# The War On Terror Becomes the War On America



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

"The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic access to some of the most powerful tools of 21st-century spycraft, giving law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.

"A program approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the will allow broader domestic use of secret overhead imagery beginning as early as this fall, with the expectation that state and local law enforcement officials will eventually be able to tap into technology once largely restricted to foreign surveillance."



Feeling any safer yet?


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Frank - that is horrendous!! The US spying on its own citizens sounds too much like George Orwell's 1984 to me. 

I said when the so called "War on Terror" began that we are stirring up a hornets nest in Iraq and we will increase Terrorism dramatically. I also thought that our states would increasingly take more power to themselves than is healthy for a democracy. I rest my case.

Could it be that in attempting to enforce democracy in the Middle EAst we are losing it back home? Note - to all the hawks out there are didn't say "lost" I said " losing" - a process that has begun - it may end here and we just have "less" democracy - - we vote still but have a near police state.

What an irony!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Could it be that in attempting to enforce democracy in the Middle EAst we are losing it back home?


No, this _*is*_ democracy.

And it's not new. Remember Echelon?

What is more intrusive: (1) having a satellite take infrared photos of the top of your head, or (2) being ordered at the point of a gun to self-report all of your income and financial history to the federal government every year, and keeping only the portion of the fruit of your labor that they allow you to keep?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "The Bush administration has approved a plan to expand domestic access to some of the most powerful tools of 21st-century spycraft, giving law enforcement officials and others the ability to view data obtained from satellite and aircraft sensors that can see through cloud cover and even penetrate buildings and underground bunkers.


Funny. You have never complained about the US government using this technology against other countries. Come to think of it, I have not seen anyone here complain about it when it is done to "furriners". Could there possibly be a double standard? Nah, you cannot make me believe that.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Freedom is not free. Security and safety has restrictions. If you're not doing anything illegal, you shouldn't be concerned if a satellite happens to photograph you walking your dog to the park. As citywide surveillance cameras become more common place, you'll have two choices don't go outside or wear a disguise. As a detective who routinely has to review surveillance footage from businesses. I've learned "we" are filmed quite a bit during our daily lives that we never realize. If these issues become too invasive for you, you could always leave and live in a country that offers more personal freedoms and less involvement by the government.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Next, we will be watching the Ministry of Truth on the telescreen.

*WAR IS PEACE* 
*FREEDOM IS SLAVERY* 
*IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH*


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

30 or 40 years ago, just the suggestion of this by a U.S. president would have sent tens of thousands of Americans into the streets in protest, and likely resulted in immediate impeachment proceedings by Congress.

But by now, all we get is a few online stories, and Americans lining up to defend him.

Again I ask, are you feeling safer yet?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Again I ask, are you feeling safer yet?


My 'nads will when you leave the country as you have stated you will.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

30 or 40 years ago no one was proclaiming jihad against us and flying planes into office buildings.

Yes, I do feel safer, and I hope Wayfarer's 'nads feel safer too.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> 30 or 40 years ago no one was proclaiming jihad against us and flying planes into office buildings.


Just pathetic. Like lemmings over the cliff.

Bin Laden was right, we really were a paper tiger.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I've heard that the lemming story is an urban legend.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> *Just pathetic. Like lemmings over the cliff.*
> 
> Bin Laden was right, we really were a paper tiger.


All I can say is.....


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

During the Rodney King riots I drove from my home in Ventura County to the San Fernando Valley. I was picking up a DCM Remington 1911 after the 2 week cooling off period. The old Pony Exress sport shop across from Van Nuys Airport was bedlam with people demanding the RIGHT to buy a handgun and ammunition for protection, as if rioters were going to commandeer busses and attack their gated communities guarded by ex felons. I asked Robin why the store wasn't handing out NRA membership brochures, receiving a shrug as he yelled PICKUP, ticket# 3047, 1911 for Kav the treehugger. This produced another cacophany of complaint from the frustrated buyers screaming " This is AMERICA, I have a RIGHT to protect myself as the clerks tried explaining there was a temporary ban on all ammunition and firearm sales in L.A. county, that I had alraedy purchased mine and had waited the 14 days by law. I could have sold my 1911 at an easy 400% profit several times as I made for the door and the 4 boxes of ardball purchased earlier in some prescient moment my family calls paranoia. My Point? Nobody will step up and protect a freedom not exercised until somebody says NO to that freedom. There has been a steady erosion of our rights going on for decades. The hippie treehugger getting blownup in her car, the gay rights activist et al aren't a part of your tribal affiliation until the black helicopters hover overhead at 4 A.M. THEN you run out in your pajamas featuring Bart and Lisa and shout foul.Go back to bed Frank. It's only a survey by Walmart to gain emminent domain over your house. I think the men's room will be located about where your computer station is now.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

KenR said:


> 30 or 40 years ago no one was proclaiming jihad against us and flying planes into office buildings.
> 
> Yes, I do feel safer, and I hope Wayfarer's 'nads feel safer too.


