Re: What I would do as a Republican leader

On Jun 2, 9:42 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<464414a9-6d30-4eb7-9fb6-07fa42ffd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 Osiris88 <inde...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 11:00 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<90786f42-ae4b-43aa-9d8d-414270953...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 Osiris88 <inde...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 31, 9:54 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<56904c84-0c86-4ab1-a1fa-7657cf242...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 Osiris88 <inde...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One of these days I'll get off my ass enough to actually make a
difference.  Let's hope soon.  For right now, I am posting here.
Sorry it's so long, but I did try to be brief with each issue.

Allow states to recognize gay marriage.  It's a  foregone conclusion
this will happen in a widespread way.  Morality issues aside, it has
to happen if you believe in states rights.  I have a hard time
believing Jesus wants us to fear and hate homosexuals.

Marriage isn't a "love contract.". It's a survival contract that
guarantees children won't be subjected to what they're subjected to in
today's ghettos.

"Gay marriage" is a scam against insurance and pension providers.
Period.

What about heteros getting married and then falling apart?

That's 20/20 hindsight.

Thanks for your replies to all of this.  I have some more...see below..

You can't build 20/20 foresight into a societal survival mechanism.

However, I can guarantee 20/20 foresight about the likelihood of progeny
resulting from gay marriage.

You know, there's a whole moral versus practical argument there.
Based on what is important to me, morally, and based on how much
energy and time I have, if I were to run for office then stopping gay
marriage wouldn't be on my platform.  I wouldn't be rooting for it,
either, it would be some side show for the likes of Chris Matthews.

It's an attack on your own reason. Sure, they're counting on the fact
that you'll think "it's no skin off my nose. And why not, if that's what
makes them happy?"

That way lies tyranny.

But no one ever thinks to snip the bud. They only think about it when it
blooms into a poisonous flower. And, always, by then, it's far too late.

Marriage isn't denied to gay people. They are as free as anyone else to
participate in all of its benefits.


I agree with this. Furthermore, I wonder about the concept that
making such laws would be in violation of the First Amendment, given
that marriage is a religious institution.

If they only marry someone of the opposite sex. Otherwise, they're not
getting married.

Words mean things. Institutions mean things.


I agree, but now we have churches willing to execute a gay marriage,
so...I don't know what we can do about that. Nothing,thing, really.



Gay marriage is an attack on your pocket book and your financial system.

Less government screwing with business.  Businesses succeed and fail
along with the risks they take.  Bailing out bad business models
weakens the dollar thereby hurting us all in the long run.

Duh. Even Democrats seem to be awakening to this.

You say "duh" but look who everybody just voted for.  It's a message
that needs to be spoken.

Look, most Americans are for a strong defense. Only about a third are
lunatics and international Marxian socialists.

But that third's in power right now.

That'll change.  People thought Carter was the end of the world, too.
But consider this:

He was, and we're still paying for his presidency.

Consider this universally ignored interview:

==Begin Quote==

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his
memoirs, that American intelligence services began to aid the
Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In
this period you were the national security adviser to President
Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid
to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet
army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly
guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979
that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I
wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my
opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to
intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.


That's pretty disturbing. I have to admit that I am too ignorant to
make any meaningful comment on it. What I do know is that Carter was
very idealistic, just like Obama, and it didn't work. I like Carter,
as a person, but I wouldn't support him politically.

==End Quote==

            ---Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
                Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

the worse Obama is, the better, for it will make
the independents see the truth that much more clearly.

There is a virtue in hitting rock bottom. When we've been not paying
attention, or walking around in a daze, that's usually what it takes for
us to wake up.


Ain't that the truth? Some people don't see God until they're flat on
their backs, looking up.



Legalize marijuana.  Relying on intervention from the corrupt state
that is Mexico, fueling the drug cartels, and putting people in prison
for smoking a plant make no sense.  Take the money, use it for
education, take it out of the hands of the cartels.

Drugs are how you perpetuate poverty. You don't "legalize" them, unless
you don't give a damn about the ghettos you keep moving away from and
refuse to drive through.

Studies show the same percentage of people smoke marijuana where it is
legal as where it is not.  In other words, the use probably won't
increase that much.  Maybe if some stopped smoking stuff they wouldn't
be in the ghetto.

Yes, the whole point in a nutshell.

