cicerone imposter wrote:okie, When will you learn the politics and logical thought process is an oxymoron? Will YOU ever learn?
Yes, and current events and history don't seem to turn out all that logical either. Seems like events, politics, and history, are all part of something kind of like a river, and all that are involved are sort of swept along with the flow of things. Only once in a while comes along an extraordinary individual that makes a difference, and perhaps even those individuals and events are merely part of the world stage as it unfolds before us.
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:okie, When will you learn the politics and logical thought process is an oxymoron? Will YOU ever learn?
Yes, and current events and history don't seem to turn out all that logical either. Seems like events, politics, and history, are all part of something kind of like a river, and all that are involved are sort of swept along with the flow of things. Only once in a while comes along an extraordinary individual that makes a difference, and perhaps even those individuals and events are merely part of the world stage as it unfolds before us.
You mean like Bush, Saddam and Hitler?
Politics and politicians are topics of great confusion for most people. Why people vote for one individual over the other have been studied adnauseam, but with no real solutions - as we have seen during the last two presidential elections - and longer. People we think are intelligent turn out to be some of the worst president on record, while the ones with the chrisma turn out pretty good. Party politics have become so divisive in this country, it's hard to separate who the good guys and bad guys are - not only politicians but voters too. It's a big mess; that's all I'm sure of today.
But this big mess leads to conflict and conflict is what humans seem to feed on. The competition of ideas. To make things really exciding you need a nut case. We got one with an overly religious dry drunk sitting in the White House.
What greater diversity can be created then having an ex-alcoholic religious nut case lead a secular nation.
cicerone imposter wrote:Politics and politicians are topics of great confusion for most people. Why people vote for one individual over the other have been studied adnauseam, but with no real solutions - as we have seen during the last two presidential elections - and longer. People we think are intelligent turn out to be some of the worst president on record, while the ones with the chrisma turn out pretty good. Party politics have become so divisive in this country, it's hard to separate who the good guys and bad guys are - not only politicians but voters too. It's a big mess; that's all I'm sure of today.
You have some examples?
In my opinion, elected politicians are more or less a reflection of the current state of society, so given the current situation, I don't look for great improvements in the future. If the citizenry is uninformed and naive about issues and poor judges of character, how can they vote intelligently? Many people grossly misjudge marriage partners, and after married, find out their Mr. Wonderful or Mrs. Wonderful are scumbags, or at least untrustworthy, so how in the world can they claim to know anything about politicians, whom they have never met?
Not to brag or anything, and I've not always been that wise, but my judgement of spousal material has turned out to be one of the best decisions ever made. Perhaps some luck was involved.
Well, in fairness, how can you go wrong marrying your sister?
blacksmithn wrote:Well, in fairness, how can you go wrong marrying your sister?
I am quite sure your parents are happy that you decided to not stray too far out of the family tree, but I fail to see how that relates to the conversation.
Please try to keep up in the future.
okie wrote:
You have some examples?
All the examples are there for you to see almost daily, and its been going on since Bush II took over the white house. If you fail to see it, I doubt very much anybody can show it to you.
McGentrix wrote:blacksmithn wrote:Well, in fairness, how can you go wrong marrying your sister?
I am quite sure your parents are happy that you decided to not stray too far out of the family tree, but I fail to see how that relates to the conversation.
Please try to keep up in the future.
McG, this note from your spouse seems to have made it onto the internet. You might want to check your security software. Sorry to hear about your sexual dysfunction.
blacksmithn wrote:McGentrix wrote:blacksmithn wrote:Well, in fairness, how can you go wrong marrying your sister?
I am quite sure your parents are happy that you decided to not stray too far out of the family tree, but I fail to see how that relates to the conversation.
Please try to keep up in the future.
McG, this note from your spouse seems to have made it onto the internet. You might want to check your security software. Sorry to hear about your sexual dysfunction.
I was referring to your comment. It's fine you married your sister and I hope you are both happy. At first, I thought you were referring to MysteryMan, but then that would have been against the TOS and I would have felt the need to report your post. When I realized it was just an admission of your particular family relations it was a burden lifted from my shoulders.
You should try to keep those admissions to yourself though. You never know when they will be used against you.
McGentrix wrote:blacksmithn wrote:McGentrix wrote:blacksmithn wrote:Well, in fairness, how can you go wrong marrying your sister?
I am quite sure your parents are happy that you decided to not stray too far out of the family tree, but I fail to see how that relates to the conversation.
Please try to keep up in the future.
McG, this note from your spouse seems to have made it onto the internet. You might want to check your security software. Sorry to hear about your sexual dysfunction.
I was referring to your comment. It's fine you married your sister and I hope you are both happy. At first, I thought you were referring to MysteryMan, but then that would have been against the TOS and I would have felt the need to report your post. When I realized it was just an admission of your particular family relations it was a burden lifted from my shoulders.
You should try to keep those admissions to yourself though. You never know when they will be used against you.