Keeping my 'nads safe has always been a top priority for me too. Do I feel "safer?" Not necessarily...but I take some solace in knowing that they're at least _trying _to keep me safe, or at least creating the illusion of keeping me safe. I'm fairly uncomfortable with government spying and digging into people's private lives, but it's the price that must be paid in this "war." As Thomas Paine wrote, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Listen, if some Jihadist nut-job who hates this country and bathes in more cologne than water wants to take me down in a plane (or in another type of suicide bombing), there's nothing I can do about it. It's not worth the worry. You can never be totally safe. That's not how life works. We're all gonna go someday anyway.

Gotta go herd the lemmings...they keep walking out onto the street.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The lemming story IS an urban legend. I just looked it up. 

Why do we need to defame the poor lemmings? They have more sense than a lot of people do.

While we can't be totally safe, I'm willing to concede a bit of privacy when in public areas to make life safer. A couple nights ago, after I sprained my ankle, I had to fend off an aggressive panhandler. I was genuinely fearful when he would not back away after my first firm "NO." I was vulnerable because of my injury (although he was older and I think I could have fended him off, but it would have been tough.) 

I would not have minded a security camera in the least.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

I'd rather take more responsibility for my security personally than let the Feds do it for me. For my long term happiness, I'm generally more wary of some bureaucrat in DC than some jihad crazed follower of Osama. If and when it's over with the islamic terrorists, I'll bet that our folks in Washington will find some other horror to keep us safe from :icon_smile_wink: .

I can't remember the source, but the phrase goes something like: "Those who would trade liberty for security will end up with neither"


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> 30 or 40 years ago, just the suggestion of this by a U.S. president would have sent tens of thousands of Americans into the streets in protest, and likely resulted in immediate impeachment proceedings by Congress.
> 
> But by now, all we get is a few online stories, and Americans lining up to defend him.
> 
> Again I ask, are you feeling safer yet?


I don't care one way or another. A video of me is pretty boring. Leave my house...get on train...pick my nose...get to work...leave for lunch...shop at Saks...back to work...take train home...pick nose...rinse, repeat....


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I'd rather take more responsibility for my security personally than let the Feds do it for me. For my long term happiness, I'm generally more wary of some bureaucrat in DC than some jihad crazed follower of Osama. If and when it's over with the islamic terrorists, I'll bet that our folks in Washington will find some other horror to keep us safe from :icon_smile_wink: .


How about the "horror" of Rubik's Cube trademark infringement (which, since the trademark had expired on the original cube, turned out to be a false national security emergency:

Homeland Security Agents Visit Toy Store 
Associated Press | October 29 2004​
ST. HELENS, Ore. - So far as she knows, Pufferbelly Toys owner Stephanie Cox hasn't been passing any state secrets to sinister foreign governments, or violating obscure clauses in the Patriot Act.​
So she was taken aback by a mysterious phone call from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to her small store in this quiet Columbia River town just north of Portland.

"I was shaking in my shoes," Cox said of the September phone call. "My first thought was the government can shut your business down on a whim, in my opinion. If I'm closed even for a day that would cause undue stress." 
When the two agents arrived at the store, the lead agent asked Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time. 
He told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.

After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash. A representative told her that Rubik's Cube patent had expired, and the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark.

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly *based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C.*

"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing *is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said."*

So there's confirmation of your claim. Once this fake war on terror is over, the corporate feudal (or fascist, your pick) state already has their enforcement division in place.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

I repeat - 1984. All that is needed to end up with a 1984 scenario is for you folks to do just what you are doing - not caring and saying " if I am not guilty of anything there's nothing for me to worry about" - maybe not now but in the future.....................


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Big brother is watching.................


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

And yet a Google News search of "Pufferbelly Cox cube" produces zero hits. 

Funny, that. 

Of course, if they can take infrared pictures of the top of your head, they can easily make a news story on Google disappear. Obviously.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Leather Man,

Thanks for warning us, though I tend to fear someone who calls themselves Leather Man more than I do an Orwellian police state.

