This country

[bmxmon]

Does anybody else feel that the majority of the population of the United States is completely retarded?? I feel that the majority of this comes from the media, the music industry in particular. The first thing that I will bring up is the war in Iraq. I just got done watching music videos on Fuse. I like alot of the music, but feel what they are saying is really screwed up. System of a Down's song BYOB uses the saying, "why do they always send the poor." I dont understand how they feel that anybody is "sending" the poor to Iraq. This is not like Vietnam with the draft, everybody going over there enlisted voluntarily. Even if the armed forces were comprised 100% of people who lived in poverty, how could you blame that on the government? The next thing that I cant understand is how people blame the government for them losing their jobs or getting their pay cut. I bet that the majority of the problems comes from ourselves. People complain that they cant find jobs or decent paying jobs because they all get sent over to China. Why do they always get sent over to China? Because we are constantly demanding cheaper products. Price is the number one factor in peoples decision on which product to buy. The largest expense for companies is labor. We are constantly demanding larger pay checks yet cheaper products. Now I know that it seems like I am pro-government/business, but I dont consider myself that way. I definately agree that the govt and business screw up, but still feel that we always try to blame them other than actually look at ourselves.

[Capri306]

Okay, just gonna play devil's advocate here for a second: System of a Down is made of Armenians, who are, classically, oppressed people. They do a lot of advocation for their people's cause, which I'm venturing is freedom & humanitarian pursuits. "Sending the poor" might be their native government's methos of getting things done where they're from. "You depend on our protection" sounds like communism, really.

Take it with a grain of salt. While I'm with you on most of Hollywood and the coasts "losing it" when it comes to knowing what's right and wrong, these guys are still just entertainers. If they happen to arise an interest in what's happening in their own country through their music, more power to 'em. I think most people here are intelligent enough to realize, once they know about System of a Down's origins, that they're not preaching against the War on Terror. At least that's how I'm looking at it. I realize though, that a lot of their fans are left-wing types (shudders as to why they are allowed to exist) who'd rather protest than do an honest day of work in the real world. Take heart. There are many who think that a lot of America is falling apart. However, I can assure you that as long as my party has control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, we'll continue to fight the good fight.

Rock on.

[bmxmon]

Definitely a good reply, I like trying to see things from the other side. I didnt know that System of a Down was from Armenia, and that they could be talking about their native government. I was also just trying to use system of a down as an example of alot of the stuff that is out there. (it was the last video i saw) Like I said, I like their music, and the music of alot of other bands that are anti-government. (Im into punk and whatnot) I always get angered when I actually listen to the words, and the message they are portraying to all the people that are listening, which is normally an extremely one-sided view. I think my fault, and maybe other people like me, is that we automatically assume that they are talking about the US, when they could be talking about a totally different country!!! I feel quite ashamed that I didnt even think that they could be talking about a totally different country. Im not ready to say that the Republican party is the answer to everything, as the democrats are important, and do have what i feel are good points on some issues. I think its just that the radicals are getting more press time than the average democrat, giving off a disproportional view of that party.

[Capri306]

Trust me, it's just as mysterious to me why the punk groups have a 'thing' against the US government when there are numerous other governments around the world who only hold a candle second to Hitler and Stalin. Think Indonesia, Iran, Sudan, etc., which are usually run by Muslim extremists. Do you see any of them singing against all the hundreds of thousands of Christians being killed by Muslim governments in Africa? NO! Hypocrites, all of them!

Even the Saudis are guilty of oppression, yet we buy most all our oil from them. Why can't we drill for oil here? Because the left has made oil drilling taboo here in the States.

These are the first two items that popped into my head, but there are several other examples of how "f-ed up the world is." Sad to say, but it's always been this way. People think we're in a really messed-up time right now, but I ask them, when were things really "right" or "normal"? Not in my lifetime!

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by bmxmon

Does anybody else feel that the majority of the population of the United States is completely retarded?? I feel that the majority of this comes from the media, the music industry in particular.

The answer to the question you raise is: No. I do not think that 'the majority of the population of the United States is completely retarded'...or stupid or whatever label you want to use. Ill-informed and too apathetic is more like it. However, the majority of this country - the ones that voted, anyway - were intelligent enough to reject that paragon of elitist liberalism, John F. Kerry, and re-elect President George W. Bush. Proving that our collective national intelligence is still quite sound, despite the continued existence of Hollywood liberals and media leftists.

