with the Nazis too, during the period of US "neutrality". Names like " Averell Harriman", "John Foster Dulles" and "Prescott Bush" are a good place to start looking. Not that any of it has the slightest relevance to this thread.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

There is evidence today that a Swiss Bank is involved in funding terrorism.

How is that relevant to any point made so far in this thread? US banks have had links to terrorists too. Ever hear of the IRA?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

You need to remove your shoes. I count 5. Did I hit a nerve?

5? Where? You must be incredibly thin skinned!!

Quote

Hmmm... I can't seem to find where you responded to the O.P. questions.
Oh...that's right, you didn't.

So? I don't believe I said anything about Bush either.

Quote

I suppose I should have included shit-stirrers in my observation.

But you were doing it so well....

Anyway, if I were in charge? First thing I would do would be to call another round of elections! Sure there are certain things I would like to change and certain things I would like to see done differently. However I'm currently thinking that success or failure is only 50% the policies that you implement and 50% how organised and efficient the implementation is.

In which case, unless being in charge means I have a magic wand that makes all my policies run smoothly then I'd have a fair chance of fucking things up even more than they are now! I don't want that kind of responsibility.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?