Al-Qaeda calls Bush 'Failure'

You beat me to it but YES! Google "failure" and click the " I'm feeling Lucky button.

I got a U2U from df1 on this same issue and he took up the same objections as you do. BUT universal national service is nothing new and a lot of countries do it. Israel for one, but in their case it is universal military service only and they are a democracy.

My proposal who give the 18 year old American a choice of several different service opprotunities, military, a civilian conservation corp, assisting in schools or hospitals, Americ-corp, peace corp etc. Of course they would be paid, have their health taken care of and they would earn benefits. In short just like it is in the military and under the draft. I envision a 3 month boot camp style training (just like the CCC did) to shape them up before going on to their service.

There will always be people who gravitate towards the military so I doubt that there would be a drop in enlistment but generally speaking you would allow the inductees to choose (within limits) where they wanted to go.

One problem that America has deep in its soul is that we have carried the notion of the individual to such an extreme that we have lost a connection that is important, and that is a sense of community and our responsiblities to it. The Ayn Rand of the rugged individual against the world is a cute myth but it has not connection with the real world. Humans are social animals and any society that looses the glue that holds it together is a society in grave jepordey.

grover the reason that people dont have to worry about community and only themselves is because we let them shovel off whatever responsiblity they want to they government. There should be no manditory service of any sort. Freedom has to be free. If they dont want to do any service, fine thats their choice. If the numbers are low, people will either join and say "military force is important to us" or they wont enlist and basically say "we dont care about our military". In the end its their country and they have their say.

Democracy is just the idea that more then half the people are right more then half the time.

We are a republic, and should be damn proud of that since democracy doesn't work. Either way though, the government is here to simply provide protection for our constitutional rights. Not for medicare or social security or anything like it. Its here to simply protect those constitutional rights like voting and being allowed to protest. Its not suppose to "clean up the country", its suppose to allow us have the ability to do it ourselves.

In every society there is a point where the rights and freedoms of the individual give way to the obligations of community and the obligations of community give way to the rights and freedoms of the individual. If there isn't it is either on one side an ant hill society aka North Korea and the like where every aspect of life is controlled or the flip side, a society where a rampant egotistic individualism runs rough shod over who ever it can until the society as such falls apart into disorganized anarchy.

In all my studies of history one thing has become apparent... the purpose of government is to provide a safe place for the raising of crops and children. Everything else, art, commerce and so forth is just icing on the cake.

The question is, is that mandate solely a mandate for defense and internal policing or can it be stretched to include environmental protection and the ordering of a more efficent and productive society?

Originally posted by grover
In every society there is a point where the rights and freedoms of the individual give way to the obligations of community and the obligations of community give way to the rights and freedoms of the individual. If there isn't it is either on one side an ant hill society aka North Korea and the like where every aspect of life is controlled or the flip side, a society where a rampant egotistic individualism runs rough shod over who ever it can until the society as such falls apart into disorganized anarchy.

In all my studies of history one thing has become apparent... the purpose of government is to provide a safe place for the raising of crops and children. Everything else, art, commerce and so forth is just icing on the cake.

The question is, is that mandate solely a mandate for defense and internal policing or can it be stretched to include environmental protection and the ordering of a more efficent and productive society?

ever wonder why every government to this point has failed? Maybe history shows that every government has done this, thus failed because of it.

Grim, your saying it all, but let me add one thing.

Under Grovers Government, who decides when the government has insinuated itself enough? Who turns off the switch?

See there lies the problem, power breeds power and ultimately you get what we have now. Hundreds of social programs that were intended to be temporary, that have existed for years and years.
Thousands that subsist on the government and contribute nothing to society.

Grover, Grim and Myself are not being Hard Hearted, but we are not talking about the the Ills in society, we are talking about a functional government. This government was based on exactly what Grim has outlined. Mainly, staying out of our business in a general aspect.

Semper

Historically societies, regimes, dynasties etc. have failed because they either ruined their ecosystem so at the time it could no longer support large populations ex: the Maya or their growth outstripped their food source, that has generally been the number one cause of the fall of social systems. That is until the modern age when quick transportation over large areas made the whole planet a bread basket instead of localized areas.

