BF2S Forums Republicans & demonstrations...

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

You seem to forget that it also goes the other way, who finacially depend on who these days I wonder ... it's good to have friends lowing, sometimes you need them ...

If you choose we can clear all debts owed. Since it is the US who was owed money the longest by the most, lets get us paid off first, then we will pay our debt. I wonder who will gain the most.

It is good to have friens, so why are we in the UN?

The UN is where we as independent nations try to chat out our differences before we rattle the sables ... it's where we agree on global welfare, it's where we try to keep our planet a safe place for everybody ...

The problem with the U.N. is that it's too large.  You'll never get much of a coherent view on things if you have opposing forces in things like the U.N. Security Council.

For example, if the U.K., U.S., France, Germany, and Japan were the 5 permanent members instead of having China and Russia in there, we'd get more done.

The U.N. should be replaced by a mostly Western-centric organization, so that there is more room for agreement.  China and Russia can go form their own alternative organizations.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I have no idea what you're on about.

The US is welcome to withdraw from the UN any time it likes.

Great, problem is I ain't the one to make that call

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you choose we can clear all debts owed. Since it is the US who was owed money the longest by the most, lets get us paid off first, then we will pay our debt. I wonder who will gain the most.

It is good to have friens, so why are we in the UN?

The UN is where we as independent nations try to chat out our differences before we rattle the sables ... it's where we agree on global welfare, it's where we try to keep our planet a safe place for everybody ...

The problem with the U.N. is that it's too large.  You'll never get much of a coherent view on things if you have opposing forces in things like the U.N. Security Council.

For example, if the U.K., U.S., France, Germany, and Japan were the 5 permanent members instead of having China and Russia in there, we'd get more done.

The U.N. should be replaced by a mostly Western-centric organization, so that there is more room for agreement.  China and Russia can go form their own alternative organizations.

Yeah that's kinda the whole point of the UN. It's not just about getting what you want done all the time and rubber stamped by everyone else.

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you choose we can clear all debts owed. Since it is the US who was owed money the longest by the most, lets get us paid off first, then we will pay our debt. I wonder who will gain the most.

It is good to have friens, so why are we in the UN?

The UN is where we as independent nations try to chat out our differences before we rattle the sables ... it's where we agree on global welfare, it's where we try to keep our planet a safe place for everybody ...

The problem with the U.N. is that it's too large.  You'll never get much of a coherent view on things if you have opposing forces in things like the U.N. Security Council.

For example, if the U.K., U.S., France, Germany, and Japan were the 5 permanent members instead of having China and Russia in there, we'd get more done.

The U.N. should be replaced by a mostly Western-centric organization, so that there is more room for agreement.  China and Russia can go form their own alternative organizations.

So what you want is a return to the Warsaw Pact vs NATO era? :confused:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The UN is where we as independent nations try to chat out our differences before we rattle the sables ... it's where we agree on global welfare, it's where we try to keep our planet a safe place for everybody ...

The problem with the U.N. is that it's too large.  You'll never get much of a coherent view on things if you have opposing forces in things like the U.N. Security Council.

For example, if the U.K., U.S., France, Germany, and Japan were the 5 permanent members instead of having China and Russia in there, we'd get more done.

The U.N. should be replaced by a mostly Western-centric organization, so that there is more room for agreement.  China and Russia can go form their own alternative organizations.

Yeah that's kinda the whole point of the UN. It's not just about getting what you want done all the time and rubber stamped by everyone else.

At the same time though, what point is there in having an organization that gets very little done?

Dissent works well within a country, but it's pretty much useless in an international sense.

JohnG@lt wrote:

So what you want is a return to the Warsaw Pact vs NATO era? :confused:

Perhaps.  I just believe that we are too different from many nations of the world to get anything worthwhile done with an arena as inclusive as the U.N.

China and Russia (in particular) seem to get in the way too often.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

TJ was a progressive conservative. (Democratic-Republican)
"Social" really depends on the issue. I'm sure at one point it was considered progressive to own slaves.

True, but I think we can agree that social equality is a liberal concept and much more progressive than the alternatives.

