I guess since you've thoroughly lost this argument, you want to dig up an older one where you think you won?

Here's what you're characterizing as "evidence you believe in Nazism on a 'visceral level'":

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.

I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.

I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.

Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22). The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.

However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.

I've heard a lot about lobbyists in the USA and i'm starting to think it's an understated and covered up problem over here, or at least a growing one. Over here voting levels are very low, not many turn out to vote, and i think it's because of the lack of belief in the system - we always get lied to, but who are the liars in power this time?

As for weed legalisation, it's just the unpopular drug. Tobacco, alcohol - these are more harmful, but weed is just unpopular. This also ties into politics - last time i checked a 'democracy', if weed was popular and people wanted it, it would become legal yet we are forced to see people fined huge amounts and jailed depending on how much you have. We also have a case of Britain's TOP drug advisor saying "Weed and extacy are less harmful than drinking and smoking." -- this man was asked to be a drug advisor, he was asked his expert opinion and when he GAVE them his expert opinion they fired him! Get a new expert who will lie but say what we want him to say i guess.

Finally; that's the problem i guess. Prisoners should not be left idle, and it's good for them to stay active and also pay their own way + give them what's left over. But the people in charge are not trustworthy. So they get us to agree in principle, and then change the details when they implement.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
i agree and thats what my response was aiming at.
that so many who tacitly accept the fact and dehumanize "prisoners" without even looking into what a "prisoner" actually is.i was attempting to clarify that while we need prisons for those who are violent and are a detriment to society there is a vast population of non-violent offenders where jail does little more than fill the cell.corporate prisons are for-profit and has little to do with "rehabilitation" or "punishment" but everything to do with profits.these are the prisoners i was talking about,not the rapist or the armed bank robber but johnny slacker who dealt a little bit of weed.

the prison system has quietly become the 9th largest lobbyist in washington.they own and control 70% of americas prisons.it is not in their best interest to legalize weed or change the sentencing structure towards leniency.they actively pursue agressive laws and sentencing because it serves their interests.the public has little to do with their objectives.

as for the forced labor.i agree that idle minds can be a bad thing and keeping busy is a good thing.i dont agree that prisoners should be forced to participate in labor that benefits not only the corporate prisons but defense contractors as well.there are a few federal prisons that offer work and training for prisoners to learn a trade that pays a living wage but they are few and availability is limited.

2.3 million for a prison population is a city.the societal ramifications will not be felt for quite a few years but i would be willing to bet the outcome will not be positive.
in any case...thanks for clarifying and responding.
till next time.
namaste.

i agree and thats what my response was aiming at.
that so many who tacitly accept the fact and dehumanize "prisoners" without even looking into what a "prisoner" actually is.i was attempting to clarify that while we need prisons for those who are violent and are a detriment to society there is a vast population of non-violent offenders where jail does little more than fill the cell.corporate prisons are for-profit and has little to do with "rehabilitation" or "punishment" but everything to do with profits.these are the prisoners i was talking about,not the rapist or the armed bank robber but johnny slacker who dealt a little bit of weed.

the prison system has quietly become the 9th largest lobbyist in washington.they own and control 70% of americas prisons.it is not in their best interest to legalize weed or change the sentencing structure towards leniency.they actively pursue agressive laws and sentencing because it serves their interests.the public has little to do with their objectives.

as for the forced labor.i agree that idle minds can be a bad thing and keeping busy is a good thing.i dont agree that prisoners should be forced to participate in labor that benefits not only the corporate prisons but defense contractors as well.there are a few federal prisons that offer work and training for prisoners to learn a trade that pays a living wage but they are few and availability is limited.

2.3 million for a prison population is a city.the societal ramifications will not be felt for quite a few years but i would be willing to bet the outcome will not be positive.
in any case...thanks for clarifying and responding.
till next time.
namaste.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^ipfreely:
Well, instead of feeling sorry for these prisoners. Lets find out about these "Forced Labor Camp"
Has anyone actually spoken to these prisoners and gotten their views about this? No? Then lets not sit here and feeling sorry for them.
Forced labor? more like "Here are some job skills you can learn, maybe kill 8 hours of your life that you are going to lose anyway. Make the best of it instead of being forced to sit in your jail cell or walking around in a yard."
Or maybe "Hey, want to help America? Produce some much needed equipment for American soldiers. Make yourself feel good about yourself."
I'm pretty sure they are treated much better than some third world sweatshop child laborer.
Lets not lose any sympathy for the prisoners. Save them for the kids who have really no choice in real world.