Karl


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Phinn said:


> ...being ordered *at the point of a gun* to self-report all of your income... every year,


Wow. That must be a new IRS pilot program in your area.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

*Re: Homeland Security Agents Visit Toy Store*

Forget Iran, North Korea, IEDs, loose borders, and hi-jacked planes. Rubik's cubes are the REAL threat to American national security!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> Wow. That must be a new IRS pilot program in your area.


Try not paying your income taxes indefinitely. 
Then ignore the summons to Revenue Canada/IRS.
Then ignore it when they freeze your accounts. 
Then ignore it when the take your house. 
Seriously, if you do not think the ultimate solution to you not paying your taxes is men with guns, you have another think coming.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

"Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you."
--Benjamin Franklin​
I can't believe that there are Americans who actually think this is a good thing. And then to actually say that we need the government to spy on us so we can stay free!

Sickening...


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I can't believe that there are Americans who actually think this is a good thing. And then to actually say that we need the government to spy on us so we can stay free!


I don't.

What's _*really*_ hard to believe is that there are Americans who actually think that the Democratic Party is the solution to this problem.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I don't.
> 
> What's _*really*_ hard to believe is that there are Americans who actually think that the Democratic Party is the solution to this problem.


Symptom of a two-party system that leaves little viable alternative in the minds of most people. Most of whom haven't read those books you keep mentioning. That's part of the problem.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> "Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you."--Benjamin Franklin​I can't believe that there are Americans who actually think this is a good thing. And then to actually say that we need the government to spy on us so we can stay free!
> 
> Sickening...


Good quote. Here's one from James Madison:

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

Given the chance, do you think Gordon Brown, Ahmadinejad, Chavez etc would turn their military satellites on their own people? That's not a rhetorical question.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Given the chance, do you think Gordon Brown, Ahmadinejad, Chavez etc would turn their military satellites on their own people? That's not a rhetorical question.


Very good. Comparing the PM of the UK to those two. Excellent reminder to all that you are quite a fellow.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> I don't care one way or another. A video of me is pretty boring. Leave my house...get on train...pick my nose...get to work...leave for lunch...shop at Saks...back to work...take train home...pick nose...rinse, repeat....


I thought I was the only one who picked his nose a couple times a day =)


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Phinn said:


> I don't.
> 
> What's _*really*_ hard to believe is that there are Americans who actually think that the Democratic Party is the solution to this problem.


Yeah, if the Hannitized masses live in terror of a bunch of third-worlders, they ought to be cowering under their beds at the thought of Hillary Clinton assuming the unconstitutional powers ushered in by the Bush junta.

But for some reason, people seem incapable of seeing that far ahead...


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Try not paying your income taxes indefinitely.
> Then ignore the summons to Revenue Canada/IRS.
> Then ignore it when they freeze your accounts.
> Then ignore it when the take your house.
> Seriously, if you do not think the ultimate solution to you not paying your taxes is men with guns, you have another think coming.


Wow. Just mention the T-word and Republicans go ballistic! I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but seeing how gung-ho some Americans are about their hatred for taxes, I am starting to rethink that. Now when I think of a Republican, I envision a guy with a shotgun sitting on his porch in a rocking chair waiting for someone from the IRS to show up.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

omairp said:


> Wow. Just mention the T-word and Republicans go ballistic! I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but seeing how gung-ho some Americans are about their hatred for taxes, I am starting to rethink that. Now when I think of a Republican, I envision a guy with a shotgun sitting on his porch in a rocking chair waiting for someone from the IRS to show up.


Exactly and that's the impression we get of modern Republicans in the UK - a load of tax hating, gun toting, war mongering loonys! Is that how Republicans want to be seen? It is not only in the UK - my German friends tell me the same view is held there.

None of us like unfair tax nor the state taking too much tax - like in the days of Margaret Thatcher when tax was 33% for ordinary folk and 60% for the better off. However to hate tax per se is ludicrous - would you al want to live in a third world country in which only the rich can have access to education and health care? Would you like thousands more beggars on the streets? I don't think so.

About 15 years ago a British TV company made a documentary about the attitudes of four ultra-conservative couples who hated tax and believed everyone should stand on their own two feet. Easy to say if you are rich! Anyway they sent an insurance expert to visit all of them and even though they were all very well heeled ( as we would say) not one of them could afford the costs of private health care plus private education plus employment protection insurance - the insurance bill would have left them with too little to live on! These people lived in London's first "Gated Community" ( God help us!) - they were RICH!

Lets think about what we are saying before shooting off about "Lefties, Reds under the beds, tax loving hippies and God-damned foreigners!!"


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Leather man said:


> However to hate tax per se is ludicrous - would you al want to live in a third world country in which only the rich can have access to education and health care? Would you like thousands more beggars on the streets? I don't think so.


