Sure is hot in here... :PSnowball, meet hell...I removed more posts, and the replies descending from them. Really folks, flag it and move on.Ross, how should I take this above you? That is, to whom do I complain if I think you are being unfair?
Hey LP Moorluck the Merciless - will you institute my anti Bieber proposals from my initial platform... (on the first page).
Ha TOP of the PAGE Ma!!!!
Bieber? She will be thrown into a pit of molten lava at my coronation.... uhm , I mean at my swearing in ceremony.
1. Veto bills I believe to be unconstitutional. This would take a significant chunk out of the federal budget. Congress might override my veto in a number of areas, of course.
2. Ask Congress to withdraw the United States from NATO, the WTO, the UN, etc.
3. Work towards the issuance of letters of marque an reprisal to combat terrorist organizations.
4. Do such and such in regard to a certain thing. :)
5. Prepare for private life, as I would be unlikely to be re-elected.
There, now he can't complain. Narrow minded censorship has triumphed!
:)
Or was it numbers 1, 2, or 5 to which he objected? Without any explanation, I'm left guessing.
Being as other posters have suggested vetoes, large budget cuts, etc, I find it hard to believe that 1 is the 'problem.' I can't imagaine why 5 would bother anyone. 2? Heck, the OP suggested 'isolationism' didn't he? That post hasn't been removed.I will not go into the obvious stuff.
I do have questions.
Why withdraw from NATO WTO UN... ect????
Hey what about ANZUS.... everybody forgets ANZUS ... Well if Ewan pulls out of ANZUS there goes a large chunk you your early warning system and Echelon and probably your most loyal allies...bye bye ewan.
I do have questions.
Why withdraw from NATO WTO UN... ect????
I don't think that NATO is necessary, now that the threat of the Soviet Union has been removed. I think that the expense of maintaining forces in Europe is unnecessary. Hegemony, of empire if you prefer, is a very expensive business. I don't think that we can afford the costs.
I find that the WTO tends to side with large multinational corporations, often to the detriment of workers and the environment. Further, it's an essentially unaccountable supranational body.It does not, in my estimation, represent our best interests.
The UN is very corrupt and ineffective. Some of its actions seem aimed at undermining the soveriegnty of member states. That is a big problem for me.
Hey what about ANZUS.... everybody forgets ANZUS ... Well if Ewan pulls out of ANZUS there goes a large chunk you your early warning system and Echelon and probably your most loyal allies...bye bye ewan.
Why withdraw from NATO WTO UN... ect????
Early warning against whom? The non-existent Soviet Union?
The world has changed. The Cold War is over. Some of our previous arranagements don't make sense these days.
There is no reason why early warning systems couldn't be run from space, or by pooling of information. That doesn't require full security pacts, large numbers of overseas bases, etc.
There you go! This post of yours is better than the original one. It was your original #3 that I believe caused some flap (and rightfully so).** spoiler omitted **
I tried to post them in the same order. Wasn't letters of marque third on the original list?
Item number four had to do with our policy on Palestine/Israel. I'd been led to believe my lack of support for killing Arabs and stealing their land was what certain people(Byers) found objectionable.
Hey what about ANZUS.... everybody forgets ANZUS ... Well if Ewan pulls out of ANZUS there goes a large chunk you your early warning system and Echelon and probably your most loyal allies...bye bye ewan.
Why withdraw from NATO WTO UN... ect????
Early warning against whom? The non-existent Soviet Union?
The world has changed. The Cold War is over. Some of our previous arranagements don't make sense these days.
There is no reason why early warning systems couldn't be run from space, or by pooling of information. That doesn't require full security pacts, large numbers of overseas bases, etc.
ahhh China, that wacky and fun place called North Korea, or that less wacky and fun place called Iran that is sharing its tech with North Korea... Not right now but give them 10 years and they will be a PITA....
Also do you know the cost per pound to put stuff into space... Echelon and your early warning systems are cost effective compared to taking all that crap into space.... also there is a lot of Seismic monitoring done from the Bases in Australia.... cant do that kind of thing from space.
Pool information with whom - you just ended your treaty... with Australia. Cool I nationalise the bases and enter into a treaty with China as they are now our major trading partner and offer them early warning and Echelon.
8th, I doubt very much that the Chinese or the DRPK intend to nuke us.
Of course, there is some risk with 'Lil Kim- he's nuts.