I wonder why this comment recieved 3 downvotes. Honestly think whilst you read my post, don't simply react and go "SLAVERY BAAAAAD".
We are, after all, talking about people who we take out of society and lock in a cage. If we lock a human in a cage and deny them their freedom if not their life, why are we suddenly so indignant when we are getting work out of them? Is the work bit so bad compared to the cage bit?
Imprisoning someone, locking them in a cage, taking away their life and freedom - YAYYY, GOOD!
Forcing someone to work in reasonable conditions with shitty pay - NOOOO, TERRIBLE!
Just food for thought, guys. Obviously we need prisons to stop people hurting others, but after i stopped for a minute and thought about it, it just made me wonder:
a) why we all feel so indignant about the 'slavery' over the 'bondage'
b) why we lock people up for carrying or using drugs - surely we should lock them up IF we catch them in the act of stealing/harming others to feed their drug habit or tossing away dangerous needles/chemicals unsafely, but other than this, why do we need to lock these people in a cage? They only hurt themselves.
...well, ok they may 'hurt' their relatives too, but so do smokers, drinkers, gamblers and over-eaters.


your argument would be pertinent and concise if we didnt consider a few facts:
1.the prison system is no longer about rehabilitation or punishment but much more to do with corporate business and politics.
2.labor camps would not be an issue if A.the labor was voluntary B.defense contractors and corporations didnt profit from this labor and C.they were actually being taught skills which could translate to a job with livable wages (there are a few prisons which offer this but they are a minority and have limited openings and availability).

one more point i would like to make concerning your argument.
you create a false premise by making it out to seem that others only have a problem with the forced labor issue but not with the actual incarceration.
this is patently false.nobody is saying that violent criminals,thieves or drug dealers should not be punished and removed from society.what we ARE saying is that non-violent offenders,petty thieves and pot smokers should not be spending years in a penitentiary and then,as an example, being forced to labor for the profit of a giant defense contractor,who reaps huge profits.

let me conclude with a few things to think about:
we find ourselves in a dilemma.on the one hand america is incarcerating more people than the rest of the world combined and the majority for non-violent offenses.
on the other hand we have created a HUGE prison industry which employs millions of people to keep it running.sometimes whole townships entire economy is based on a single federal prison.
so what do we do?
if we legalize weed and change it from a type A narcotic to a mush lesser class we would effectively diminish the prison population on a massive scale.this means lost revenue for corporate run prisons and means major unemployment which could devastate entire communities.
this is the dilemma and to me it is a moral one but there is no easy answer.

In the past year, Republicans have done everything in thier power to block health care that could cost in the upwards of one trillion US dollars over ten years. Conservatives, leave out the 'over ten years' part, since that would undermine their agenda. They had no problem with a defense budget of $640 billion for 2009, nor one for $670 billion for 2010. Also, they did not see any problem paying for the Iraq war's price tag of $3 trillion over six years (that's $500 billion/year). Go look it up, if you dont believe me.

When compared to the rest of the world, America pays more for national defense, then the next eight largest militaries in the world (Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Egypt, China, South Korea). When the 2009 bill came up about ten months ago, it sailed through the Senate & House without an ounce of debate or complaint from Republicans. But the moment, we start spending money on US Citizens, who are not defense contractors, they go ballistic!

Next time you talk to your republican congressman, ask him or her, where those WMD's we were suppose to find in Iraq are? You know, the whole reason why we went to Iraq and spent $3 trillion dollars over six years? I know, getting anything from a republican congressman beyond a wave from 80 feet, means you 'donating' $2+ million dollars to their re-election chest....

Ya, my friend and I were war gaming about this the other day, running things out to their logical limits. I have no doubt that the spending we did during the cold war most likely kept us safer then not spending it. However, it seems the when one nation finally "looses" and can't afford to keep up the game anymore, the power structure on the other side can't ever dislodge itself. The result is the spending that wasn't meant to last forever does, and the self destruction of that nation is destined as well.

In other words, the rise of two super powers means the eventual fall of two. It is a form of entropy related to the unstable condition they educe in each other. It might very well be that the cost of long term success is eventual failure; that all systems, no matter how good, if they intend to survive will end up imploding. It was kind of a neat topic

In reply to this comment by jwray:
Defense contractors get public money
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands

And so on. That's why our military spending is outrageously inefficient and excessive, and we keep fighting wars that are irrelevant or counterproductive to our national security. No-bid contracts and cost-plus contracts should be explicitly forbidden by the constitution. The military should stop privatizing essential components of their operation and paying orders of magnitude more than it would cost to do in-house.

Defense contractors get public money
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands

And so on. That's why our military spending is outrageously inefficient and excessive, and we keep fighting wars that are irrelevant or counterproductive to our national security. No-bid contracts and cost-plus contracts should be explicitly forbidden by the constitution. The military should stop privatizing essential components of their operation and paying orders of magnitude more than it would cost to do in-house.