I'd like to live in a country in which we don't have to pay half of our incomes to the welfare-warfare state.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

omairp said:


> Now when I think of a Republican, I envision a guy with a shotgun sitting on his porch in a rocking chair waiting for someone from the IRS to show up.


When I think of the IRS, I envision a whole bunch of guys with M4 carbines and blue windbreakers waiting for someone to not pay their taxes.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> When I think of a Republican, I envision a guy with a shotgun sitting on his porch in a rocking chair waiting for someone from the IRS to show up.





> When I think of the IRS, I envision a whole bunch of guys with M4 carbines and blue windbreakers waiting for someone to not pay their taxes.


One of these portrayals is accurate. The other is the product of an entrenched, well-funded propaganda machine.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Highly recommended, for you and your German friends who have a cartoon view of the world:

Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State

It describes how the massive socialist welfare state _*enabled*_ popular support for an aggressive foreign policy. The Left and Right have a symbiotic relationship. Welfare is Step 1. Warfare is Step 2.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

omairp said:


> Wow. Just mention the T-word and Republicans go ballistic! I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but seeing how gung-ho some Americans are about their hatred for taxes, I am starting to rethink that. Now when I think of a Republican, I envision a guy with a shotgun sitting on his porch in a rocking chair waiting for someone from the IRS to show up.


Troll, troll, troll away. I am not a Republican. I did not go ballistic.

I tried to paint a sequence of events that was simple enough for you to follow. If you do not understand that the end result of someone in either Canada or the US breaking the law severely enough, be it criminal or tax, is that they will go to jail, then you are being purposively obtuse. Usually people headed to jail *are* escorted by men with guns. Acknowledging this truth does not mean one is about to chase off the IRS with a shotgun, as you portray, but rather shows the taxpayer well realizes the results of continued and egregious failure to comply.

I fail to see why you would wish to argue against such an obvious thing. Actually, that is incorrect. I do see why you would wish to argue against such an obvious thing. It is what trolls do.


----------



## super k (Feb 12, 2004)

....but we have no problem with our government dictating where someone can smoke, or dictate if I may build on my property if it infringes on the puff belly toad, or take my property in the name of appropriation; control what our children are taught in our schools, or control what vehicle I buy if the form or gas penalties and taxes. Even what type of fat is used to fry my food? We sure seem willing to give up a lot with the right spin campaign


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Leather man said:


> I repeat - 1984. All that is needed to end up with a 1984 scenario is for you folks to do just what you are doing - not caring and saying " if I am not guilty of anything there's nothing for me to worry about" - maybe not now but in the future.....................


What are you kidding? you've got cameras on every street corner, little to no right to bear arms, a government that can prohibit the publication of books it considers derogatory to the monarchy, people being arrested for alleged "hate speech," look to your own Orwellian home before commenting on the U.S.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

omairp said:


> Wow. That must be a new IRS pilot program in your area.


Hey it was no accident that, for all the crimes he committed and was involved in, Al Capone could only get nailed for tax evasion. You underestimate the power of the IRS at your own peril. In most cases, you have a right not to incriminate yourself - not so with the IRS.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rocker said:


> What are you kidding? you've got cameras on every street corner, little to no right to bear arms, a government that can prohibit the publication of books it considers derogatory to the monarchy, people being arrested for alleged "hate speech," look to your own Orwellian home before commenting on the U.S.


I was commenting on the comment that began this thread - did I say that the UK hasn't moved in a worrying direction? Don't be so reactionary!


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Highly recommended, for you and your German friends who have a cartoon view of the world:
> 
> Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State
> 
> It describes how the massive socialist welfare state _*enabled*_ popular support for an aggressive foreign policy. The Left and Right have a symbiotic relationship. Welfare is Step 1. Warfare is Step 2.


If I understand you correctly this is absolute BS of the highest order. How dare you insult me with the accusation of a cartoon view of the world and how dare you say on the basis of that article that the welfare state is a precursor to war - how bloody ridiculous!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Leather man said:


> If I understand you correctly this is absolute BS of the highest order. How dare you insult me with the accusation of a cartoon view of the world and how dare you say on the basis of that article that the welfare state is a precursor to war - how bloody ridiculous!


Careful there Leather Man! Per your words above, you no doubt feel Phinn is "gun toting". It would seem like you might be tempted to bring a knife to a gun fight and that is never a wise move.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Highly recommended, for you and your German friends who have a cartoon view of the world:
> 
> Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State
> 
> It describes how the massive socialist welfare state _*enabled*_ popular support for an aggressive foreign policy. The Left and Right have a symbiotic relationship. Welfare is Step 1. Warfare is Step 2.