Blaming drugs for keeping people down is removing personal
responsibility.  Remove that and people will get nowhere whether they
are smoking marijuana or not.

You don't let people sell poison to anyone they wish, do you?


Not at all. But, on the other hand, if some guy wants to smoke a
joint, it shouldn't be a problem, IMO. Of course, if we did
decriminalize some things, what would happen is some kid would get
sick, then everyone would cry bloody murder and it would be illegal
again.

However, their illegality needs to be redefined.

Abortion.  You can stop abortion by making it illegal, or you can stop
abortion by ending the need for it.  Change the abortion stance from
legal versus illegal to SEX EDUCATION and stopping unwanted
pregnancies.  Republicans can't be taken seriously if we (I'm still a
Democrat, but for the sake of this post...) are afraid of tits, so no
more outbursts similar to Heather Wilson, no more covering up tits on
statues.

Abortion is murder, dummy. That's not opinion, it's demonstrable fact.

Did you happen to see the results of the last election?  It feels like
maybe you didn't.  You lost ground on that.  New polls show more
people are pro life now than pro choice, but for the sake of
practicality the message has to be molded around preventing
pregnancies, NOT taking away a woman's right.

I don't give a damn about the how the political argument is shaped.

You should give a darn for the greater goal.  Honey versus vinegar.
If we end up with abortion being legal with fewer abortions, that is
better than ignorant people having back alley abortions with a
coathangar.

I understand the power of persuasion and presentation.



Giving a damn about how the political argument is shaped is how you wind
up with Marxian socialists and anarchists burying my children is so much
debt, they'll be begging the government to seize the means of production
by the time they hit the workforce.

Having a good marketing scheme is not the same as capitulating to the
morally inept in this argument.  The women who feel threatened DO care
about the message and how it comes across even if you don't.

It doesn't matter a whit.

Convenience is never a reason to commit murder.


I get this, it's a good point. But my ultimate goal is lowering the
number of dead babies. People are ignorant, and making it illegal
won't stop it. It would make it harder. I'm just trying to find the
most practical approach.

However, as a society, we agree there is such a thing as sanctioned
murder.

Cops and soldiers, for instance, can legally kill under defined
circumstances, without undue fear of legal punishments.

Convenience isn't one of those defined circumstances. Nor should it EVER
be.

Defense.  Strong defense, best, unmatched military capability in the
world, less war.

Too late, I'm afraid. Americans don't want a strong defense anymore.

Sure we do.  I know Obama voters who think we should have the best
defense possible, just not be at war in the Middle East.

In other words, they think the United States should have a strong
defense, she just shouldn't ACTUALLY have a strong defense.

I don't know what that means.  McCain has agreed with Gates'
assessment that we need to restructure.  Why are we building an F-22
and an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at the same time?

The F-22 has essentially been killed, from what I understand.


Yeah.

This is part of:

Energy.  "National Ignition Facility".  Look it up.  Read about it.
Learn it.  Get it.  Dig it.

Fusion is still energy negative.

Not for long, according to the latest test results.  That's why they
call it "ignition" which for them means more energy coming out than
going in.  In the latest experiments they have proven it is possible
to achieve ignition.

Heh.

I won't poo-poo fusion. I just won't hold my breath.

Well, read this:
https://lasers.llnl.gov/publications/photons_fusion/2009/march_april.php

"As an exercise to integrate the improvements made from the 20 shots,
we performed three simulated ignition experiments," Edwards said. "Two
of the shots successfully ignited, producing four and 14 megajoules of
energy, compared to 19 megajoules for a perfect target capsule
implosion. The third target failed to ignite. Achieving ignition in
two of the three attempts was a very encouraging result. It has given
us confidence that the techniques and experiments we have been
planning should in principle achieve their objectives."

I'll get exited at the appropriate time, I promise.

Crime.  Drug and alcohol offenders get treatment instead of jail time,
unless they hurt somebody.  Free up space for violent offenders,
rapists, molesters.

Incarceration isn't the answer for ANY offenders.

So, what?  Break the law, nothing happens?

No, that's what you have with a system of incarceration.

Or you mean all efforts
should be based on rehabilitation?

It's not my responsibility to rehabilitate other people.

Middle East.  Urge creation of Palestinian state in spite of Hamas.
Support Israel 100% when Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran screw up.

Too late, I'm afraid. Americans don't want Israel to exist anymore.

I disagree.