OK. Super awesome cool looking aircraft. If I make a sci-fi movie I definitely want to cast this vehicle as a central character.

But the concept seems all wrong. I thought the point of UAVs was small, lightweight and inexpensive. This seems like a defense contractor trying to sell a Cadillac to someone who needs a delivery scooter. We already have a UAV that delivers smart missiles. If you need to deliver 2000lb bombs then scale it up. If you need an air-superiority drone then take a gun, stick a jet engine on it and design as much wing and fuselage around it as you need for it to have the flight characteristics you want.

Creating an all-in-one vehicle that can be converted to manned control will result in an aircraft that performs none of those intended roles as well as a purpose built vehicle for each of those roles...and at ten times the cost to build and operate.

This smells like the military industrial complex trying desperately to create a new bottomless pit of revenue.

Oh no, no, no! You cannot delete your comment, NR! I have saved it for posterity!

>> ^NetRunner:
Okay, here's my reaction to each:
1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Does this mean the US is going to take a role of non-interference in the operation of state governments? Foreign governments? It'll let people rope off an acre of land and self-determine it into an independent country?
2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Anyone can speak on the behalf of the US government if they want to? Individuals can invade countries, whilst flying the American flag? The US will protect a US citizen's rights as we define them, even if they move overseas?
3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Same thought as gwiz. Either this is silly and obvious, or a declaration to the world that we will take over as much land as we feel we need to feed and house our people.
4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
This one just sounds a little too hard edged. Something more like "The United States government will attempt to foster an environment of high employment and economic growth, and provide for the livelihood of those who are unable to provide for themselves" sounds a lot better to me, since it leaves open the right questions for debate (things like what constitutes a growth environment, and what does "unable" or livelihood mean), while foreclosing questions I think shouldn't be up for debate (i.e. is it the responsibility of the government of the United States to care about economic issues and hardships at all?).
5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
I like equal rights. What's equal duty mean? We all work the same hours a day? All pay the same amount in taxes? We all need to take our turn in the barrel? Everyone needs to do 2 years public service?
6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
No, I don't like this one at all. I think everyone has a god-given right to be lazy. I don't like the idea of making it a core principle that one must not "clash with the general interest", either. I think the "general good" should be protected (e.g. environmental protection law, FDA regulations on food and drugs, general police protection, regulating the financial sector, etc.), but I don't think the way to do that is to say people can't act against the general interest at all.
7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
I don't know what this means. I suspect they're not talking about welfare, but things like interest, generic capital gains, rent collection, etc.
I find this idea appealing on a visceral level, but I don't ultimately believe this is the way to address the issue of the idle and clearly undeservedly rich (like Paris Hilton).
8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
Another one I find appealing on a visceral level. I think this is easier said than done though. On the one hand, I think it's a bit unavoidable that someone will make a profit off wars, even if it's just the funeral service, and we shouldn't necessarily begrudge every ounce of it. I also think a lot of the profit being made now is because we keep giving our military a huge amount of leeway to buy unproven, expensive toys that have questionable battlefield value (e.g. the F-22).
The old-fashioned meaning of this is that someone is intentionally starting or prolonging a war just to make a profit. I think this is frankly what the "neoconservatives" are really about. They don't really give a shit who we fight, they just want us eternally at war so their defense contractor friends will stay constantly flush with cash, which they can freely donate to their reelection campaigns.
However, if we could clearly identify illicit profit, I'd have no qualms with confiscating it, and donating it to humanitarian relief organizations working the battlezone.
9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
No need to nationalize them, just bust 'em up.
10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about profit-sharing with all employees, no matter how lowly. I agree, and why focus only on the "large industrial enterprises"? The mechanics would need to be worked out, and for some people I think they'd rather have stability in their income than having it tied to profit, but I think everyone should have the opportunity to opt into a profit-driven payscale if they want it, even if they just sweep the floors.
11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
We've already done it -- Social Security and Medicare. I want Medicare for All now.
12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I like supporting the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, though I don't see why this would require nationalizing malls as dedicated workers for the state...
Seems to me that there are more effective, and less heavy-handed ways to lower barriers for entry to small businesses.
13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
No. I'm curious what "ground" rent is, but no.
14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
I think this one is worded badly. "The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life." sounds kinda scary. "Education should be focused on the requirements of practical life." sounds better, since it doesn't talk about how people must be brought into line.
I believe the "education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State" is otherwise known as a scholarship, and I'm all for governments levying taxes to beef them up.
If anything, this one just seems a bit modest and unfocused. I agree that "practical life" leaves a bit too much leeway, I'm thinking it would be things like civics, personal finance, career planning, etc., and not things like shop class (though shop class is good too).
15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Some of this exists already (child labor laws), and compulsory gymnastics and sports...for kids going to school (at least in my K-12 it was). I'm not for making exercise/sports mandatory for adults, but I think we'd do well to have some types of diet and exercise programs covered by our health care plans.
16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
The way this is written, it almost sounds like they don't even want the states to run their own militias, and I certainly don't think those should be dismantled. I don't even have an issue with the idea of private military companies like Blackwater, as long as they aren't corrupt and evil like Blackwater. I would want a fat regulatory agency looking over their shoulder, with backing from the US military, but I wouldn't necessarily want to abolish them outright.
I don't care for the people who call themselves militias but are really talking about plotting a revolution against the government, or fighting off the IRS with assault rifles. Those people are criminals, not militias.
17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.
I'm not sure what half of this one is supposed to mean. Personally, I think anyone on the left talking about the size of government in the current political era is making a mistake, and adopting the preferred framing of the right.
It's good policy vs. bad policy. Government that believes it bears an important duty to the people vs. government that wants to prove government can't do anything right. Empathy vs. selfishness. We're in this together vs. You're on your own.