If that's how you interpreted Aly's book, you must have read a different book. In fact his claim is the exact opposite: he's saying the German people supported Nazi foreign policy aggression because that's precisely what funded the creation and expansion of a welfare state at home.

Personally I think he's either entirely incorrect, or at best is only partially correct. The rise of the Third Reich can easily be attributed to other, far more major factors: relentless fear mongering, propaganda campaigns, the humiliation Germany suffered at the end of WWI, the utterly horrendous living conditions of the German people due to the Treaty of Versailles. Etc. That people in general are greedy and don't mind stealing the resources of other countries is hardly debatable or revelatory.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

super k said:


> ....but we have no problem with our government dictating where someone can smoke, or dictate if I may build on my property if it infringes on the puff belly toad, or take my property in the name of appropriation; control what our children are taught in our schools, or control what vehicle I buy if the form or gas penalties and taxes. Even what type of fat is used to fry my food? We sure seem willing to give up a lot with the right spin campaign


And WHO says we're okay with that? I'm not!


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> he's saying the German people supported Nazi foreign policy aggression because that's precisely what funded the creation and expansion of a welfare state at home.


Uh... I haven't read that book, but looking each of your interpretations of it, I don't really see that they disagree.

If he's saying that Germans "*supported* Nazi foreign policy aggression *because* that's precisely what *funded the creation and expansion* of a welfare state at home", isn't that pretty much the same thing as saying that the "welfare state *enabled popular support* for an aggressive foreign policy"?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Uh... I haven't read that book, but looking each of your interpretations of it, I don't really see that they disagree.
> 
> If he's saying that Germans "*supported* Nazi foreign policy aggression *because* that's precisely what *funded the creation and expansion* of a welfare state at home", isn't that pretty much the same thing as saying that the "welfare state *enabled popular support* for an aggressive foreign policy"?


No, not at all. Phinn explicitly reversed cause and effect. He said:

Welfare is Step 1. Warfare is Step 2.

As if warfare is enabled by or is the result of welfare. That's preposterous and isn't supported by any evidence.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> No, not at all. Phinn explicitly reversed cause and effect. He said:
> 
> Welfare is Step 1. Warfare is Step 2.
> 
> As if warfare is enabled by or is the result of welfare. That's preposterous and isn't supported by any evidence.


If people support warfare because it provides welfare, then the people's support for welfare enables warfare.

I still don't see an actual disagreement here. This is like a chicken/egg debate.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> No, not at all. Phinn explicitly reversed cause and effect. He said:
> 
> Welfare is Step 1. Warfare is Step 2.
> 
> As if warfare is enabled by or is the result of welfare. That's preposterous and isn't supported by any evidence.


Gee, you're saying that creating a class that is dependent on government largesse doesn't effectively disable members of that class from criticizing activities of the government?

Hmmm.

Or how's this: Government micromanagement of domestic affairs doesn't embolden the government from projecting a similar management style abroad?

Hmmm.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> If people support warfare because it provides welfare, then the people's support for welfare enables warfare.


My point is that most countries had (and still have) welfare programs, almost all of them much larger than Germany's during the 1920's and 30's. Welfare doesn't explain why the Nazis tried to conquer the world and no one else did, but it can easily be explained by factors that were unique to Germany at the time.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Welfare doesn't explain why the Nazis tried to conquer the world and no one else did, but it can easily be explained by factors that were unique to Germany at the time.


No one else did? What about Japan?

What about Roosevelt's welfare state? Hell, we _still_ occupy parts of the world that we conquered at that time. We've _still_ got military bases in Europe, Japan, the Philippines...


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> My point is that most countries had (and still have) welfare programs, almost all of them much larger than Germany's during the 1920's and 30's. Welfare doesn't explain why the Nazis tried to conquer the world and no one else did, but it can easily be explained by factors that were unique to Germany at the time.


Quite!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jolly Roger,

It would be incorrect to say we occupy our bases. I believe in every case where we have an American base on foreign soil (Cuba might be the exception) we have a Status of Forces agreement with the host nation and we are there at their invitation.

It would also be incorrect to say we conquered territory in World War 2, but rather we liberated territory. You may counter that I am playing semantics but in my opinion there is a big difference between conquer and liberate, especially since your first premise is faulty.

Karl


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Jolly Roger,
> 
> It would be incorrect to say we occupy our bases. I believe in every case where we have an American base on foreign soil (Cuba might be the exception) we have a Status of Forces agreement with the host nation and we are there at their invitation.


