Wake Up America

[David2004]

A combination of political and economic changes are needed starting with campaign finance reform, medical insurance, energy, foreign and military policies, right down what is in our national interest and security. In a quest for more power and control the United States federal government has over step the boundaries in the lives of Americans as well as the people rights of other nations. The United States may win the military war while losing the diplomatic battle for peace while isolating its self from the rest of the nations in the world.

Understanding that our energy policies are connected to our environmental, political, economics and social problems in the world. Realizing there is not enough oil supplies in the world for the other nations in the world to consume oil as the United States does. Our abusive energy policies are straining our relationship with many other nations in the world raising the global level of tension. A balance between what is in our national interest and global interest has to be made more rational and fair.

With our dependence on others for our high standard of living as a society has been at the expense of others. The American people consuming 25% of the worlds oil while being less than 5% of the world population. The amount of the world?s natural resources that the American consumer has turned into garbage is a crime in its own right. With the world population growing to new levels like never before creating a major strain on the earths limited natural resources. Fresh drinking water and oil are disappearing almost at the same rate from mother earth. Both have been treated as renewable resources because until resent times they were. The faster we consumed the oil the more chemical that ended up in mother earth?s water supply.

The oil industry being the primary leader in our energy policies has a dispositional amount of influence over our government?s national and foreign policies. For the United States as part of its foreign policies to have another nation?s natural resources as part of its national security is wrong. In the self serving interest of the big oil companies we have an imbalance in our energy policies that are putting us in great danger. Utilizing our military and military industrial complex to guarantee a global flow of oil is putting our national security in great jeopardy. Trading oil for weapons of death and destruction while neglecting the humanitarian needs of the people has been and is our current policies today. The over lapping interests of the oil and energy industry and military industrial complex have miss led the American people and government to the truths and realities of the facts.

Special interest groups invest millions of dollar into lobbing our government officials for multi-billion dollar contracts, policies and favors. This was clearly the case of the pharmaceutical drug bill that was passed in 2003. A drug bill written by the pharmaceutical and HMO lobbies, that is being paid for the American people. With unparallel influence the lobbies have control over our government policies in their field of self-interest.

 

[David2004]

International Crude Oil Export Tax (OET)

The OET would be added to any crude oil that is traded between one nation and another. This tax would help in tracking and the transparency of the crude oil dollars. It would be the financial base of a new universal origination to help and promote and finance Non Government Originations programs that would be in the greater interest of the global community of nations at large. With crude oil being the root of so much global tension this tax could be a stabilizing factor.

Developing a universal finical platform to help promote from a different perceptive what is in the best interest of the people of planet earth. With no direct connection to any one government, groups such as the United Nations, Origination of the American States, European Union, NATO, Arab League as well as a host of others organizations will be the frame from which this new universal group will work from. Taking some of the pressure off the United States Government as one of the leading nation in humanitarian and social aid.

With an independent source of capital to be used for what is in the best interest of the nations of the world will help balance some of the economic and social inequalities. By building a stronger universal platform this taking pressure off of any individual nations from having to make any unilateral moves. The OET could finance a permanent International Peace Keepers Force to be used in hot spots around the world. OET matching fund program for humanitarian projects could help finance needed programs. Working with the already existence non-government organizations in their given field, OET will network and tailor its programs to meet the needs of the international community.

OET will help promote the International Department of Peace to counter balance the military industrial complex on matters of war and peace. Encouraging other government to establish a Department of Peace within there own government.

 

[MtnBiker]

How would an International Department of Peace enforce peace?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by David2004
A balance between what is in our national interest and global interest has to be made more rational and fair.

Why?

 

[Annie]

COLUMNS > THE CONTINUING CRISIS
KEY NO EVIL

Tim Blair on http://www.bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/All/4E203FF4094C0D5BCA256E3500096301!open

For those who hate it when you have to buy a present for the person who has everything, relax. We've found the key.


JOHN Tulloh, the ABC's head of international operations, recently sent this memo to puzzled ABC troops: "Please be careful with Middle Eastern references. Several recent slip-ups have attracted justified complaints. The ABC follows UN guidelines on proscribed groups: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are NOT included in the UN's list of terrorist organisations and therefore must not be described as such." Since when is the ABC, funded entirely by Australians and allegedly independent, beholden to the decisions of an alien authority such as the United Nations?


Tulloh's memo continues: "But if any of them claims responsibility for, say, a suicide bombing or similar outrage, then it is entirely appropriate to describe the incident itself as an act of terrorism. A suicide bomber who detonates himself or herself is a terrorist. While we must avoid labels where possible, do not be afraid to call such a person a terrorist." So, according to the ABC, it is possible for representatives of non-terrorist groups to commit terrorist acts. Repeatedly. Not being bound by the UN or the ABC's craven rulemakers, let me state here that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad ARE terrorist organisations, as should be obvious to anybody not presently comatose.