The first thing that I will bring up is the war in Iraq. I just got done watching music videos on Fuse. I like alot of the music, but feel what they are saying is really screwed up. System of a Down's song BYOB uses the saying, "why do they always send the poor." I dont understand how they feel that anybody is "sending" the poor to Iraq. This is not like Vietnam with the draft, everybody going over there enlisted voluntarily. Even if the armed forces were comprised 100% of people who lived in poverty, how could you blame that on the government?

If you attempt to use music videos to gauge the attitudes of the nation then you are making your first big mistake and will get always the wrong impression. In general, most people in what we call 'show business' (music, TV, movies and the legitimate stage) are a combination of egotistical, clueless and relentlessly liberal in their politics. Most just follow the liberal crowd mindlessly ('me too') but some go further and incorporate their leftist, anti-war political views into their art. That doesn't mean that they know what they're talking about or that they speak for anyone but themselves. I find it best to totally ignore what anyone who is part of the show business crowd - generally rich and clueless - says about anything, especially politics.

The old wheeze that governments always send 'the poor' to war is an ancient anti-war cliché and it does not apply to the current 'war' in Iraq, by any means. You know that and I suspect the guys in System of a Down' know that - or they should. But it makes a neat little populist anti-war statement for them that the liberals who abound in the music business will approve of. The facts are apparently not something the group care about when a good lyric can be constructed of anti-war canards.

The next thing that I cant understand is how people blame the government for them losing their jobs or getting their pay cut. I bet that the majority of the problems comes from ourselves.

You would win that bet.

The government can affect some fringes of the economy here and there - but not much, unless they make some really bonehead laws...which happens. Right now, the economy is booming with very low inflation and unemployment and high income levels all around. The Bush tax cuts helped that to happen but beyond that long-range governmental act of a few years ago (lowering the tax rates) most of the rise in our economic well-being is due to the decisions of individuals and business owners and CEO's, not the government. We live in a capitalist society, not a socialist or communist society and the government does not control the economy or 'give' people jobs.

People complain that they cant find jobs or decent paying jobs because they all get sent over to China. Why do they always get sent over to China? Because we are constantly demanding cheaper products. Price is the number one factor in peoples decision on which product to buy. The largest expense for companies is labor. We are constantly demanding larger pay checks yet cheaper products. Now I know that it seems like I am pro-government/business, but I dont consider myself that way. I definately agree that the govt and business screw up, but still feel that we always try to blame them other than actually look at ourselves.

You seem to grasp the basic economics of the situation. Most of the jobs going to China (and India) are low-level and will be replaced, eventually. The job market is always in flux. Jobs that didn't exist ten years ago (cellphone tech, for instance) now provide a living for many. Jobs that don't exist today will emerge and provide a living for many Americans down the road. When cars became affordable in the 1920's, a lot of jobs related to horses and carriages went away, yet people survived and new jobs came about in the auto-related business. So it always goes.

As for cheaper prices: yes, we all want those. That's why Wal-Mart is so successful. Price/value. When Americans have more money to spend, whether due to the government taking less out of your paycheck in taxes or because you saved money on needed products by shopping at Wal-mart, that extra cash is put back into the U.S. economy. Whether you put that saved money in a bank, which can then lend money for folks to buy homes, or buy a new TV, car, whatever, it expands the economy - which is not a zero-sum entity - and that is good for everyone, rich, poor and all of us in-between. That's why capitalism works so well and why it is the engine that drives this nation. That some folks don't understand that or just grumble because they get fired is hardly proof of anything except that most people will be out of work now and then in their working life. It happens. We eventually move on to something else. Blaming 'the government' is hardly the correct response to a pink slip and that kind of misdirected whining gets you nowhere.

[bmxmon]

Yeah, I shouldnt have said that I feel that most americans are stupid. Most arent stupid, just that they want to blame their problems on the easiest thing; the government. I dont like to automatically blame liberals, thats why i use "they" hahaha. More or less what I see as the general mindset of america, or at least what is portrayed by the media.
The reason for using music as an indicator is because its such a large part of peoples lives, and like it or not many people are influenced by it. I just dont like that the message of a few is going out to so many.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by bmxmon

Yeah, I shouldnt have said that I feel that most americans are stupid. Most arent stupid, just that they want to blame their problems on the easiest thing; the government.