True enough, as far as it goes. You're absolutely correct that after we subdued them militarily and set up governments of our own device, those governments then invited us to hang around.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> No one else did? What about Japan?


What about Japan? As a matter of fact Japan is an excellent example to refute Phinn's claim: they had essentially no welfare programs during the time they invaded China, joined the Axis Powers and entered into WWII, and the country had one of the world's largest discrepancies between rich and poor prior to that war:
https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23303/Japan



Jolly Roger said:


> What about Roosevelt's welfare state? Hell, we _still_ occupy parts of the world that we conquered at that time. We've _still_ got military bases in Europe, Japan, the Philippines...


I'm not about to become Defender of the Welfare State, but to attribute warfare to it is just plain ridiculous. War expenditures far, far outweigh war booty, and has for hundreds of years.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jolly Roger,

Governments of our own device? Are you implying that the governments of West Germany (now Germany), Italy and Japan post Allied military control were puppets of the US?

Are you the sort of libertarian that sees a conspiracy and nefarious intent around every corner? If so, then keep your support of Ron Paul to a low whisper, so you don't scare away mainstream voters.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Gee, you're saying that creating a class that is dependent on government largesse doesn't effectively disable members of that class from criticizing activities of the government?


How much does it cost to vote, or stand on a street corner and rant?



yachtie said:


> Or how's this: Government micromanagement of domestic affairs doesn't embolden the government from projecting a similar management style abroad?


You'll need to define "micromanagement". E.g. caring for people who, through no fault of their own are disabled and unable to care for themselves doesn't qualify in my book. Neither does basing a healthcare system on something other than profit and predation.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> How much does it cost to vote, or stand on a street corner and rant?


But they _dont _! "Ranters" are professionals ( Al and Jesse) who are bought and paid for ( and in the game for themselves)



> You'll need to define "micromanagement". E.g. caring for people who, through no fault of their own are disabled and unable to care for themselves doesn't qualify in my book. Neither does basing a healthcare system on something other than profit and predation.


Since when was welfare based on being faultless? It was a scam to give rise to a dependency class that would be beholden to the Democratic Party. The old "ghettoes" were better places then the projects that replaced them. They're trying to do the same with the Hispanics now.

Healthcare is a red herring and I, for one, won't bite.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Since when was welfare based on being faultless? It was a scam to give rise to a dependency class that would be beholden to the Democratic Party. The old "ghettoes" were better places then the projects that replaced them. They're trying to do the same with the Hispanics now.


How are you defining "welfare", e.g. would you include Social Security disability insurance in your definition? If you're talking strictly about the "crack whores squirting out babies" right-wing fodder, everyone agreed the system needed reform, and it was reformed.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> How are you defining "welfare", e.g. would you include Social Security disability insurance in your definition?


Who would not include that? I mean, it is text book welfare.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Who would not include that? I mean, it is text book welfare.


+1 I'd do better without the government "investing







" *my* money.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Governments of our own device? Are you implying that the governments of West Germany (now Germany), Italy and Japan post Allied military control were puppets of the US?


I'm certainly not naive enough to think that we would allow them to set up governments that were fundamentally opposed to us.



> Are you the sort of libertarian that sees a conspiracy and nefarious intent around every corner?


Not at all, and quite frankly I resent the insinuation. I'm simply a realist with a decent grasp of geopolitics, a US Army veteran with a fair understanding of our current and historical models of political/military operations.

I'm also not sure how you see conspiracy theory in the very obvious assertion that we restructured governments friendly to us in those countries that were under military occupation in the postwar period.

One would think it is quite clear. Let's look at the case of Germany, if you will. The West German government, under occupation by the the US and Western European powers, was friendly to us. The GDR (East Germany), under occupation by the Soviet Union, was hostile to us and part of the Eastern Bloc. There's no conspiracy there, just politics.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Yachtie, I don't know if you are being serious ( because I find it hard to accept you might be) but are you honestly saying that welfare is a bad idea?

I don't want to comment on the US directly because I don't live there but here in the UK we have a National Health Service - free at the point of need. About 10 years ago research was done which showed that the NHS was more efficient than the private health care system in the US - and our NHS could be much more efficient!

Welfare is not always a waste of money, and the majority doesn't go on wasters and scoundrels - although the right wing would argue until the moon fell out of the sky that it does.

I am glad we don't have "ambulance chaser lawyers" here and I am glad if I get knocked down in the street I don't have to worry whether my insurance will cover it - or whether I can afford insurance.