Mark Latham's Partridge Family-style bus tour of country NSW was intended, the opposition leader explained, to give people the chance to pat me on the back or kick me in the shins. But when a potential shin-kicker loomed in Lismore, the would-be PM's shins quickly headed for the door. Adam Hicks, of the Northern Star news_paper, wrote on Saturday: "Mr Latham _was having a beer and watching local musicians perform at the Gollan Hotel when a man reportedly beat on a window from outside the hotel and made threatening gestures directed at him. A staff member said Latham asked to be shown to a safe exit." Perhaps the window beater was a taxi driver, seeking vengeance for his clan. It's unlike Latham to dodge confrontation; one can only assume he was concerned for the well-being of that $2500 suit.


It's been a fantastic few weeks for the WMD doubters, what with George W. Bush and Tony Blair announcing inquiries into pre-war intelligence and John Howard being assailed by the righteous for helping boot out Saddam. Howard's "duplicity in the invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq is unambiguous and unarguable", wrote The Sydney Morning Herald's Alan Ramsey (Ramsey is one to talk; last year he wrote that Bush served a plastic Christmas turkey to troops in Iraq, a piece of flawed intel over which he is yet to make the slightest admission). The anti-war crowd obsesses over WMD because it is the one issue they've got even partly right, having been proved massively wrong on likely casualties, humanitarian disasters, a united Islamic response, Saddam's capture – and, indeed, on WMD, subsequently discovered in Libya as a direct result of the war in Iraq. They don't mention that very often, do they? Anyway, the WMD argument is boring. Here's a fun challenge for the anti-warriors: instead of complaining about Saddam's removal, let's hear your arguments in favour of leaving him in power. Go on; defend the monster.


Before the peaceniks reply, they might consider the opinion of Iraqi hospital worker Ali, posted at the web site http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com and directed at opponents of the war: "F*** YOU ALL. GWB MADE THE RIGHT DECISION AND AMERICA DID THE RIGHT THING AND WE ARE FREEEEEEEEEE!" Sounds kind of happy about it, doesn't he?


General Wesley Clark became the preferred US presidential candidate of Australia's lunatic commentariat the instant he announced his run for the White House. Phillip Adams swooned over Clark's "dignity and gravitas"; Margo Kingston hoped he would "help Americans recapture the vision"; and Megan Gressor wrote Clark was "the man most likely to be the next US president"; Marian Wilkinson praised Clark as "fearless in criticising Bush over his handling of the war"; academic and Evatt Foundation executive member Christopher Sheil described Clark as the "candidate from heaven". He has turned out to be the opposite. Possibly he is the worst, most bungle-prone misspeaker ever to seek nomination. Consider his views on abortion, which have veered from "life begins with the mother's decision" and "I have always been and always will be pro-choice" to "I don't believe in abortion", then back again to "I support a woman's right to choose". And Clark's supporters say Bush is stupid.

 

[modman]

Well said. David2004

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
Well said. David2004

Since you are in such agreement, why not answer the questions that the other members have asked?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Keep talking David2004 and modman. Let's bring to light the full horror of you two's views.

Just for your information, by all modern definitions of words, being against the continued supremacy of the U.S. is counter to the future interests of the nation and it's people, and therefore, anti-american. Though I know libs hate accurate labels.

 

[David2004]

Challenge before us
For us to be a strong and balance republic with a democratic form of government we must get more than 50% of the eligible voters registered and voting. The United States and its military have become the primary leader of the industrial nations in the war on terror making the people?s vote more important than ever before in recent times. The pro Bush people are well financed by the establishment that profits from war and most of them are registered and vote while waving the flag. While many of the younger people who oppose most of the Bush Doctrines are not registered and don?t vote. With the primary reason being they are one of the same and things will not change.

Without participation of 60% or more of the eligible voters in the United States there is not a clear mandate by the people and things will remain in the hands of the special interest groups. Raising voter participation among the people will help strengthen our nation making us more of a democratic nation and less of a republic in the hands of the selected few. Too many people feel disenfranchised by the system therefore they do not vote. Unless those people that stand-up and speak out against our current policy, register and vote things will not change. With the United States having the lowest voter participation than any of the other democracies in the world while being the military super power is a travesty in its self.

 

[Comrade]

Challenge before us
For us to be a strong and balance republic with a democratic form of government we must get more than 50% of the eligible voters registered and voting.

50% registration is no magic number, and no requirement for democracy either. Hand in hand with the right to vote is the right to NOT vote.

The pro Bush people are well financed by the establishment that profits from war and most of them are registered and vote while waving the flag.

That makes it hard to punch the chad, waving that flag. But Bush supporters abound on the board and the "mindless patriot" thing so cliche.