Maybe in terms of illegal immigration and entitlements.. but civil rights (what I was originally talking about) is not at all limited to either ideology. At least not today.

Turquoise wrote:

social liberals

This is a very broad title. You are mixing progressive and liberal without discretion. Again, at one time it was considered progressive to use and own other humans. Even today some so called progressives think it is ok to discriminate and forcibly tax CERTAIN people in to submission so long as it serves the state. The fact that is is not based on race does not mean that they favor equality.

Turquoise wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you choose we can clear all debts owed. Since it is the US who was owed money the longest by the most, lets get us paid off first, then we will pay our debt. I wonder who will gain the most.

It is good to have friens, so why are we in the UN?

The UN is where we as independent nations try to chat out our differences before we rattle the sables ... it's where we agree on global welfare, it's where we try to keep our planet a safe place for everybody ...

The problem with the U.N. is that it's too large.  You'll never get much of a coherent view on things if you have opposing forces in things like the U.N. Security Council.

For example, if the U.K., U.S., France, Germany, and Japan were the 5 permanent members instead of having China and Russia in there, we'd get more done.

The U.N. should be replaced by a mostly Western-centric organization, so that there is more room for agreement.  China and Russia can go form their own alternative organizations.

Yeah ... kick out those that doesn't share our views and our magnificent democracy ...

The point of the UN is to try and get ALL nations to work towards the same goals, what you mention excist already and is called NATO ...

Varegg wrote:

Yeah ... kick out those that doesn't share our views and our magnificent democracy ...

The point of the UN is to try and get ALL nations to work towards the same goals, what you mention excist already and is called NATO ...

And my point is that some nations are too corrupt to consult on these matters.  Obviously, America has its own corruption problems, but we're nowhere near as corrupt as China and Russia or most of the Third World either.

Working toward similar goals doesn't require the U.N. anyway.  If we want to accomplish something with say... Indonesia, we can work with them on a more personal basis.  We don't need a massive organization as an intermediary.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

social liberals

This is a very broad title. You are mixing progressive and liberal without discretion. Again, at one time it was considered progressive to use and own other humans. Even today some so called progressives think it is ok to discriminate and forcibly tax CERTAIN people in to submission so long as it serves the state. The fact that is is not based on race does not mean that they favor equality.

If you're saying that people who favor taxing the rich more are against equality...  well...  here's a thought.

What if your goal is to make everyone equal in wealth?  That's the ultimate equality....

No.. equality should focus on opportunity not wealth. This is because everyone is not equal when it comes to ability, drive, and motivation.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If you're saying that people who favor taxing the rich more are against equality...  well...  here's a thought.

What if your goal is to make everyone equal in wealth?  That's the ultimate equality....

No.. equality should focus on opportunity not wealth. This is because everyone is not equal when it comes to ability, drive, and motivation.

Now this...  I agree with, but the easiest way to even out opportunities is to get the wealthy to fund various amenities that accomplish this.  They have the most influence in our system, so it is essentially an influence tax in favor of more opportunities for the common man.

They also donate hospitals, build schools and roads and donates to science ... they contribute their fair share, overtaxing them makes them pack up and leave to another country that doesn't "rob" them ...

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If you're saying that people who favor taxing the rich more are against equality...  well...  here's a thought.

What if your goal is to make everyone equal in wealth?  That's the ultimate equality....

No.. equality should focus on opportunity not wealth. This is because everyone is not equal when it comes to ability, drive, and motivation.

Now this...  I agree with, but the easiest way to even out opportunities is to get the wealthy to fund various amenities that accomplish this.  They have the most influence in our system, so it is essentially an influence tax in favor of more opportunities for the common man.

Why tax just the wealthy? Isn't opportunity the responsibility of everyone? Shouldn't the middle class pay the price? Why is being poor an automatic free pass to entitlement? We have various welfare support programs as well as grants/scholarships in place. Yes having a family that can pay for extended education is an advantage. But that doesn't mean we should punish the most successful to the point that they can not provide for their own. This type of discrimination resembles wealth envy. I'm all for getting rid of the wink and a nod stuff to gain acceptance/employment. That is where we need to even out the playing field. Selectively taking money from a specific group of people is not equality.