As I said, many Americans are apathetic about anything that happens outside of their own little sphere and have little real concept of geopolitics, economics or anything that doesn't interest or affect them personally. That's why politicians can get away with so much and why the media still misleads people and yet can pretend to be 'objective'.

I dont like to automatically blame liberals, thats why i use "they" hahaha.

No problem, but I like to put 'blame' where I believe it should be. Liberalism has caused this country and our society a lot of unecessary grief over the past half-century. I happen to resent the fact that, even with all their electoral losses recently, liberals still hold so much influence in government and the media. Fortunately, the internet gives all points of view a chance to be heard, debated and considered, not just the 'liberal' point of view, as was the case in the past.

More or less what I see as the general mindset of america, or at least what is portrayed by the media. The reason for using music as an indicator is because its such a large part of peoples lives, and like it or not many people are influenced by it. I just dont like that the message of a few is going out to so many.

Pop music certainly is a large part of most people's lives, be it rock, rap, country, gospel or what-have-you. I'm not quite sure how many people are truly influenced by the lyrics in a popular song but I will allow that the music does have influence, especially with the 12-24 year-old demographic.

I agree that the 'wrong' message is sent by most pop music singers and groups today - especially gangsta rap - but while they may influence some gullible minds, most of us grow up and realize that some multi-millionaire singer/songwriter pretending to be a 'regular' guy in scruffy clothes while onstage who then leaves the stadium protected by bodyguards, climbs into his chauffeur-driven limo, is driven to the airport where he boards his chartered jet and arrives at his 5-million-dollar Beverly Hills mansion where he is waited on hand and foot, doesn't really know squat about politics. He is even less qualified to tell other people what to think. Having a hit CD doesn't bestow special wisdom on anyone, liberal or conservative.

For those who take song lyrics to heart and believe that they are gaining some kind of wisdom from them, well, what can you do? Not much, really. Just trust that common sense and maturity will allow those folks - most of them, anyway, to eventually grow up and learn to seek information from sources other than a song, newspaper or TV newscast, and then make independent judgements on serious issues instead of following some metaphorical herd that tells you what they believe you should think rather than you deciding for yourself.

I have very 'conservative' political views, formed from my experiences and study over some time, but that doesn't mean that conservative politics are a panacea for all of the worlds problems or that I am always right (even if I may think that I am). I always urge folks to look at the facts, history, etc and make an informed opinion on the big issues of the day. Naturally, I will usually promote the conservative point of view but in the final analysis, each individual must make up his or her own mind on how to approach the significant concerns that confront the thinking person each day.

I like pop music as much as anyone (well, some of it) but I didn't get my opinions from anything I may have heard in a song. I doubt many people really do, truth be told. However, those who do take their political cues or form their worldviews from songs and/or videos deserve what they get: ignorance.

[SMOKE]

Although not a card carrying conserative or liberal, I do agree with the bulk of 5.0's comments.

I like pop music as much as anyone (well, some of it) but I didn't get my opinions from anything I may have heard in a song. I doubt many people really do, truth be told. However, those who do take their political cues or form their worldviews from songs and/or videos deserve what they get: ignorance.

[bmxmon]

From what i can tell we are both pretty much seeing eye to eye. I believe the deal with liberals is that they have pretty much ran out of things to complain about. They have done alot of good in the past, with things like work conditions and whatnot. Im not saying that we dont have problems anymore, but the major ones have been greatly reduced, and that would lead to fewer people choosing the left side. Somethings they have gone greatly overboard with, most ovbiously environmentalist. I started this thread just to get some things I have been thinking about for quite awhile off my chest, and explore some other views. Im glad all you guys have been responding, I really like seeing how others think, it can be so different at times.

[Mr 5 0]

Don't get me started on liberals and liberal politics.

Political liberalism was quite different 100 years ago, at the turn of the 20th century, when sweatshops, the 12-hour work day, child labor and no regard for worker safety were all common. Unions, along with government regulation, were the new hope of the poorly-paid working man. Social liberals fought for minimum wages and safety conditions and other big issues of the day, including the end of racial segregation and the establishment of federal civil rights laws (which most Southern Democrats vehemently opposed). Back then, liberalism meant actually helping people in need to some extent. Now, it simply means bigger government, which means more intrusion into your life combined with ever-higher taxes.