While many of the younger people who oppose most of the Bush Doctrines are not registered and don?t vote. With the primary reason being they are one of the same and things will not change.

Well they deserve to lose then. If some "Democracy Guard" isn't already goosesteping them out of their dorms to the polls to vote for the leftist flavour of the month, well I sure as hell won't be taxed to fund them. Yet this is the only solution to your need to get out the vote, isn't it? What if it doesn't help your party win? Have you thought about that?

Without participation of 60% or more of the eligible voters in the United States there is not a clear mandate by the people and things will remain in the hands of the special interest groups.

The interests of those specially interesting in voting. That would leave the lazy or crazy to stew and the apathetics to continue to not care.

And where do you get these numbers? Is 60% in the constitution? Didn't you say 50% earlier?

If 30.0001% of the total population voted for Bush in 2004 (along with the majority of electorates) out the 60%, after it came down to multiple recounts, would that be a clear mandate and would the Libs finally shut up about him??? Are angry dogs barking mad?

Raising voter participation among the people will help strengthen our nation making us more of a democratic nation and less of a republic in the hands of the selected few.

We are constitutionally a republic, yet practice democracy all the same.

Too many people feel disenfranchised by the system therefore they do not vote.

An utterly lame excuse not to vote if I've heard of one. Self-fullfilling prophecy for political losers.

Unless those people that stand-up and speak out against our current policy, register and vote things will not change.

These obviously active believers don't have the time to vote after speaking out?

Your point maybe is that that the millions of uninterested potential voters would AUTOMATICALLY vote against our current policy. Yet they would need "education" beforehand. If you volunteer to teach such mandated courses, what is your course plan?

With the United States having the lowest voter participation than any of the other democracies in the world while being the military super power is a travesty in its self.

Assuming content people don't vote for radical changes, I'd say we are doing fine. And just because more people vote doesn't mean the results would change one way or the other. Are you counting on the ignorant, lazy, or apathetic to fill in the ballots, or can you argue why the current policy is less desirable?

 

[kcmcdonald]

yes if we brain wash all the american people then the socalist message and laws will come into being and the world will hold hands and will all sing togehter.

Get real. Socialism doesn't work look at russia. It wasn't ment to be a dictatorship. But it turned out to be a killing field.

Read the book "Left Illusions" by David Horawitz. It will let you know what the whole image of "left paridise" really is.

 

[Bry]

To my mind, this quote says it all:

It wasn't ment to be a dictatorship.

Russia was not socialist, and its only opportunity of becoming such left with Trotsky when he fled after Stalin consolidated power. Of course, Stalin was good enough for the West, where during WWII, it was practically impossible to criticize Stalin.

Around the turn of the century, the Russians divided between those who thought that the workers' revolution should be accelerated by the taking of military power and those that thought it would come about on its own. (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks) Of course, what the example of Russia really shows is the corrupting influence of power. Once the revolution was successful, the military found itself incapable of renouncing the power that they had gained in the course of the revolution. But that was not the only way to socialism, and a critique of the Russia case ammounts to a critique of a specific set of historical circumstances, and a warning about the coruptive influence of power. Many read Orwell's Animal Farm as a critique of socialism, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

Meanwhile, capitalism has also proven itself incapable of responding to societal needs and limits itself to incrementing short term profit margins at any cost. The great light of freedom that is the US is in a process of moving to where the labor is cheap. They have to compete! The most powerful army in the world has been hijacked for use by corporate interests. Industry has already moved, and now even the managerial positions are taking the rear exit.

Of course, apart from the partial socialist systems of Europe, we are also without any clear example of a functional socialist state. Socialism has not managed to provide any guarantees. Perhaps the closest example is to be found in Cuba, where the chances of success were severely impeded by fifty years of economic embargo (a historical circumstance which if anything has given Castro the perfect excuse to consolidate power in a dictatorship.)

I realize that few here will be convinced by arguments in favor of socialism, but perhaps some will see that facile arguments about the failure of Russia being the equivalent of the failure of socialism are intellectually dishonest.

 

[kcmcdonald]

It was about workers rights, right? It was about overthrowing the rich upper class. Throwing off the shackels of oppressed workers. To make the country a workers paridise. To make it that none should be rich and all should have an equal share. That the society would take care of it's own and that govt. would help and every thing would be great.

unless the defintion of socalism has changed I'm pretty sure that fits the bill. And if I'm not mistaken that was the premise of the Russian revolution.

P.S We couldn't critize russia in WW2 because they were our allie and with out them(unfortunatlly) we would nbot have been able to defeat the russians.

And Before the light of the Gulogs was released by Krushev(spelling?) Russia was held up high as the goal and staple of a socialist paridise.

SOCALISM does not work.