I know there's an expiry date on munitions. Beyond detonating captured munitions, the military also detonates older munitions that are past their expire date since they're deemed unstable, and potentially dangerous. I guess defense contractors follow the same procedure. And since it's likely written off as expenses in their contract, they probably don't even have to worry about the cost.

>> ^cybrbeast:
I have to remark that it could still be considered a cut. This is because this budget includes all the war money. If you remember the Bush days, every few months Bush would ask congress for XX billions to continue the war and support the troops. Obama isn't planning to do this AFAIK. So if you would add Bush's pleas to congress to his military budget it would probably be higher than Obama's. We'll just have to see if Obama doesn't come to congress for more...


Ahh, this is true, and in fact seems to be what Republicans are half-mumbling when confronted on TV about it.

That takes the conversation a little deeper. The essence of the Gates-Obama budget is that it's cutting back massively on cold-war style programs like the F-22, the airborne laser (seriously), and some of the fancier toys the Navy was building, including the new class of aircraft carriers.

Instead, it's beefing up funding for special ops teams, general recruitment, veteran's benefits, unmaned drones, and likely a wide array of other things that would be of direct assistance to the types of conflicts we're actually engaged in.

In short, defense contractors and their lobbyist-vehicles (aka congressmen and Senators) are going to be unhappy because it means their highly-expensive, dubious utility programs will be cut in favor of spending on things that are more valuable to the military, but less profitable to private industry.

It isn't "religion" that explains US involvement. It clearly comes down to two things.. CIA and intelligence efforts require US give Israel whatever they need. They probably exceed US intel by an order of magnitude.

Also US Congress spends most of their money on defense. Israel is just an extension of that system of defense contractors. Israel means more weapons sales and a testing ground for weapons development.

Now the media keeps the waste of money and outragous abuses of Israel away from Americans knowledge and keep up this bullsh-t claims about "best ally" etc.

I mean how many times does your "best friend" have to get drunk and in a brawl that you have to get his back on...

Littledragon hit it on the head: the conglomeration of news outlets is a serious sickness in our democracy.

Take for example General Electric, and their holdings, specifically NBC, and a defense contractor that manufactures nuclear warheads. In order to keep demand up for their warhead business, why wouldn't they air stories designed to keep the US population in a perpetual state of panic?

And don't get me started on our for-profit health care system. Capitalism fails the sick and the diseased left and right. No one wants to develop "orphan drugs," that is, cures for serious diseases. The real money is in prolonged treatment. No company part of the American Cancer Society is putting any money towards finding a cure, they all make more money with lengthy and painful cancer treatment. Lifestyle drugs like Viagra and Rogaine rule the market.

^ Ya missed the biggest of the bunch, though I didn't frame it in the form of a question: What is the likely impact around the world from withdrawing those troops from 130 different nations?

I'm sure some would probably have little to no effect, such as closing bases in Germany, while others I could easily see destabilizing a region, like the removal of troops from South Korea.

I would love to see a comprehensive analysis, because I tend to think we aren't just deploying troops around the world for no reason at all (or just to fund defense contractors -- we have better excuses than that).

I agree with your answers, though I would note you didn't directly answer my question about NATO; that's an existing treaty. Would we seek to withdraw from it?

Also, what should we be doing specifically about Iran?

Texas Instruments is effectively part of Raytheon, one of the biggest defense contractors, eh?? They keep the private sector storefront the same at some facilities, but it's the same machine....