Correction, the anarchists and marxists who control the government and
who hold editorial power over the media: THEY don't want Israel to exist.

That's hardly "America" in total. It's just the Americans who have the
power to help or hinder--but THEIR opinion counts.

North Korea.  No more tolerating threats.  We need to inform, not
negotiate with, China that we will not tolerate North Korea's
threatening behavior towards South Korea or Japan.  Setting off
nuclear bombs and then us being forced back to the table is not
acceptable.

To whom?

Us.

Define "us."

"Us" being the United States of America.  U.S., if you like. ;)

Pure arrogance like that will get you hated like Bush and Cheney.


Yeah no kidding.



Global warming.  Too late to stop its effect on climate change,

Because the climate was changing without man.

No, this doesn't make any sense.  Humans do have an observable impact
on the environment.

Not really. What can be attributed to mankind is negligible.

Yes.

About half of the warming of the 20th century carries the signature of
radiative forcing.

Only a third of that can be attributed to mankind.

Man's "observable impact" is mere background noise. The warming itself
is negligible--and has ceased.

But as I point out, regarding global warming,
that's neither here nor there as per natural climate change and new
forms of energy as mentioned above.

New sources of energy are always in order. Except for the ones which
can't compete with petroleum and coal in joules.

Yeah but nobody wants to burn coal or turn it into gas like Germany
did even though we have enough for at least 200 years.

The idea is to destroy America and the American ideal of exceptionalism.

No new oil. No nuclear power. Ban coal.

Reduce the available joules and you reduce EVERYTHING. That way lies the
hell of the science fiction writers who predicted Soylent Green by 2009.

You can believe those zero growth enviro-marxists have the "best
intentions" if you want.

Me, I'm not a mind reader. I treat threatening behavior the same, no
matter if it's done with the "best intentions" or not.

we
must focus our abilities on adapting.  Change our thinking.  For
example, Norway has a stash of all seeds in case of a global
disaster.  We need to start thinking that way more instead of thinking
we can stop climate change from happening.  Let's say we achieve
useful fusion and somehow we never use any fossil fuels again, the
effects won't be stopped even then.  So we have to learn to adapt
while developing cleaner energy.  China and India are going to burn
fuel even if we stop.

EVen so, this still won't effect the climate in any significant way.

Science/Space/Research.  We need to initiate a global, international
effort to get to Mars.

Is there Inca gold or oil deposits on Mars?

Exploration is part of human nature.  Who knows, we may need to put
humans on another world at some point in the distant future.

It won't be Mars.

You may not really have realistic concept of how far away it is.

Oh I'm very realistic.  I'm not talking about transporting the human
race on a glorified bus to Mars.  I'm talking about a few going there
as a last ditch effort if it is needed for the species.  And I'm also
talking about 400 years from now, not today.

Let's say you had to spend $75 billion and it took a year and half to
travel to...Mt. Everest. At most, that $75 billion will only allow four
of you to go at a time.

Why would you go?

"To save humanity?"

On Mt. Everest?


I'm hoping that in 400 years we will be able to make some sort of
livable environment. If that's not the case, then, no, there would be
no point in going.



We need to consolidate more science efforts.
Having different teams in different countries doing the same research
is a waste of time and resources.  At the same time, however, we need
to use saved resources for thinking outside of the box.  So, while
there is a risk that on any issue we may be moving in the wrong
direction, there is the ability and capacity to recognize it and make
the appropriate changes.   More funding for DARPA.

More funding for DARPA?

They don't get enough funding in my opinion compared with the total
defense budget.

Perhaps not.

Torture.  No more rendition, as Obama is doing.  It's either
acceptable under certain circumstances or it's not.  If it's not, then
no rendition.  If it is, we do the dirty work ourselves.  We look
silly having a debate over releasing detainee photos while at once
saying that torture is wrong but rendition is OK.

Except no one's been tortured, and even you are perpetuating the myths.

Haha.  Uh, hello?  Yes, we have tortured people.  It's an observed
fact.

Other than the brutish louts at Abu Ghraib who'd mistakenly been given
US military uniforms, there hasn't been any torture. Extraordinary
rendition aside.

There's been no torture committed at Guantanamo Naval Base, for instance.

I'm not talking about Gitmo or abu Grhaib.  I'm talking about the
three guys we waterboarded and the secret sites and rendition.  We
need to make up our minds if it's OK or not.  I make a distinction
between poorly trained grunts fucking with inmates and doing whatever
it takes to get information from high-value prisoners.