There's no reason not to pool information with the Australians. You'll notice, though, that I never posted that we must end relations with friendly countries, or abandon all military contacts. Instead, I posted that we should withdraw from certain supranational organizations and certain alliances. There's a difference between the armed neutrality which I advocate and full on 'hermit kingdom' isolationism.
|
There you go! This post of yours is better than the original one. It was your original #3 that I believe caused some flap (and rightfully so).** spoiler omitted **
I tried to post them in the same order. Wasn't letters of marque thrid on the original list?
Item number four had to do with our policy on Palestine/Israel. I'd been led to believe my lack of support for killing Arabs and stealing their land was what certain people(Byers) found objectionable.
Now the way in which it was stated was deemed lacking in any form of TACT
8th, I doubt very much that the Chinese or the DRPK intend to nuke us.
Of course, there is some risk with 'Lil Kim- he's nuts.There's no reason not to pool information with the Australians. You'll notice, though, that I never posted that we must end relations with friendly countries, or abandon all military contacts. Instead, I posted that we should withdraw from certain suprnational organizations and certain alliances. there's a differnece between the armed neutrality which I advocate and full on 'hermit kingdom' isolationism.
Neutrality for the US will not work until there is a major superpower in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America of equivalent power to the US.
You cant isolate yourselves.... as your business interests are going to involve you in the rest of the world. To protect your business interests you have to project political power and political power can only be backed up through the power of the gun. You are in the Game son and you cant back out.
Now the way in which it was stated was deemed lacking in any form of TACT
Deemed so by whom?
Militant Zionism is something I don't think we should support.
Neutrality for the US will not work until there is a major superpower in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America of equivalent power to the US.
You cant isolate yourselves.... as your business interests are going to involve you in the rest of the world. To protect your business interests you have to project political power and political power can only be backed up through the power of the gun. You are in the Game son and you cant back out.
I'm not advocating isolation. I'm just not interested in playing 'British Empire' till we end up like the Brits.
The Europeans can provide for their own defense.
Pool information with whom - you just ended your treaty... with Australia. Cool I nationalise the bases and enter into a treaty with China as they are now our major trading partner and offer them early warning and Echelon.
The problem with that logic is that China is a bigger trading partner for the USA than is Australia. Should we ally with the Chinese against the Aussies?
:)
I still wager that the dead will end up registered to vote, though. :P
They do in Chicago, a town so civic minded that even the dead vote.
When you say "provide," I hear "pay" ... and I agree.
-- Andy
Yes, just so. The EU is a rich bloc. There is no USSR at the doorstep. I don't see any pressing need to maintain an expensive and intrusive American military presence in Europe. The costs outweigh the benefits, as far as I can tell. I don't just mean financial costs, either.
NATO is now an alliance without a counterweight. There is no Warsaw Pact.
Neutrality for the US will not work until there is a major superpower in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America of equivalent power to the US.Not sure I'm getting you, here, The 8th Dwarf.
The Europeans can provide for their own defense.When you say "provide," I hear "pay" ... and I agree.
I know if someone showed up in my neighborhood and strutted about with a badge (and was better armed than I)
... and offered to take care of the riff-raff and what-not, I'd let them.
-- Andy
Withdrawing from NATO, the UN and so on is isolationism of the hermit kingdom type.... Maybe you shouldn't generalise.
In answer to your first question... As you are superpower number 1 you are going to be the go to guy for the rest of the world... and as the world is so interlinked these days there is no way you are going to be able to keep out of it.... That is why you need a complex web of treaties and alliances 1. to keep your interests protected 2. to keep them protected with out using your own resources.
You can see this with China now, a lot of nations (mostly very poor and dodgy nations) go to China in preference to the US, in exchange for china giving them truck loads of money Chinese industries get the best deals.
If you had a powerful super power on each continent then people would happily ignore the US in favour of one of the others.
In answer to your second point Making Europe reliant on the US prevents the rise of a united Europe as a military and political power. As long as the US provides the muscle the impetus for Europe to unite is low and difficult... As soon as you pull out of NATO - the UK has to make a choice Europe or the US and as much as it would hate it the UK would choose Europe. This would add a third engine to the France/Germany power block that drives Europe now. You would have an very powerful economic competitor.
Not engaging in the the world is creating a rod for your own back.
Look at it this way the Australian government pays for Islamic schools in Indonesia.... WTF I hear people say.... The reason for this is very far-sighted... These schools are set up in competition against the anti-western extremist schools that are rife in Indonesia. Schooling is very expensive and the extremist schools are free... and are a breeding ground for terrorists.... When the "right" got into government they cut the funding to the Australian funded schools and all the kids moved over to the extremist schools.... the Bali Bombing happened and a lot of the terrorists were educated at the extremist schools... The right very quickly started paying for the pro-western schools again.
