Is America a democracy? I dont think so.

I assume you simply ignored the Zbig Brezizinski material I posted in answer to another poster? That the US and Saudi created AQ is so well known it isn't even factually disputed.

My guess is that you suffer from the usual military inculcated group-think that is usually so evident - and especially from the cohort of former mil types on this forum. My honest suggestion is that you really would benefit from reading far more widely as your views appear to be virtually parroted from certain newspapers and mainstream media propaganda.

My family have been Navy all the way, going back a loooong time.

 

Dictionary definition?

 

Didn't exist before 1988 when the Mujahedeen was fighting the Soviets. And the remnants of the Mujahedeen became the Northern Alliance that helped to expel Alqaeda and defeat the Taliban.

 

LOLOLO. That's not a 24 yr old Bin Laden
http://www.mythdetector.ge/en/myth/politicano-publishes-photo-manipulation-about-zbigniew-brzezinski

 

So what? They were a US and Saudi creature as detailed in an earlier post.

 

Why it DIRECTLY contradicts your earlier claim.

 

We didn't ignore it and instead simply recognized it for the BS that it is. That's a picture of a Pakistani soldier, much shorter and older than bin laden.

http://www.mythdetector.ge/en/myth/politicano-publishes-photo-manipulation-about-zbigniew-brzezinski

 

Correction, make that a 23 year old Bin laden. Heres what Bin Laden looked like at that age.



Revealing how easily you are fooled.

 

Those with a high school mentality went to school.

There are many, many people who go to school, even college, who never
become educated. Indoctrinated might be a better word.

 

I'm not about red vs blue. I'm anti-collectivism and pro Liberty.

Yes it is.

Big government bad.
Small government good.

 

Correct.

 

I agree but wish to add. Totalitarianism/Tyranny Bad - Limited Power of Gov't good.

This nation was founded on respect essential liberty - that the essential liberty is ABOVE/Outside the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The legitimate authority of Gov't is protection from harm - direct harm - murder, rape, theft and so on. The Gov't is not supposed to have any authority to make law outside this legitimate purview - with respect to essential liberty.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

What happened ?? How did we far so far down this slippery slope? so far down we can no longer even see the mountain top.

"Utilitarianism" - that's what. This is a justification for law based on - What will increase happiness for the collective

This justification for law completely ignores - does not even consider- individual liberty. It thus allows for an end run around the founding principles.

The problem with this justification for law are 1) it violates the founding principles 2) who gets to decide - one mans poison is another man's pleasure 3) it is totalitarianism 4) it usurps the authority of "Consent of the Governed" 5) fallacious utilitarianism (arguments that are not even good utilitarian arguments) get through.

For example: "Harm Reduction" or "If it saves one life" as justification for law.

These arguments are very insidious because they sound good on the surface - Who does not want to save one life ?/ reduce harm ?

Is this however valid justification for law ? Is "If it saves one life valid justification for law" ?

If the answer is YES - we better ban skiing tomorrow - would this not save one life ? and/or reduce harm ?
What about boating - good golly that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? forget it.

In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break something. This is a horrible justification for law - yet it is at plague proportions in our society. We now live in a state of "Tyranny of the minority" - where a few people can make laws that mess with essential liberty of the whole.

Just look at the dumb arguments in relation to Pot - (Pot could harm a child's development) ... this is stupid on so many levels including violating the rule of law - one person is not to be punished for the action of another. Why is my right being taken away because of what some kid might do - or the bad parenting of others ?

In a free society one has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to oneself. Sky Diving is Legal. The idea that Pot constitutes a danger that is so much greater than the other things listed - that we should allow the Gov't the power to use physical violence to stop people from using Pot is absurd nonsense.

Meth/Fentenyl one might have a valid argument - but not with pot.

The bar is "overwhelming support" - not 50+1 or simple majority mandate. While I can see 2/3rds or even 75% agreeing that Meth/Fentenyl should be illegal .. no way that this many agree that Pot constitutes such a danger to society that it should be banned.

Every sitting member of SCOTUS should be removed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the founding principles.

"Super Size" me !

 

No, if you went to high school and most people do, you will have, most likely, a high school mentality. A college education exposes you to different cultures, educated people and social growth. "Indoctrinated" is what you get at white supremacist and KKK meetings.
Sounds like you stopped your education in high school, yes? You apparently don't know much about a continuing education and what that does for your mental growth and approach to life, provided you choose to avail yourself of the offerings.