I agree that, in the long run, the dialogue is a good thing for us all.


It is. And I know people who voted for Obama who do approve of using
such techniques, just nobody on this group.



Illegal immigration.  It's illegal and should stay that we or our
borders mean nothing.  Illegal aliens that are caught are deported.
If they have kids born here, the governors of the respective states
will have to make a case by case decision about what to do with them
so that we can be fair but not controlled by being overrun by anchor
babies.  States will have to determine if these individuals are
classified as refugees or not, and act accordingly.  This will be done
in concert with securing the border.

Actually having to earn the franchise might eliminate the "illegal
immigration" issue altogether.

Being born here is hardly a rational criteria for citizenship.

But the issue is, if a kid is born here, do you deport the parents and
not the kid, or everybody?

I'm talking about ANYONE born here, even by parents who are both full US
citizens.

Where would you even deport someone like that?

I was still talking about Mexicans.  So, Mexico.

I'm talking about EVERYONE born here. Just because the location of your
mother's vagina happened to be at a certain latitude and longitude when
you decided to pop out...well, how does THAT give you a moral right to
citizenship?


Well, that's really a great question. We are physical beings, in
physical space. Some of our ancestors arrived here by wanting to find
a new future, so they went over the ocean, which is also in the
natural spirit of exploration. But it's not the land that matters,
like you say, but the ideas of the people who live in that given
area. We could apply our ideas to the whole world, and not have any
borders. I would love that, but how realistic is it? I think we have
to look at the evolution of human civilization. Wanderers coagulate
into groups based on common interests and the availability of food and
water. Philosophy grows and we establish states, then empires, all
originally based on survival, then on ideas. The final new discovery
led to the United States; there is no new land to discover. So
everything that led to people moving around has come to an end, and we
now sit looking at a complete world. What do we do now? What is the
next logical step? I think we are in that philosophical battle right
now. Where do humans go from here? The only way I would tolerate
open borders and open citizenship is if the other people agreed with
my ideas. it sounds great, but I honestly do not know what is next.



Evolution and religion.  Evolution should be taught in schools, but
not at the expense of God or spirituality.  Teaching creationism in
schools would mean we have to teach the creation myths of all the
cultures represented at a given school, as Truth is not based on the
majority.  This is not practical or fair.  But evolution should not be
taught as something that is anti-religion, and prayer should be
allowed as long as it is done around the schedule of the school..

Attempting to make this the purview of the federal government is your
first mistake.

That's just my opinion and the states can do what they will.

Not yet, but there's hope. Not from the Supreme Court, of course, but
there's hope out there on the horizon.

National service.  We don't need to force national service, civilian
or military, but we should raise the generic, relative education
standard from high school to a bachelor's degree.  Entrance to college
should be something that is taught the same we we teach "you have to
at least graduate high school".   We should have greater incentives
for young men and women to engage in service out of school.

How about making citizenship contingent upon national service?

You mean like in Starship Troopers?

Robert Heinlein...the book, not the nazi nightmare of Vanderhoven.

I never read the whole book, but I did read Between Planets.  You have
to admit the movie had a certain fruity fascism and was rather
enjoyable, although his wife said it was not a good translation, to
your point. Paul Verhoeven has a history of mocking us from the left,
but he is talented.

If you say so. I don't even care enough to spell his name correctly.

My boys LOVE those movies, btw. I might have enjoyed them were they
titled anything else.


Well he did Robocop and and some other stuff. Very cynical and
humorous.

In other words, those born here are "legal residents," but without
franchise. Once a legal resident reaches majority age, he remains a
legal resident until he performs national service (military, or other).

I'd be interested in exploring that idea, the pros and the cons of
it.  Sounds interesting.

National service would be completely voluntary, needn't be completed,
and, while no one (young, old, fit, sickly) is denied a chance to sign
up for service, no one gets to decide beforehand what that service will
be. You go and do what you're told to do for the duration.

I'm not sure about that.

Of course not. No one ever would be.

If you have a guy like me who is a graphic
designer, you don't want to waste that ability by having him dig
ditches.  I think you could apply for various interests, and then let
the chips fall.

Army needs graphic designers, pal.

Do they need 38 year-old graphic designers?