McG, check your security please. Now this note from your grandfather has found it's way online!
okie wrote:However, the term, "independent," seems to be a good cover for not admitting to be a liberal for lots of liberals.
I completely disagree. Independents have historically voted conservative and not liberal. In the current climate, however, with a "conservative" party that consistently fails to practice what it preaches and that has begun to lean extremist, anyone who no longer can stomach it is percieved as a liberal by those who are still faithful. We have discussed this curiosity of political identification here before, and when it's all said and done, independents are rarely identified as liberal, except by those who identify everyone who is "other" as liberal, as I guess they need to.
Free Duck, Well said, and thank you. I've voted for both democrats and republicans - mainly looking at the person who most resembles my beliefs - and trust.
FreeDuck wrote:okie wrote:However, the term, "independent," seems to be a good cover for not admitting to be a liberal for lots of liberals.
I completely disagree. Independents have historically voted conservative and not liberal. In the current climate, however, with a "conservative" party that consistently fails to practice what it preaches and that has begun to lean extremist, anyone who no longer can stomach it is percieved as a liberal by those who are still faithful. We have discussed this curiosity of political identification here before, and when it's all said and done, independents are rarely identified as liberal, except by those who identify everyone who is "other" as liberal, as I guess they need to.
I don't know the percentage of independents that go one way or the other. Thats why I used "lots of liberals," rather than saying a majority do. I don't know, and I am sure it varies from one election to another. I based my comment on listening to many people that claim to be independent, but their opinions are often liberal. Not always of course. You are a good example. Claiming to be independent is a slick way of claiming you are unbiased and above the fray, so to speak, and therefore smarter and more balanced than what the parties stand for. By the way, I don't agree with the Republican Party on everything, far from it, but you say it is leaning "extremist" if I interpret your comments correctly. I think that is a preposterous accusation. It is only a tactic or attempt by the left to demonize the party.
I personally think both parties have lost their way, the Democrats much worse than the Republicans, but it appears to be a popularity free for all, in trying to be all things to all people in order to win elections. And a large proportion of people fall for it; thats what they want. No understanding or commitment to what the government should do rather than what it can and will do for us. It is now reaching the point where almost 50% of the population pays no income tax whatsoever, and in fact many receive more money than they pay, so why wouldn't they vote according to whatever they can receive, with no regard as to whether that is the proper role of government. The non-payers can outvote the payers. If you wish to talk about greed, that would be a good place to start. Rich people and companies that produce much of the goods and services are now the evil people in this society.
I have never claimed to be "smarter" than anybody. My choice to become an independent was the last choice before being a democrat and one time and a republican in another.
The extremist politics of both parties just turned me off, and the convergence of politics between the two parties have been lost some years ago. If you think Bush represents republicanism, you just don't understand party politics. Even though Clinton was a democrat, his position was more moderate, so I voted for him. I'd still vote for John McCain if he runs as of today, but things could change before the next presidential election.
As I've said before, I can be an extremist democrat or republican depending on the issue. One of those is universal health care which I support for our country; a liberal issue. I believe in small government and less government intrusion into our lives; a republican issue.
okie wrote:
I don't know the percentage of independents that go one way or the other.
According to recent elections, independents vote mostly for Republicans. But I don't have percentages handy to back that up.
Quote:Claiming to be independent is a slick way of claiming you are unbiased and above the fray, so to speak, and therefore smarter and more balanced than what the parties stand for.
I don't really think it's about all that. We have only two parties to choose from in this country. Many of us don't think we should be forced to identify with one of two choices. Others don't believe either party represents our or the country's best interest and still others believe it's all about the money and that political parties are nothing more than an illusion for the masses. But I don't think any of us independents think that we're better than others because of it. And if Republicans at this point in time weren't so willing to label every dissenter as a liberal, we wouldn't even need to identify ourselves as such.
Quote: By the way, I don't agree with the Republican Party on everything, far from it, but you say it is leaning "extremist" if I interpret your comments correctly. I think that is a preposterous accusation. It is only a tactic or attempt by the left to demonize the party.
Well, calling it a "tactic by the left" implies that either I am acting on behalf of "the left" or that I am easily duped by such tactics and didn't arrive at that conclusion on my own. There is nothing moderate about the Republican party as it stands today, in practice anyway.
Quote:It is now reaching the point where almost 50% of the population pays no income tax whatsoever, and in fact many receive more money than they pay, so why wouldn't they vote according to whatever they can receive, with no regard as to whether that is the proper role of government.
I'm going to have to ask you for a source to back this up. If it's true, it would imply that 50% of the population is at or below the poverty line, which would mean the economy was really in the shitter. It would also imply that people vote according to their self interest, which I don't have any reason to believe, but if it's true it means the other 50% of the population are greedy bastards.
Quote:The non-payers can outvote the payers. If you wish to talk about greed, that would be a good place to start. Rich people and companies that produce much of the goods and services are now the evil people in this society.