Not engaging in the the world is creating a rod for your own...
Why would you assume that I don't wish us to be engaged in the world? I have never posted anything of the kind.
I have not proposed an end to foreign commerce, withdrawal of embassies,etc. That, my friend, is what I would characterize as the 'hermit kingdom' approach.
I am proposing that we avoid foreign entanglements, abrogate outmoded treaties, and try to avoid needless meddling in the internal affairs of others. This does not mean that we will never form short term alliances, fight overseas, or sign international treaties.
I find that our alliance with Israel is a good example of a one-sided, outmoded alliance. It brings us a lot of international ill-will, creates enemies, puts us in an immoral position, and doesn't make us any safer.
I don't even think the trend in elite American political circles towards the unequivocal support of militant Zionism has made even the Israelis any safer, in the long run.
YMMV, as always.
The customer service addresses you've now been provided in several locations would be where to go. You can also send an email to webmaster@paizo.com. Or, if you're really determined to reach a specific person, the contact email addresses for everyone at the company are listed under the "contact us" link on the left hand side of the page.I removed more posts, and the replies descending from them. Really folks, flag it and move on.Ross, how should I take this above you? That is, to whom do I complain if I think you are being unfair?
If you simply want clarification for why something was removed, please feel free to contact me directly, and I'd be happy to answer you.
Also, I removed another couple posts. Name-calling is, well, uncalled for.
The customer service addresses you've now been provided in several locations would be where to go. You can also send an email to webmaster@paizo.com. Or, if you're really determined to reach a specific person, the contact email addresses for everyone at the company are listed under the "contact us" link on the left hand side of the page.If you simply want clarification for why something was removed, please feel free to contact me directly, and I'd be happy to answer you.
Will do, Ross. I figure I can call tomorrow.
EDIT-I've sent you an email via Yahoo.
The 8th Dwarf,
I'm still confused and befuddled parsing your posts, The 8th Dwarf. I'm not sure I'm "getting you."
(So you know, I don't much "generalize," generally. If I see something of import, I'll point at it. If I don't understand someone, I'll admit my lack of understanding, and I'll ask them about it (again, if it's of import).)
Neutrality for the US will not work until there is a major superpower in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America of equivalent power to the US.Not sure I'm getting you, here, The 8th Dwarf.
Are you saying the US assuming a neutral (non-intentional) position in regard to world politics is impossible?
Would the US choosing to become an isolationist nation "break the world?" (as in "Neutrality for the US will not work ...")
-- Andy
Sorry Andy - the generalising comment was aimed at another poster.. as for the lack of structure my sentences, I have a horde of rug rats running rampant in my residence and anything like clarity of thought has gone out the window.
Your last two paragraphs are correctish - US is too big and too important to be a neutral party.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Given the previous experiences seen when public functions are privatised, Why would anyone believe that the result would be anything other than higher costs and lowered service to the public? Remember when you privatise a government function it's primary goal changes from serving the public... to turnning a profit. Is that so hard to understand?
Porbably the best reason is a decade and millions of dollars of research.
But let's take another reason: profit. Profit is a pure and reliable motive, unlike demogoguery. Who wants to live in a country where one man's tax break to create jobs is another man's loop hole (or welfare).
When companies don't pay corporate taxes because the consumption tax removes embedded taxes, a ton of waste in the market is removed. Costs will immiediately come down. You don't have to believe CEOs will magically assume profits can stay the same and they'll pass the savings on out of the goodness of their heart (in fact, that complaint is very cynical and demonstrates low understanding of the tax). All it takes is one business to cut its prices to improve amrket share, and the embedded tax monolith comes tumbling down. Very few industries have the consumer so solidly over a barrel that they can jsut agree to keep prices high among all copanies and expect it to stay that way. This is more fully addressed in the Fair Tax Answers book.
Everything that operates for profit operates with greater efficiency than the government. The government can write a hot check for your SSI, or medical bills or pension. Private copanies cannot. Moreover, applying the term 'privatizing' to retail tax collection is a misnomer. We aren't "privatizing" taxation. The fed gets the taxes. The government is funded at a certain level. Over the first few years, revenues increase as currency strengthens, old entitlements are reduced and the job creation climate generates increasing revenues.
Give companies today a choice: continue spending billions of dollars a year jsut to evaluate the tax consequences of your decisions and then jsut pass those taxes onto the consumer anyway, or get paid a stipend to collect sales tax, which you already do for the state, and remove payroll, profit, and gains taxes from your PnL.
Just read the books. Just knowing how we got to our current tax plan is infuriating enough.