 

Snore...

 

Maybe. That analysis is based on one person's perceptions only. It changes not a thing. The US, Brezinski and the Saudi's created and funded bin Laden et al.

Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook - who was the Minister in charge of Britain's MI6 and therefore in a position to know for certain the reality - made it perfectly clear that the US breastfed the Muj - later AQ - and bin Laden as stated below:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

"Throughout the 80's he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudi's" -- which is exactly what I stated earlier.

There are many other articles and studies that confirm this:

How the US helped create al-Qaeda and ISIS (HERE).

Extract below form the book: Conflict in Afghanistan: Studies in Asymetric Warfare by Martin Ewans:



From the US National Security Archive: a briefing book captioned The Haqqani History: Bin Laden's Advocate Inside the Taliban HERE and HERE

The US architect and driving force of this project was Zbig Brezinski. He spoke openly about it was proud of it:

"How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahadeen" beginning in 1979 - interview with Brezinski HERE.

https://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

 

The US funded the Afghan Mujahideen. Yes they have beards and turbans. No, they are not AlQaeda. The remnants of the Mujahideen became the Northern alliance, the fighting force that helped defeat Alqaeda in Afghanistan.
That's why your evidence you give top billing to is a picture of a Pakistani soldier mis identified as Bin laden

 

Not even worth responding to as you deny what is established and proven with hyperbole.

I can't take you seriously.

Goodbye

 

Riiiiight. Lets see your "PROOF' that the picture is of a 23 year old Bin Laden. And your failure to provide it is the evidence that you are full of ****.

 

Which is why we don't need the government to provide healthcare.
Collectivism is the road to totalitarianism.
The Constitution of the US limits what the government can do.

 

Indoctrinated is what you get with a government education.

Nope. College degree and college teacher.

You wish. The bottom line is people who want a nanny state are more likely
to be indoctrinated while people who are truly educated are more likely to
not want that a nanny state leads to the death of Liberty and is the road to
totalitarianism which nobody needs. Ever.

Big government bad.
Small government good.

 

Collectivism is definitely the road to totalitarianism - Law on the basis of Utilitarianism (what will increase happiness of the collective) and worse - fallacious Utilitarianism (where the justification is not even a good Utilitarian argument) is at plague proportions in this nation.

Let me know if you have not read my previous examples.

The legitimate purview of Gov't is protection from direct harm (murder, rape, theft and so on). The powers of Gov't - with respect to essential liberty are thus "supposed" to be limited.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

You should focus on the founding principles - the principles by which Law and the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted - rather than just the Constitution.

So where does healthcare fit in ?

Currently our healthcare system is a form of legalized extortion = Pay this money or you will die.

IMO - this is then within the legitimate purview of Gov't - Protection from direct harm - Protecting the people from extortion.

The other problem with your use of the term "collectivism" is that it is too black and white. Roads, Military, Infrastructure, Clean water .. and so on ... are all forms of "Collectivism".

Collectivism can be good or it can be evil. The key is to know the difference and you do not appear to be "getting" this distinction.

 

You are a college teacher? And you right wingers complain that college teachers are all leftists. I agree with you about big government, and what does it have to do with an education. Nothing. Good philosophy though. Do you think you would be where you are today without that college education? I think that your odds are diminished.

 

This is a very easy fix. If somebody wants health insurance they can
buy it. If they're poor there are free clinics. If they need chemo they
can pay it out.

I really don't see a problem.

 

Clearly it is far more complicated than your easy fix You also contradict yourself. You claim there should be free for the poor and in the next sentence state that the poor will have to pay for chemo.

There are numerous problems that exist in our current system - price fixing, anti competitive practices, Monopolism/Oligopolism, artificial decrease in supply of labor which increases wages, and so on.

Our system is so bad that we pay nearly double what other first world systems pay - and these have universal healthcare. Its obscene.

 

The colleges are replete with leftwingers. There's plenty of evidence for that.

I don't believe you do agree with me about big government.

I want a small government that fears the people.

One doesn't not need to have a college education to teach in a college. I know
several teachers who only finished high school. In my case I've got a
college degree + hours upon hours of science.

Most importantly we don't need government healthcare.