Most people don't believe that rich people and profitable companies are evil, but we recognize that there must be a balance. If the Democrats represent the extreme of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the Republicans represent the opposite -- taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Most people like the idea of tax breaks which is why the Republicans have always done well. However, as it always is in politics, what we think we get and we actually get are not compatible. In order to go into more detail, though, we should take this conversation to another thread.
Quote:It is now reaching the point where almost 50% of the population pays no income tax whatsoever
Sheesh, maybe that's because almost 50% of the population
combined make the same amount of money as the top 1%.
It's amazing how you've tried to turn around the growing gap between the rich and the poor to blame the poor for the fact that they don't have any money for us to tax!
Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter wrote:
As I've said before, I can be an extremist democrat or republican depending on the issue. One of those is universal health care which I support for our country; a liberal issue. I believe in small government and less government intrusion into our lives; a republican issue.
So much for consistency! You are humorous, cicerone. As I said, you are all over the map, but thats all over the map on one issue.
Don't you just love the way this administration treats our wounded vets?
GAO Says Government Pesters Wounded Soldiers Over Debts
By Donna St. George
The Washington Post
Thursday 27 April 2006
Nearly 900 soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have been saddled with government debts as
they have recovered from war, according to a report that describes collection notices going out to
veterans with brain damage, paralysis, lost limbs and shrapnel wounds.
The report from the Government Accountability Office, to be released at a hearing today,
details how long-recognized problems with military computer systems led to the soldiers being
dunned for an array of debts related to everything from errors in paychecks to equipment left
behind on the battlefield.
The problem came to light last year, as soldiers' complaints began to surface and several
lawmakers became involved. The GAO had been investigating other pay problems caused by the defense
accounting system and was asked by Congress to investigate debts among the battle-wounded.
The new report shows a problem more widespread than previously known.
"We found that hundreds of separated battle-injured soldiers were pursued for collection of
military debts incurred through no fault of their own," the report said.
Last fall, the Army said 331 soldiers had been hit with military debt after being wounded at
war. The latest figures show that a larger group of 900 battle- wounded troops has been tagged with
debts.
"It's unconscionable," said Ryan Kelly, 25, a retired staff sergeant who lost a leg to a
roadside bomb and then spent more than a year trying to fend off a debt of $2,231. "It's sad that
we'd let that happen."
Kelly recalled the day in 2004 when, months after learning to walk on a prosthesis, he opened
his mailbox to find a letter saying he was in debt to the government - and in jeopardy of referral
to a collection agency. "It hits you in the gut," he said. "It's like, 'Thanks for your service,
and now you owe us.'"
The underlying problem is an antiquated computer system for paying and tracking members of the
military. Pay records are not integrated with personnel records, creating numerous errors. When
soldiers leave the battlefield, for example, they lose a pay differential, but the system can take
time to lower their pay.
The government then tries to recoup overpayments, docking pay for active-duty troops and
sending debt notices to those who have left the military. Eventually, the government sends private
agencies to collect debts and notifies credit bureaus.
The computer system is so broken that 400 soldiers killed in action were listed as owing money
to the government, although no debt notices were sent, the report said.
A total of $1.5 million in debts has been linked to the 400 fallen soldiers and 900 wounded
troops. Of the total, $124,000 has been repaid. The government has waived $959,000, and the
remainder of $420,000 is still owed.
Michael Hurst, a former Army finance officer in Arlington who has studied the issue, said the
military should have taken action years ago to prevent the debts from being created.
"It's a complete leadership failure," he said. "We can't expect the soldiers to notice
mistakes in their pay that the paid professionals have failed to notice and correct."
Although the GAO report focuses on battle-wounded soldiers who have separated from the
military, there are probably others who were still on active duty when their debts caught up with
them, Hurst said. Factoring those in, "I would say thousands" are affected by the problem, he
said.
The GAO report said that 73 percent of the debts were caused by pay problems, including
overpayments, calculation errors and mistakes in leave. Other debts were created when soldiers
were billed for enlistment bonuses, medical services, travel and lost equipment.
House Government Reform Committee Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), who is holding the
hearing, has called the phenomenon "financial friendly fire." Yesterday, his spokesman, Robert
White, reacted to the report, saying: "Literally adding insult to injury, the systems that are
supposed to nurture and support returning warriors too often inflict additional wounds to their
financial health."
In one case cited in the GAO report, the debts meant that a soldier's family had no money to
pay bills and had to send an 11-year-old daughter to live out of state.
At today's hearing, Army and Defense Department officials are expected to testify about what
is being done to correct the problem. A database of soldiers wounded in action has been created,
but the GAO suggested that more needs to be done, including congressional action to forgive more
soldiers' debts and provide refunds in certain cases.
Previously the GAO had issued 80 recommendations for improving the Army payroll processes.
Army officials have said they are at work on those recommendations. An Army spokesman did not
return calls yesterday requesting comment.