 

[kcmcdonald]

I mean the Germans

 

[kcmcdonald]

So all those Millions of people who died in Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Russia, Cuba, Korea, and Poland died not in the name of people's revolutions but in the name of an abuse of power. Face it Socalism has killed more people in the 20th century than any thing else. In these societies there is no anti-movement. The Anti movement was the first thing that was killed off. We call a socialist society with a dictator stly leadership a communist country. We should call them a failed socialist experiment. These countries went into revolution in the name of equal rights. However because of human nature and the absolute coruption of power no mass rvolution that puts a utpoia as it's final goal can't sucseed. Because the one's who oppose it get killed, and the one's who question it's goals get silenced.

 

[Bry]

As I said, kc, I don't expect to convince anyone here, and I myself have some serious reservations. I simply pointed out that Russia is not a definitive example by which the philosophical underpinnings of socialism live or die. According to the leaders of the revolution, the necessary next step after the revolution was that the military turn legislative power over to the people. From the moment Stalin consolidated power, it was clear that that step would not be taken. In other words, the revolution was not taken to the conclusion that would permit us to equate the Soviet experiment with a true workers revolution.

The example of the support Stalin received from the west is just one more example of how the pragmatism of the West leads them to believe (falsely) that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. In point of fact, Stalin and the Red army most certainly would have resisted the Nazi invasion as a shear matter of survival, regardless of how much criticism was permitted in the west.

It is also true that most of the more dramatic examples from the twentieth century exemplify the same totalitarianism that we can find in the Soviet experiment, but it largely ignores the moderate successes of western Europe. But, as I said before, these examples, because of their similarity, do not exhaust the possibilities of socialism. They are cause for reflection, but not for outright rejection.

The history of the Spanish Civil War gives an alternative impression. The left-leaning Spanish Republic was divided between several different more or less socialist movements, one of which was supported by Stalinist Russia. That faction, thanks in part to the military support provided by Russia, and thanks also in part to their willingness to massacre members of the other camps, eventually gained the upper hand, but not before weakening the republic with the internal struggles to such an extent that the resistance to the rebellion could not be maintained. Prior to the resolution of those differences, there were many territories which were opperating under various socialist models, and they opperated in many cases effectively and IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCENTRATED POWER.

Socialism is a very big idea, with many possibilities for realization. What the 20th century has demonstrated is that ONE of those possibilities leads to totalitarianism. As I said, that is good reason to rethink the socialist project, to reevaluate Marx and Engels and even look to other proponents that differed with Marx on the theme of the economic mechanisms which he believed would lead inevitably to a classless state. There is much being published along these lines today, it is a fruitful area of investigation and dialogue. For many, Capitalism is not the final solution, and the many variations of socialism still offer the best possibility of alternative.

 

[sitarro]

To the Utopians that waste space on this board and in this country ,
It always amazes me to read opinions by people who believe that everything bad around the world has been created by evil corporations . Ignored are the great things that corporations have done and continue to due everday . Instead , all I ever hear from utopians is criticism and negativity , never any realistic solutions. A great example would be the imbeciles fighting for the Democrat party nomination . A tremendous amount of criticism of the current administration but no solutions that are remotely feasible in the real world .
It is obvious from the previous posts that a civil war in the United States is inevitable . The realist in this country will no doubt be forced to defend the roots and traditions of our great country against the dreamer utopians that want to drag this country down to the level of the rest of the world .
I would be happy to give these clowns a section of the country to do with what they want . Tax your citizens into financial ruin and we will continue to produce the greatest economy in history , and we will continue to do this with the most free people on the planet . After you destroy yourselves and your part of the country , we will take those places back and rebuild them to their once greatness but your kind will not be welcome to stay , we don't want or need your unrealistic views of the planet . We will be happy to fund your trip to France where you will be welcome , maybe , and much happier . . . . maybe.

 

[eric]

Welcome to the board !!!

I could not agree with you more, I have been trying to emphasize this for quite a while, good to have some like thinkers !

 

[kcmcdonald]

yes,
Another strike against Utopians. Finally another resonable person who understands the infeasability of these people's ideas.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Bry

Socialism is a very big idea, with many possibilities for realization. What the 20th century has demonstrated is that ONE of those possibilities leads to totalitarianism. As I said, that is good reason to rethink the socialist project, to reevaluate Marx and Engels and even look to other proponents that differed with Marx on the theme of the economic mechanisms which he believed would lead inevitably to a classless state. There is much being published along these lines today, it is a fruitful area of investigation and dialogue. For many, Capitalism is not the final solution, and the many variations of socialism still offer the best possibility of alternative.

Socialism is a very big Bad idea. A common sense evaluation leads a reasonable person the the conclusion that centralizing political power and economic decisions leads to phenomenal abuse. The proof is in the pudding. How many millions more have to die before the practise of this appalling concept is ended?