What hope does your world view give to hard working Americans who don't earn enough money and never will to save up in case they lose their job and who perhaps cannot afford insurance ( assuming their employer doesn't cover the premiums)? There are many poeple in this world who work very hard but make very little money - we cannot all be gifted with entrepreneurial skills or intelligence or good fortune.

An old doctor said to me 20 years ago when Margaret Thatcher seemed like she would dismantle the welfare state " WE don't want to go back to before 1944 - I remember those days , he said. Ordinary working people could not afford a doctor and many poeple died who didn't need to. Why do you think we invented the NHS" And you could apply the same to disabilty benefit, welfare to work benefit and so on.

Maybe you have been, but I wonder if you have ever been unemployed for a long period of time even though you were looking for work good and hard. I have been lucky not to have been but I know people who have. They were not dishonest nor scroungers, though we all know such people exist abolishing welfare is not the answer!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Leather man said:


> An old doctor said to me 20 years ago when Margaret Thatcher seemed like she would dismantle the welfare state " WE don't want to go back to before 1944 - I remember those days , he said. Ordinary working people could not afford a doctor and many poeple died who didn't need to. Why do you think we invented the NHS" And you could apply the same to disabilty benefit, welfare to work benefit and so on.


And I can tell you about the pediatric pulmonlogist from the UK that I know that will never go back due to his dislike of the NHS. And I can tell you about many doctors I know that dislike the *inefficiency* they see in the VA, the spendthrift nature of Medicare, etc. This is just a very flawed way to argue.

Could you please source your claim for NHS efficiency?

How do you feel about age limit cut-offs in the UK for life sustaining treatment, such as renal dialysis and transplantation? The usual age is 55 for cut off in the UK. Here is an abstract were the article discusses the positive outcomes possible in ESRD patients over 55. Notice I source my assertions and with solid ones at that, i.e. NIH, NHS, etc.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6409209&dopt=AbstractPlus

Cheers


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Thank you Wayfarer for that interesting abstract. Yes age limits to treatment is a controversial issue at the moment naturally here in the UK. However that abstract doesn't say that the NHS has cut offs abitarily - but because, mistakenly it seems, it believes the treatment to be of no use in older patients with end stage renal disease.

I cannot source my quote because it was something I came across quite some time ago - you are of course at liberty to disbelieve me - but I can assure you I have a good memory and don't make things up. This isn't an academic forum otherwise I would not quote anything I couldn't source.

Neither does your assertion mean that the NHS is a bad idea per se - I still say I would much rather have the NHS warts and all, than the American system - I think you are implying you think the US system is flawed too. 

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Leather Man,
> 
> Thanks for warning us, though I tend to fear someone who calls themselves Leather Man more than I do an Orwellian police state.
> 
> Karl


Thank you for the inane remark Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Leather Man,

Not at all. Glad to see you are only a few days behind the curve.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Thank you Wayfarer for that interesting abstract. Yes age limits to treatment is a controversial issue at the moment naturally here in the UK. However that abstract doesn't say that the NHS has cut offs abitarily - but because, mistakenly it seems, it believes the treatment to be of no use in older patients with end stage renal disease.
> 
> I cannot source my quote because it was something I came across quite some time ago - you are of course at liberty to disbelieve me - but I can assure you I have a good memory and don't make things up. This isn't an academic forum otherwise I would not quote anything I couldn't source.


That was just one fast example. There are more similar cases, such as cardiac operations, etc. where the NHS has placed age limit cutoffs. Also of concern, and easily sourceable, are wait times for various treatments

Above you imply the NHS age cut offs are not arbitrary. How would you feel if you or your loved one needed one of these treatments? When the government has an almost complete monopoly on the delivery of healthcare, and it cuts people off from any hope of treatment, it is doing exactly what so many claim is the problem with US HMOs. What irony, no?



Leather man said:


> Neither does your assertion mean that the NHS is a bad idea per se - I still say I would much rather have the NHS warts and all, than the American system - I think you are implying you think the US system is flawed too.


The US system is indeed flawed. However, eliminating the ability to pay, I am 100% sure I would rather be in the US to get my healthcare. Most every physician in the Western world will tell you the US tertiary system is the best. If you need emergency trauma care, the US is the best. Emergency surgery? US. Cancer therapy? US.

My friend I mentioned above, the pediatric pulmonologist, told me there is a saying in the UK in regards to health: if the wait to get treatment does not kill you, you will probably live.

Please do a search on the topic of healthcare here on the Interchange based on my user name. Read through those 1000 posts or so and you will have a good idea about what I think of healthcare and the basis I have for rendering my opinions.