In the system I'm describing, age isn't a valid roadblock to citizenship.

You go where they tell you, and you do what you're told to do.

You have to give something up in order to receive something in return.

Something as valuable and critical as citizenship...well, the price
should be pretty high, n'est ce pas?


Well of course. But I think it opens a floodgate. A large chunk of
the whole world would want to come here under those circumstances.
And, maybe you are right and that is the future of the evolution of
civilization. But I would'nt begin to know how it would work or how
we'd be able to support those people. We have resources, and that has
a lot to do with population growth. How many people can we sustain?



Once the service completed satisfactorily, one receives the franchise,
and can vote or run for office.

This way, only those who have a stake in the franchise are allowed to
participate in it.

Hence, illegal immigration becomes highly irrelevant.

The problem with that is, every Mexican would be over here and we'd
have to take care of them, it would be a mess.  No matter what our
service is, we need to control who crosses our borders.

They don't get to vote. In fact, no one gets to vote until they've put
an ante on the table.

People who've a stake in the game aren't gonna be "forced" into taking
care of any squatter or freeloader who happens to arrive here. That's
not how human beings operate.

The legal residents get whatever the franchisees decide they get.
Illegal aliens get the boot, or they can apply for legal residency.

Non issue either way.

General philosophy.  The GOP needs to open up to the Christian idea of
embracing the so-called wretches of society instead of acting morally
superior to them.  I would venture that most Christians are good
Christians, but the 8 years under the Bush administration showed
almost nothing but arrogance.  You (we) won't inspire positive changes
in people with a holier-than-thou-attitude, and that is what is
represented over the last few years.  Being right doesn't mean you
have the green light to be a ***.

"Arrogance" is hardly an appropriate description of Dubya or his
presidency.

At least not in the way you intend.

Every press conference or interview with Cheney, Rummsfeld, those
guys, they were arrogant.

That's just perception manipulation.

Possibly, given that I didn't vote for Bush either time.  But they
came across like, you are idiots for even asking such questions.
Indeed many in the press are idiots but it goes back to the
presentation.  You really have to give a *** if your customers like
you if you want to sell a product.

The questions they were asked, and the way the questions were framed,
were often beyond contempt.


Well, that's true.



Also, the case with Terri Schiavo and Bill
Frist making the diagnosis from a tape, that was arrogant behavior.

As compared to the humble behavior of the Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge,
Hoover, the Roosevelt who got elected "President for Life, Truman,
Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and
Obama?

Heh.

The bottom line is, the Republican ideas are good, but the
presentation is bad and that's exactly what I am getting at with my
ideas in this thread.

I don't give a damn about the presentation. I don't give a damn about
your perceptions or anyone else's.

You should.  Communication is part of the battle of getting any idea
across.

Graphic designer should understand that better than most. It's been one
of my careers, btw.


That's what I do.



I give a damn about the United States and my Constitution.

They aren't gonna paint you with a happy face, no matter how you present
yourself.

Any hopeful leader has to know how to communicate.  Ever think about
how the most popular president, Reagan, is called the "Great
Communicator"?  That's because he understood the value of speaking to
the perspective of the adversary.  I think the Soviet Union would
agree with me on this.

The reason Ronald Reagan was known as the Great Communicator, is because
he had thoroughly thought out his system of morals, and was completely
convinced that system was logical and practical when practiced in the
real world.

Liberals, on the other hand, spend most of their time attempting to
convince people they aren't really liberals. Because statism and modern
liberalism are not practical, nor logical, and completely discredited
outside academia.


I've noticed this. And I know it because I used to be a liberal
before I evolved to the point where my head was no longer up my ass.



Either doing the right thing wins in the end, or it doesn't.

Sometimes it doesn't, in which case you keep trying.  That's life,
right?

Absolutetootely.

Right now, the Republican party should continue to offer alternatives
to Democrats instead of trying to say NO to everything.  Republicans
got voted out of office for a very fair reason and right now the best
thing to do is clear up the message, get rid of Neocons, and reach out
to Democratic adversaries, even if they say no thanks.  People will
come back around, but we have to be patient.

This isn't the time for patience, chump.

Calling people chump isn't going to help the GOP.

That doesn't change the fact that this is not the time for patience.

Patience is a virtue, impatience is a waste of valuable energy.

Not when Rome is burning, Nero.


I gotta say, that's a great point.



.