Unfortunately, liberals have generally been dangerously soft on national defense if not flat-out anti-military, looked favorably at communism and other repressive ideologies over the years and have opposed capitalism as evil and repressive when in fact, it is the lifeblood of America and a major reason for our ability to rise to superpower status since the end of World War Two. Look at who supports the liberal-dominated Democrat party today: trial lawyers, pushing up the cost of everything by attacking the manufacturers of perfectly safe products that are used irresponsibly. Militant, anti-male feminists who think having an abortion should define all women. Unions, shrinking in members every year and still supporting the Democrats even when half their membership votes Republican and minority groups with never-ending grievances (think Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan), just to name the major players in the DNC.

Liberals have been stridently against the war in Iraq and, now forgotten, were mostly against the war in Afghanistan, too. That is their right, but the barely-hidden anti-military attitudes on the political left are troubling to many folks. Liberals push enviromentalism like a religion and try to use environmental laws to stop progress and normal human activity. The insane Kyoto accord, that the U.S. passed on because it would have crippled us economically while exempting China, India and other big nations with serious pollution problems, is a good example of how the left has tried to use environmentalism as a club to stifle U.S. progress and cripple our economy, all in the name of 'clean air'. The trouble with that rationale is that our air is far cleaner than it has been for decades, as is our water. We have more trees now than we did 200 years ago. The environmental ploy the leftwing uses to advance it's anti-capitalist agenda is a hoax. Yes, we have problem areas and we can't stop working to get our air and water in even better condition but the left's cry that we are 'killing the planet' is absurd.

These days, the political left uses not only 'enviromentalism' to push it's agenda but plays one race against the other, pretending that anyone who doesn't think the America of 2005 is just like the America of 1940 for black people is a 'racist'. It goes without saying that the political leftwing loaths - and never stop whining about - the Bush administration. Too bad. When you win elections- as Republicans do - you get to set the national agenda. The liberals who run the DNC today can only disrespectfully call President Bush 'a moron' while he continues to do big things that will change the course of the nation and be effective long after he is retired. The liberals running the Democrat party today fight like banshees every time a tax cut for the overburdened American taxpayer is raised by Republicans, using the old 'tax cuts for the rich' line when that is patently untrue of most tax cuts. Meanwhile, our economy is absolutely booming and the Democrats keep losing more seats in congress, along with the presidency, every election. The Democrats elect a raving leftist zealot like Howard Dean to the DNC chairmanship and wonder why more and more people are backing away from a political party that get loonier every month, making wild accusations against Republicans and acting as if we are all going to die because a Democrat elitist snob wasn't elected president last November. On and on it goes.

Political liberalism, as it is practiced today, runs counter to what most Americans cherish and believe. The highly secular leftwing sneers at religion and and the concept of God, portrays believers as idiots and weak sisters. Meanwhile, over 80% of Americans believe in God and have a religious faith that sustains them to some extent. Most Americans favor a smaller tax burden...but not liberals. Most Americans want a Supreme Court that will actually follow the constitution instead of finding hitherto unknown 'rights' that don't really exist in that venerable document. Liberals want a Supreme Court that makes laws instead of interpreting them, as the constitution calls for. Most Americans, even if they are not pleased with the war in Iraq, want the U.S. to win the war and see Iraq become a full-fledged democracy. Liberals just want us to cut and run and call it 'victory', as they persuaded the government to do in VietNam, to our everlasting shame.

In many ways, political liberals seem to be opposed to individual freedom, a smaller tax burden, less government intrusion into business and personal lives. They seem to favor race-baiting, environmental whacko stuff that costs taxpayers money and harrasses business and individuals trying to comply with more and more regulations, and they obviously obsess over finding more and more new rights and writing new laws just for homosexuals. They are always finding America to be the villain in the war on terror, and generally treat the twice-elected president of the United States disrespectfully, just because they, with their insufferable elitist attitudes, think they are somehow better than he is and, truth be told, better than 'the rest of us'. They are far from it and their leftist views will probably help shrink their numbers in congress in the next election and render them even less important than they are, now. One hopes, anyway.


Like I said, don't get me started.