Sorry Andy - the generalising comment was aimed at another poster.. as for the lack of structure my sentences, I have a horde of rug rats running rampant in my residence and anything like clarity of thought has gone out the window.Your last two paragraphs are correctish - US is too big and too important to be a neutral party.
If you feel I've generalized and that has confused you, I'm sorry for it. I felt that you had mischaracterized my position of neutrality as strict 'hermit kingdom' isolationism. Perhaps you simply made a bad assumption, or I maybe wasn't providing you with enough specific information.
I hope that you don't feel insulted or abused, as that certainly hasn't been my intention. I don't agree with much of your foriegn policy and geopolitics, but this doesn't mean that I think poorly of you. I've never had a personal beef with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Andy - the generalising comment was aimed at another poster.. as for the lack of structure my sentences, I have a horde of rug rats running rampant in my residence and anything like clarity of thought has gone out the window.Your last two paragraphs are correctish - US is too big and too important to be a neutral party.
If you feel I've generalized and that has confused you, I'm sorry for it. I felt that you had mischaracterized my position of neutrality as strict 'hermit kindgom' isolationism. Perhaps you simply made a bad assumption, or I maybe wasn't providing you with enough specific information.
I hope that you don't feel insulted or abused, as that certainly hasn't been my intention. I don't agree with much of your foriegn policy and geopolitics, but this doesn't mean that I think poorly of you. I've never had a personal beef with you.
Relax mate its the iterwebz - I dont know you, you dont know me -- communication is difficult with out being able to establish tone and intent....
You are engaged in a debate, I disagree with some of the stuff you say, you disagree with some of the stuff I say... its all good.
Relax mate its the iterwebz - I dont know you, you dont know me -- communication is difficult with out being able to establish tone and intent....You are engaged in a debate, I disagree with some of the stuff you say, you disagree with some of the stuff I say... its all good.
Kewl beans. :)
|
|
The 8th Dwarf,
I'm still confused and befuddled parsing your posts, The 8th Dwarf. I'm not sure I'm "getting you."
(So you know, I don't much "generalize," generally. If I see something of import, I'll point at it. If I don't understand someone, I'll admit my lack of understanding, and I'll ask them about it (again, if it's of import).)
Neutrality for the US will not work until there is a major superpower in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America of equivalent power to the US.Not sure I'm getting you, here, The 8th Dwarf.
Are you saying the US assuming a neutral (non-intentional) position in regard to world politics is impossible?
Would the US choosing to become an isolationist nation "break the world?" (as in "Neutrality for the US will not work ...")
-- Andy
The US has tried Isolationism before. If we repeat the past we are quite doomed to repeat it. Now we should not try to be imperialists either. And this seems to be what all the fuss is about. the fear and belief that the US is and has been in the empire market. I personally find such an outlook on the US ill informed and quite Juvenile.
The 8th Dwarf,
Thank you for the response, and it's nice to hear there are rug rats running rampant in your residence.
Not only is that alliterative, but it brings a smile to my face.
Your last two paragraphs are correctish - US is too big and too important to be a neutral party.I may quote you here, regarding "correctish." I'm not sure the US can remain "neutral" in world affairs.
By not taking a position, the US "takes a position."
I hope your rug-rats run rampant, The 8th Dwarf!
-- Andy
We had a few extra kids we were "baby sitting" it was a very hot day we had Gelato :-). The rug rats were very well behaved - Gave one of older ones my Dr Who RPG stuff to look through as he is a big fan... in two seconds he had worked out plans to build a K9 out of lego.
There is no way the US can extricate its self from its alliances without damaging its trade and economy... Isolation... gives others with less charitable views on the world a better chance of leapfrogging the US economically and militarily - Of the options to take centre stage should the US isolate itself, Europe is the most palatable and politicly I am closest to a British style centre lefty... The thing is Europe has no interest in Oceania we are too far away and there is no profit in it (the UK would help us and maybe the French (if we remind them of Villers-Bretonneux and Amiens))... So should we be in need of assistance and the US is not available... The next best is China, I am not a big fan of totalitarian/communist states.... That would be tying our selves to a real imperialist power...
Australia has always had a policy of having a "Great and Powerful Friend" because we are isolated and culturally different to our neighbours and a product of a colonial system that repressed our neighbours for hundreds of years. Some of our neighbours do not like us. No mater how much we try and be part of the South East Asian community there are those in it that see us as the remnants of an unpleasant time in their history. I cant say that I blame them so we have to look for friends elsewhere and the US is it... we are culturally similar and have a shared military history from Le Hamel to Afghanistan.
