American values

[pamsback]

You've made some good informative posts David Thanks!

That's what we need Info.

[dnalexander]

Charles, the emoticon I like for "dripping with sarcasm" is the little smiley face that has his middle finger sticking up in the air. I would post an example but I don't think that is appropriate for this forum. It's funny, just not appropriate.

David

[flintauqua]

All Hail the David the Wise!

[Varmit]

Diane, YES, I think that paying for public schools SHOULD be mandatory for parents and voluntary for folks without children.  As far as your Fire Dept. goes, I think that if the folks that live in your county want the F.D to cover as much as it does then they should pay for it.  If they don't then the fire dept should redue its services.  The reason locals don't voluntarily donate is because they have gotten used to the idea of gov't paying for everything.  How is forcing people to "donate" through taxes not empowering gov't?

As far as businesses reverting back, thats not going to happen.  Businesses and the people who own them are in it to make a profit.  You are not going to make said profits if you have conditions that no one wants to work in.  Also, nowadays, people are smart enough to see a need for a standandization of some things, like the thread on firehoses.

To suggest that the Constitution can be changed to "fit the times" subverts the document entirely.  What use is there in having a document that limits the power of the gov't, if we give that gov't the power to change that document??  After the signing of the Constitution, Ben Franklin was asked by a woman on the street, "What have you given us?", Franklin responded, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

David, your post on the centerist position was informing.  However, there are a few things that I disagree with...

The stance on enegry and the enviroment both mention carbon sequestration, which to my understanding, is based on the theory that carbon emissions are the cause of global warming.  The problem I have with this is that global warming theory is incorrect and based on puesdo-science.  They also call for transition to be based on need, then they say that need should be reduced. 

On healthcare, I want the gov't no where near my healthcare or food.  I want my doctor to fix whatever is wrong with me, and offer his opinion on preventive care if I ask for it.  What I don't want is gov't saying "these foods are unhealthy, so to offset the cost of future care needed because of these foods, we are gonna tax you more it"  i.e. a sugar tax.  Which in essence, is nothing more than a Fat tax. 

On Security, they say that we should not only defend, but enforce democracy at home and ABROAD,  then they turn around and say that we should not commit to conflict to further an agenda.  Their stance is at odds with itself. 


Anyway, thats all for now, have to get ready for work.

[pamsback]

As far as your Fire Dept. goes, I think that if the folks that live in your county want the F.D to cover as much as it does then they should pay for it.

Here the volunteer fire department has a 35 dollar a year membership fee for the area they cover....you don't have to join but if you don't and they have to put out a fire at your place they charge you for it and it costs a hell of a lot more than $35!

As far as businesses reverting back, thats not going to happen.

Some will because it's the nature of the beast. As for nobody workin for them..there will ALways be people desperate enough for a job that they will.

To suggest that the Constitution can be changed to "fit the times" subverts the document entirely

""The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." -Samuel Adams"

[dnalexander]

Billy that is the platform of the Centrist Party and not all centrist; a short but important point. Personally I don't have much use for political parties. If I were passing out "class homework assignments" I would suggest people research what our founding fathers thought about political parties. (Hint: Washington found political parties to be a threat).

"They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

George Washington
(Washington's Farewell Address)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

David

p.s. I was going to try and post a list of all the political parties in the US. That is a long list.

[pamsback]

  In the discussion of various political parties, what their platforms are and in reading various posts........Does anybody besides me find that their hot button issues place them in various parties at various times? Which brings me to the point of this post.......which is Labels, why do we need them and why do we let ourselves be pigeonholed? Why do people TRY to pigeonhole others? Why do you have to belong to ONE political party and why are you supposed to support their platform even if you DON'T agree with it( which is anarchy I know Lol) In thinking about MY various thoughts on issues I have found some are core issues of republicans, some are core issues of democrats, some are core issues or independants, libertarians, centrists, and even ANARCHISTS! I have issues that are core to the green party.

I had already decided to change my affiliation from democrat because I'm NOT really a democrat.....but what does somebody like me REGISTER as with a clear conscience? I have always voted for whoever I thought was best for the job no matter what party they belonged to which I know canceled my votes but I voted with my conscience so.......ANy thoughts?

[dnalexander]

Pam I say vote for the best candidate. While we are posing questions people struggle with I will add one that I think a lot of people have. A few posts back I gave my opinion of labels on my what is anarchy post.

Basically right now you have to be either a Democrat or Republican to be elected President. I think it may be a long time before any third party candidate will be elected as Pres. So do you vote for the third party candidate and essentially "waste" your vote? Or do you choose the lesser of two evils and vote for one of two major party candidates that actually have a chance of being elected.   I think this dilemma lessens as you progress to state, county, local government where a 3rd party can get elected. I know many Centrist and Libertarians struggle with this issue. Some Anarchists would say just scrap the whole system and go to a true democracy one person one vote on all issues of governance. (No representatives, senators, electoral college).

My personal opinion is you vote for what is best for you and not anyone else. We each have to decide what is in our best interest and that only you can decide.

David

[pamsback]

Basically right now you have to be either a Democrat or Republican to be elected President.

That is true. There have been some third party candidates who would've done a MUCH better job but they can't get the support or the votes to win which is a sad statement.

I vote for the one I think is the best person even tho I'm essentially wasting my vote beCAUSE I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Really that is what it is going to take to loosen the stranglehold of the two major parties is EVERYbody refusing to vote for people JUST because the Party endorses them whether they suck or not.

I'm going to have to do some research to see if that has EVER happened or not........

[pamsback]

Basically right now you have to be either a Democrat or Republican to be elected President.

That is true. There have been some third party candidates who would've done a MUCH better job but they can't get the support or the votes to win which is a sad statement.

I vote for the one I think is the best person even tho I'm essentially wasting my vote beCAUSE I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Really that is what it is going to take to loosen the stranglehold of the two major parties is EVERYbody refusing to vote for people JUST because the Party endorses them whether they suck or not.

I'm going to have to do some research to see if that has EVER happened or not........

But right now I gotta go hang my laundry out LOL