Bread and circuses have always been considered good policy to keep the rabble fed and amused. In fact social security, unemployment and the basic social safety net items were not created by a liberal democracy or republic...they were created first by Otto Von Bismark for Hollenzollern Germany, not even as a safety net per say but as a way of defanging the socialists and communists of the time. It worked so well that even the NAZI dared not mess with it.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by grover]

Grover, thing is this, what happens when the government does help the people that need it? They survive. In effect, trying to help and save everybody, will ultimately lead to the downfall of the nation as a whole.

If people have the resources to help another, and choose to do so, thats fine. If peope have enough resources for themselves, and don't help anybody thats their choice. You know what happens though?

there are 10 people in a group. 2 people have alot of stuff, 5 have moderate to enough, and 3 people dont have enough to survive (food). Government accounts for 1, and they dont really give much, so 1 guys who has alot, and 5 who have enoguh give to the group that dont. so now you have 1 person with alot, 9 with enough...some time goes by, those 3 people need more again. so now 1 has alot and they all have enough. This time around though now 5 people dont have enough because they didnt make as much and have nothing in reserve or saved, since they had to give it to the 3 people that couldn't support themselves. soon enough we dont have enough to support eachother, or ourselves.

You can do it as a community, but expect to collapse completely when you do collapse. Independence from community is what keeps a nation and its government alive. Dependence means you cannot survive without them, which is something you dont want. You want to be independent so that you can survive on your own if needed.

Community is essential, but your talking about complete dependence on it. Community is good for help, but not complete dependence.

NO I am talking about interdependence. There are a lot of ways of helping those who need it besides handouts or making permanent dependents of them. An issue is not the ones who have enough, it is the ones who hog all the resources...like say the 1/2 of 1% that control 90% of the wealth in this country.... the ones who got the big handout i.e. the tax cuts... if they really wanted to stimulate the economy they would have cut the taxes to the middle and lower middle classes, the ones who would benefit most. Instead it created the largest transfer of wealth in this countries history with nothing to show for it except concentrations of power. Welfare for the wealthy is what I call it. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, nor do I object helping those in need, what I object to are those corporations who pay no taxes and get massive kickbacks and vast loopholes for the wealthy so that they pay nothing.

yes well I believe that I shouldn't be taxed for anything really. No social security or anything. Give me my money, and let me do what I want with it. I know what the benefits and the negatives are for having poor people that dont have enough, if I see that I want to give some money to needy, I will. No government should decide how much money I should give to the needy. If I dont want to give any money, then I dont, thats my choice. I worked for the money, so I should have that choice. The government didnt work for it, they aren't entitled to it, neither is anyone else. No one is entitled to any part of the money I worked for.

Taxes are the price we pay to live the way we do, a fee as it were. If it weren't for those taxes you and I pay, how would we get the roads, bridges, clean water, sewage, even the military that (supposed) to keep us safe. If no one paid taxes and relied on private iniative then roads and bridges would be toll only and you would have to pay a different toll at each small municipality (same situition was one of the key complaints that led to the French revolution) and our military (and police) would only protect those who could pay. Hey you like that move to Serria Leone, Somilia or hey how about Iraq?

[edit on 2-10-2006 by grover]

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's number two, has called President George Bush a "liar and a failure"...

I find it interesting that liberals and Islamic terrorists often say the same things

Originally posted by grover
Taxes are the price we pay to live the way we do, a fee as it were. If it weren't for those taxes you and I pay, how would we get the roads, bridges, clean water, sewage, even the military that (supposed) to keep us safe. If no one paid taxes and relied on private iniative then roads and bridges would be toll only and you would have to pay a different toll at each small municipality (same situition was one of the key complaints that led to the French revolution) and our military (and police) would only protect those who could pay. Hey you like that move to Serria Leone, Somilia or hey how about Iraq?

taxes are the price we pay to live free. Free and supporting people are two different things. Things get done by choice. If they aren't done, then that shows how important the people felt it was. Priorities will be decided by who and what you decide to put your money to. You will have no one to complain about except for you and your peers. No government to blame, no corporation to blame, only ourselves. If you dont want to pay for police, fine. when the police agency goes bankrupt and theres no police for your area, maybe you should have thought about that before you decided to spend that 50 dollars on dinner rather then police donation.