[mustardjohn]

Hey why don't we switch to a discussion of the Supreme Court and how liberalism in an unelected arm of our government can send jobs to China and any number other things that effect us daily?
Oh yeah and how this bomber of "family care" clinics must be kept off the court. I heard he used is own cell phone to set off the bombs. Maybe we can write a song about that.


Just kidding...... Just kidding......

Agree with 5.0 just have to wait for maturity but is some it never comes.

[Mr 5 0]

The attacks on Judge John Roberts from the militant feminist/pro-abortion leftists were predicted the moment President Bush nominated the man. No surprises there. This is what they do. However, Judge Roberts appears to have few ideological 'handles' the left can grab onto. This reduces the political leftwing to lying and purposely distorting his record, which will turn off most reasonable people. When all the smoke clears, Judge Roberts will be easily confirmed by the Senate and the left will have lost yet another ideological fight.

The U.S. Supreme Court has done a lot of harm to this nation over the years, including the recent decision in Kelo v New London; that gives towns, cities and states the right to extend 'Eminent Domain' to areas where the existing homes or businesses, which may be in fine condition and operating normally, can now be taken by the government (under Eminent Domain law), then sold or transferred to a private entity (think: Wal-Mart) and commercial facilities built on the property that will generate more tax revenue for the town or city or state. It's a blatant attenuation of citizen property rights and should be overturned - but this kind of absurd ruling has become much more common on this Court in recent decadess. From the dreadful Roe v Wade ruling in 1973 that rested on a judicial belief - not the constitution - to the 2003 Lawrence v Texas decision that codified sodomy (between consenting adults, in private) to a constitutional right, the Supreme Court has been making lousy decisions that have little to no constitutional basis. We need a more 'conservative', constitutionally-oriented Supreme Court. If you believe that, as I do, you hope that Judge John Roberts is confirmed and can help take the Court in a more constitutional direction.

I warned you. Don't get me started.

[Capri306]

Mr. 5.0, have you read Ann Coulter's book yet? Yeah, that one. If you have, would you suggest picking up a copy?

BTW, I don't like the fact that nine lawyers in black robes dictate the course of our nation, either. However, I thank God we still have the power to elect the men in charge of appointing them. Remember Clinton (heil Clintler! ) and the Court striking down his line-item veto? Whew!

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by Capri306

Mr. 5.0, have you read Ann Coulter's book yet? Yeah, that one. If you have, would you suggest picking up a copy?

I've read every book that the lovely and witty Ann Coulter has written and I never miss her weekly column. I'm a fan. I especially loved 'Treason', which was full of facts that I had never read before and cast a new light on the forever-demonized Senator Joe McCarthy. It also portrays liberal as basically anti-American at heart - and always on the side of the enemy. No news to me. Even today, the far left is more concerned with terrorists alleged 'rights' in Guantanomo than the security of their fellow Americans and blame America for 9/11. They have power in academia, the media and in the old 'mainline' churches but Bill Clinton pretty much killed their majority in congress, probably for good...one hopes.

TW, I don't like the fact that nine lawyers in black robes dictate the course of our nation, either. However, I thank God we still have the power to elect the men in charge of appointing them. Remember Clinton (heil Clintler! ) and the Court striking down his line-item veto? Whew!

I remember it well. They do get a few things right.

I only hope that President Bush can appoint two or three (Justice Stevens is now 83 years old) more Supreme Court Justices that will read the constitution as it is written and apply it to their decisions fairly and stop trying to change society according to their personal whims and then pretend to 'find' some hitherto unknown 'right' in the constitution to justify what they have already decided - not on the basis of the constitution - but their own personal preferences. That's wrong - yet it's been the pattern of the Supreme Court for 40 years or more.

Let me hasten to note that I don't necessarily want all Republican/conservative ideologues as Supreme Court Justices, either. Just fair-minded men or women who read the constitution and apply it sensibly to their rulings, without any ideological bias. That was the original intent of the founders and if we could get the Supreme Court back to that line of reasoning - making the actual words of the constitution our guide instead of what we wish it said - this nation would be well served.

[HoodStrype]

Quote-Liberalism I feel still has a role in America, but a much smaller role than 100 yrs ago, like I said earlier. The biggest issue that I feel they are just in fighting for is Gay Marriage. In another hundered or so years from now (or whenever it is allowed) I feel it will be looked back apon by future generations with shame, much like racism is today. -

...I believe that may happen one day, but not because it is right. Back in some Roman (and/or Egyptian) times it was quite common to be with the same sex, but they were not of the same religion or 'value set' that most people have been under for hundreds of years now.
I think it will happen because of the fall of Christianity these days. The US used to be a major Christian strong hold. Even from its birth.