Australians are really just more foreigners to me. I feel no special connection with them or their country. Neither do I bear them any ill will. Alliances of convenience may be scrapped when the need for them has passed. It's good form to inform the other party well in advance, of course.
|
Edit: Oh yeah, and then order the U.S. Navy to enforce an embargo around Australia, just for the hell of it.
What the hell man?
After all we’ve done for you.
We gave you … Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Olivia Newton John … Wolverine, that guy who played the main blue dude in Avatar, half the extras in Lost … we gave John Travolta a job as a pilot in our national airline or something, I’m not clear on the details, we took Oprah off your hands for a couple of weeks a few months back.
Alright then, send your navy … we’ll just deploy our navy and … oh, hang on a moment … what? We’re completely surrounded by ocean, have all those kilometers of coastline and our navy is …? Really … Oh …
Yeah … alright Sebastian, apparently there’s not much we can do about that then. Embargo it is.
|
|
Edit: Oh yeah, and then order the U.S. Navy to enforce an embargo around Australia, just for the hell of it.What the hell man?
After all we’ve done for you.
We gave you … Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Olivia Newton John … Wolverine, that guy who played the main blue dude in Avatar, half the extras in Lost … we gave John Travolta a job as a pilot in our national airline or something, I’m not clear on the details, we took Oprah off your hands for a couple of weeks a few months back.
Alright then, send your navy … we’ll just deploy our navy and … oh, hang on a moment … what? We’re completely surrounded by ocean, have all those kilometers of coastline and our navy is …? Really … Oh …
Yeah … alright Sebastian, apparently there’s not much we can do about that then. Embargo it is.
Yeah............embargo it is!!!!!!!!!!!
Declare war on the Union! I'm the King o' the North after all ;)
We gave you … Mel Gibson
Not quite true. We gave you Mel Gibson (he's originally from New York) and you sent him back to us.
I'd lament at the number of people who don't understand the limits of presidential authority as enumerated in the Constitution. For example, no president could legally do any of these:
* Fair Tax. Everyone pays in no loop holes.
* Get rid of SSI.
* Make all States "right to work" states.
* End government deficits, no matter how painful the process.
* Legalize gay marraige.
* Establish health care as a basic human right.
Mark, I think you maybe choose to ignore the spirit of the thread, as well as comments like "Assuming I could" and "I'd pimp this agenda"
I think if I (or anyone else) can articulate the benefits of the NRST or ebate its merits, I probably have a decent handle on the fact that I just can't mandate it from my throne.
Now, maybe either a discussion of the tax or other policies proposed by folks, or something silly along the lines of outlaeing Diet Dew. Let's not go picking fights.
1) Outlaw Lobbyism. George Washington was right. All Lobbyists must leave Washington within 90 days (or something) and Lobbyism is illegal immediately.
2) Send all members of the House of Representatives home. Their job is at home, not away from home. Let House members work on local and State laws. The Senate stays in D.C. and works on Federal Law.
Along posts of these lines, you can't ban lobbying. In essence, lobbying is Dmeocracy in action: people pool money and resources to make their case. No one denies there aren't corrupt lobbies or a huge vote-buying machine in DC, but then we don't all agree on who the evil lobbyists are, do we?
How about this instead: Washington operates remotely. Secure channels are used for debate and voting and senators and representatives stay home, surrounded more bny their people than by groomed hotties in little black dresses sent by this union or that coalition.
I mean, not that I have anything against hotties in little black dresses.
EDIT: 6. Surround myself with hotties in little black dresses.
I think that we should all be asking "What would Joss Whedon do as president?"
I think I prefer an Abrams-Whedon ticket.
I think that we should all be asking "What would Joss Whedon do as president?"I think I prefer an Abrams-Whedon ticket.
When Whedon becomes VP, I go into political standup comedy and rip him a new one.
Yeah............embargo it is!!!!!!!!!!!Edit: Oh yeah, and then order the U.S. Navy to enforce an embargo around Australia, just for the hell of it.What the hell man?
After all we’ve done for you.
We gave you … Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Olivia Newton John … Wolverine, that guy who played the main blue dude in Avatar, half the extras in Lost … we gave John Travolta a job as a pilot in our national airline or something, I’m not clear on the details, we took Oprah off your hands for a couple of weeks a few months back.
Alright then, send your navy … we’ll just deploy our navy and … oh, hang on a moment … what? We’re completely surrounded by ocean, have all those kilometers of coastline and our navy is …? Really … Oh …
Yeah … alright Sebastian, apparently there’s not much we can do about that then. Embargo it is.
All in favor?
Aye
Hell no. Solnes needs her TimTams! :P