Cheers


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Leather man said:


> I don't want to comment on the US directly because I don't live there but here in the UK we have a National Health Service - free at the point of need. About 10 years ago research was done which showed that the NHS was more efficient than the private health care system in the US - and our NHS could be much more efficient!


"Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations - Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom - on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it."

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/...ncamp=article_popular&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

One thing in common found among those who parrot the "U.S. has the best medical care in the world" delusion is that they have little if any first-hand experience with anything other than the U.S. health care system.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> One thing in common found among those who parrot the "U.S. has the best medical care in the world" delusion is that they have little if any first-hand experience with anything other than the U.S. health care system.


Does anyone else find it odd that a poster who claims to have me on ignore makes a specific comment to my prior post? Either way Frank, that is not the case with me as I actually have first hand experience, as patient and professional, in more than just the US health care system.

Further, Frank's quoted source is not primary, it is an editorial piece. However, let me quote part of this editorial:



> Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the "right care" for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients.


Quality. Not who is covered, access, etc., etc., but quality. Frank cannot get even this right. If one speaks of quality removing payer source, as I stated above, the US rules. When one defines what is best based on coverage, of course a country that does not have universal coverage is by definition going to score lower than those that do. When one defines not having to pay at point of service, again the US is going to not place well. Basically, when a rating tool is designed specifically to rate the US system lower based on its intrinsic properties, the US will score lower. If I created a tool to rank health care systems, I could easily create one that would make the US come out on top. As usual, choosing the criteria is a bias in and of itself.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Leather Man,
> 
> Not at all. Glad to see you are only a few days behind the curve.
> 
> Karl


Thanks for the apology Karl, oh sorry that should read more inane remarks.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Thanks Frank for coming to my rescue - I knew I wasn't making it up.

Wayfarer, doesn't this all show that it depends on what one is looking at or for in these comparisons. Your comment that Franks is from an editorial doesn't invalidate it - it still says what the research found!

I think it all depends what one wants from a health care system. For me justice and equity rank pretty high, which is not to say I don't care about right treatment of course - that would be insane! 

I didn't make a claim about the NHS re abitary cut off ages - if you re read the post I just said that that article wasn't saying the cut off was necessarily arbitary but was because of a misreading of the benefits of treatment to the over 55s in late stage renal disease. I wouldn't dare make a leap from that to comment on what view the NHS has on other diseases wrt age profile. 

The big issue we have here - but surely every health system must do in the modern age - is that resources are limited - so rationing of some sort is a given. I am sure you are more aware of this than I am Wayfarer with your background. But then isn't insurance rationing ( who can afford it and what the company will and will not cover) ?

I hope this makes things a bit clearer. Clearly these issues are not simple but very complex. I don't think we will ever reach unanimity - but then I guess that's not the point of this thread - more a chance to share and exchange views - hopefully and in most cases politely.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Thanks Frank for coming to my rescue - I knew I wasn't making it up.
> 
> Wayfarer, doesn't this all show that it depends on what one is looking at or for in these comparisons. Your comment that Franks is from an editorial doesn't invalidate it - it still says what the research found!


It was not that good a rescue. There is no need to invalidate something that does not provide sources to primary data. I failed to find that in the editorial. Basically, as a source of proof, unless there are some citations I missed, that link is meaningless.



Leather man said:


> *I think it all depends what one wants from a health care system.* For me justice and equity rank pretty high, which is not to say I don't care about right treatment of course - that would be insane!


The bolded is exactly the point I made concerning creating an evaluation tool. For me, I want myself and those I love given the best care possible. Justice has nothing to do with it. If you can watch your child bleed out and die in the name of justice, go for it.



Leather man said:


> *I didn't make a claim about the NHS re abitary cut off ages - if you re read the post* I just said that that article wasn't saying the cut off was necessarily arbitary but was because of a misreading of the benefits of treatment to the over 55s in late stage renal disease. I wouldn't dare make a leap from that to comment on what view the NHS has on other diseases wrt age profile.


I suggest you re-read. Could you please indicate where I stated you made a claim about the age limit cutoffs other than your implication they were not arbitrary? I merely asked you how you felt about them.

The argument that insurance = rationing is bogus. Please figure out why on your own. I hate to enable 

Did you do as I requested and searched this forum for my literally hundreds upon hundreds of posts on healthcare?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Canadian Health Care In Action*

It is an article about the Canadian quads just born in Great Falls Montana. The couple are from Calgary.



> The Jepps drove 325 miles to Great Falls for the births because hospitals in Calgary were at capacity.


If the US gets Canadian style healthcare, where are the Canadians going to go? :icon_smile_big:


----------