When I was a kid (I'm only 26 but I do live in the "Bible Belt") WalMart and everything except fast food closed on Sunday. No one mowed the law, or hunted or fished on Sunday either. These days people are becoming bored with the Bible and thanks to Television/Radio/Internet, we've seen a 120 year decline of Religion in general and are much more open to new possibilities and ideas- whether or not you think they are or are not correct. We see violence on a more localized scale such as schools and homes now. It used to be the divorced woman/man across town and now half of marraiges end in the same fate. I'd say to stick with the morals.

Now, if you bring racism into this... that's the same. Slavery has unfortunately been common for all the Earth's history. Sad to think about, and almost down right depressing.

As for me... I'll stick with the Bible. I like what I've read of it, though it's really hard to stick to... especially the "Turn the other cheek" part! Lol!

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by HoodStrype

...I believe that may happen one day, but not because it is right. Back in some Roman (and/or Egyptian) times it was quite common to be with the same sex, but they were not of the same religion or 'value set' that most people have been under for hundreds of years now. I think it will happen because of the fall of Christianity these days. The US used to be a major Christian strong hold. Even from its birth.

The majority of Americans still are Christian, a broad term that covers everything from the Roman Catholic Church to the most backwoods fundamentalist Baptist church you can find.

Religion may be less important to some people today than it once was but the evangelistic Christian churches are booming in membership and most fundamentalist Christian churches are doing very well, too. Only the old-line churches are dying out and most of that is due to their foolishly attempting to adopt liberal positions that their members see as running counter to the bible they are supposed to be based on. The Congregational Church's insistence on appointing a gay Bishop has torn that denomination apart - and they are losing members all the time. They haven't followed the bibical warning that you cannot serve two master: God and man. Their loss.

When I was a kid (I'm only 26 but I do live in the "Bible Belt") WalMart and everything except fast food closed on Sunday. No one mowed the law, or hunted or fished on Sunday either. These days people are becoming bored with the Bible and thanks to Television/Radio/Internet, we've seen a 120 year decline of Religion in general and are much more open to new possibilities and ideas- whether or not you think they are or are not correct. We see violence on a more localized scale such as schools and homes now. It used to be the divorced woman/man across town and now half of marraiges end in the same fate. I'd say to stick with the morals.

And I would agree with you.

Most of the 'new possibilities' seem to include casual, serial sexual relationships and bearing multiple illegitimate children, co-habitation, drug use and other destructive lifestyles that destroy families and harm the people engaging in them, in the long run. The growing violence and continual gutter-talk we hear now all around us as well as the rejection of authority and downgrading of our collective culture is a partial result of some of those 'new possibilities'.

Now, if you bring racism into this... that's the same. Slavery has unfortunately been common for all the Earth's history. Sad to think about, and almost down right depressing.

Cheer up. While almost all of the world practiced slavery 200 years ago, Great Britian and The United States of America were the first to renounce it and make it illegal in the 19th century. A few countries like the Sudan still have slavery and that is depressing.

As for me... I'll stick with the Bible. I like what I've read of it, though it's really hard to stick to... especially the "Turn the other cheek" part! Lol!

The bible is a wonderful guide for living as well as salvation. Anything worth having is worth the effort needed to obtain it. While salvation is free, living a life modeled on Jesus is hard, I'll admit. It's still a worthy model and like you, I'll take the bible as my guide.

[Unit 5302]

There is very little difference between a democrat and republican in government, currently. They don't care about standing for what they believe. They simply hold the party line, which is to oppose the other party line.

The federal reserve controls the economy, with the government having a significant impact as well. While controlling inflation and interest rates, the federal reserve attempts to keep the economy in a state of controlled growth.