Do I disagree with helping the poor, no way. Do I disagree with taking taxes to do so, yes. Do I disagree with taking taxes to do anything outside of protecting our constitutional rights, hell yes. You say "well how would we have clean water if the government doesn't do it?" you donate money. If the donations aren't enough, you either make more donations, or cut it off. That decides whats important and what isnt, no politicians involved. but FYI if we cant survive without our government, you have alot more to fear then what your naming off. Why? Because if you cant survive without government, then they control you. Thats why its so important to be able to be independent, because if your not, that means your not in control of yourself and your life.

It would never work grim...people as a rule are too busy looking out for #1 to give a damn about anything else.... its not my problem, let somebody else deal with it and so forth, until its too late. The Bush administrations attitude about global warming is a prime example... instead of saying that this is something that affects all of us and we have got to deal with it as such, they stick their head in the sand and claim we got to look out for our economy first. Sure there are things individual countries can do but it would be far more effective to have a corridinated approach globally to deal with a global issue. The same is true with just about anything else....California is in such a bind economically because of prop. 13 back in the late 70's...now they can't raise the revenue they need because their hands are tied by an inherantly selfish law. People will whine and pinch their pennies ans short change every which way but loose until it comes to deal with them and then they cry bloody murder. Nah Libertiarianism would never work... there would be blood in the streets within a decade.

Originally posted by grover
It would never work grim...people as a rule are too busy looking out for #1 to give a damn about anything else.... its not my problem, let somebody else deal with it and so forth, until its too late. The Bush administrations attitude about global warming is a prime example... instead of saying that this is something that affects all of us and we have got to deal with it as such, they stick their head in the sand and claim we got to look out for our economy first. Sure there are things individual countries can do but it would be far more effective to have a corridinated approach globally to deal with a global issue. The same is true with just about anything else....California is in such a bind economically because of prop. 13 back in the late 70's...now they can't raise the revenue they need because their hands are tied by an inherantly selfish law. People will whine and pinch their pennies ans short change every which way but loose until it comes to deal with them and then they cry bloody murder. Nah Libertiarianism would never work... there would be blood in the streets within a decade.

does a country that would look out for number 1 to the point of watching itself fall apart, and continue to do so, even deserve to exist? if we are as you say, no government is going to save us, only imprision us. If we have failed, then this country has failed.

What would the government need revenue for, if it didnt have any programs to run? People weren't always looking out for number one. Want to know why they can though? Government. Government is the reason the attitude exists. This attitude supports government, so government creates it at every chance. Everytime something goes wrong, government bails them out. Business goes bankrupt, government bails them out. People loose power, government bails them out. Disaster strikes and theres not enough money, government bails them out.

You know what that creates? The attitude "some one else will handle it". Thats created by government repeatingly bailing people out of bad situations, so that other people can go about their daily lives and not have to bother with it.

When a person falls on their ass, they learn something from it. When you have government catch them before they can learn anything, you get irresponsible people. Yes, america needs to fall on its ass. The people need to have the freedom, screw up, and become aware again...like they were suppose to be. People are SUPPOSE to be aware, and have to be aware if they want to be free.

Libertarianism will work, just will take some time because people need to readjust. They need to adjust from being ignorant mindless consumers to individual thinkers and plan ahead. Is that a bad concept? People that need to adjust themselves to be aware and think? Thats the necessities of freedom, so its obvious as to why thats what this country needs.

Its a pitty the only time someone can get 'this' message on the air.. is when its a terrorist faction..

'' bush is a failure ''

Everyone knows it.. everyone wants to action this and attempt at rebuilding the western way of life..

why dont any western politicans and officials have the balls to state this to the media?

What sort of world are we living in..... where the only person who can deliver an honest view of the leader ... is a terrorist.

The dumbest human being on the planet, being led around by the shadiest people on the planet... to murder maime and deprive people simply for the greediest people on the planet.

What have we become.

Well Grim...I suggest we politely agree to disagree, like semper and me.

Originally posted by grover
Well Grim...I suggest we politely agree to disagee, like semper and me.

And we do it so well!!!

That is why it is so productive to debate with someone with intellect and control, yet passionate about their beliefs!!!

You are the only person I know who as ever attributed any form of control or discipline to me.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by grover]

Did anyone hear Bushes news confrence today? If he wasn't incoherent he was pretty damned close to it.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by grover]