Job outsourcing is most certainly not all low paying positions. Most are middle class wage jobs that are going out the door. Low paying jobs remain, and are largely what our economy has been able to produce in replacement of the middle class jobs that have left. NAFTA has been a complete failure. Not only have millions of US jobs been outsourced since it's inception, but working conditions in Mexico have NOT improved. Illegal immigration from Mexico into the US is up dramatically, and the percentage of poor people in Mexico has actually increased with no positive impact on their wages. That is the result when you create a free trade policy without protecting the people of the target country or your own home country. Simply put, the United States government intentionally exploited the workers in Mexico in an effort to improve corporate profitability. The corporate profitability led to nothing more than a dramatic increase in executive level compensation. In many cases the executive compensation skyrockets because of stock incentive programs which gives even more power to the companies executives and presents a conflict of interest with shareholders. CAFTA will result in exactly the same scenario. It will make a few people in the US, and a few people in Central America very rich while most people suffer.

While lower-middle and true middle class families have deteriorated in buying power as a result of weak and corrupt unions along with a direct failure of the United States government to protect citizens from corporate policies which stand directly in the face of capitalism such as mergers that create monopolies. Exxon-Mobil ring a bell? Peoplesoft-Oracle? Compaq-Hewlitt Packard? Washington Mutual-Providian? JP Morgan-Bank One? Bank of America-MBNA? Wells Fargo-Norwest? AOL-Time Warner? Bell Atlantic-GTE to form Verizon? Verizon-MCI? Sprint-Nextel? One of the most important concepts to capitalism is competition. The anti-trust commissions have turned their back on dozens of dangerous mergers that will or have resulted in a negative impact on consumers. While industries like oil continue to report record profits after a huge merger between Exxon and Mobile, the US government decides to give them a few billion dollars as a subsidy! Companies like GE pay no taxes because they had "losses." Meanwhile our judical system is allowing bankrupt companies that screwed their investors to emerge from bankruptcy into industries so competitive they can't possibly compete, and while they're at it, why not ax all the pensions to help the "working class" people in America.

A conservative movement seems to be sweeping across this country pushing ever harder to grab control of the government and force their opinions and religion onto all citizens through the passage of laws and legislation that turn social norms into laws. We have a congress that stops work in order to debate creating laws to stop life support being removed from a dead woman with no brain. Maybe it's good that our government spends more time debating how to police the actions of private sport leagues than how to create a free trade agreement that not only protects US citizens but also helps the people in the region it's targeting.

Oh, and if we could oppress a few defenseless countries because they don't think the best way to live is our way, that'd be great. Hey Cuba, I know you haven't done anything to us in 50 years, but we really need to keep that embargo up because... umm... because you made rich people in the US angry 50 years ago, and they still run the government!

Anybody that has faith remaining in the executive, judicial or legislative branches of this country is simply blind or stupid. The American people need to spend a little time educating themselves and a lot less time letting the media educate them. Perhaps then we'll have the wisdom to rise up, go to the polls and force necessary changes in the government so we can keep our way of life.

As of today... right now? It doesn't look real good to me. US citizens are stupid. They believe the garbage they see on CNN and in the mainstream media. That's proof enough for me.

[bmxmon]

The city that I live by, Detroit lakes Minnesota, just recently sold a large chunk of land, supposedly to Mills Fleet or Menards. Where did this land come from?? A private citizen, which the city took the land with some rediculious reason, they sold it for upwards of 1-2 million.
Liberalism I feel still has a role in America, but a much smaller role than 100 yrs ago, like I said earlier. The biggest issue that I feel they are just in fighting for is Gay Marriage. In another hundered or so years from now (or whenever it is allowed) I feel it will be looked back apon by future generations with shame, much like racism is today.
I am with you on those environmentalist. I feel that They have done their role, but now need step down. Did you know that trees are actually growing faster than what we can chop them down!!! That doesnt seem to get across too much. Certain things that they fought for I believe are right, like emissions on vehicles or having to go back and plant trees where they were chopped down. Also the regulations about the use of pesticides around bodies of water is an important one, which I feel is important. (remember, I live in the land of too many lakes) They do need to learn where to draw the line, when it becomes too much of a problem for people. I can see the pesticide thing, which is simple to obey, you just have to buy the right stuff. Now if it were that you couldnt run your cars engine 1mile from any lake, alot of people would be in trouble.
I also feel that god has no place in government. What I mean by this is that no decision made by the government should be based on god, only the moral beliefs of most americas, or the right decision to make everybody as free as possible. (even if it goes against what most americas feel. Monuments, to me, are fine to have on goverment property, as long as the goverment didnt pay for them or another religious monument is denied on the same property. To me this links back to gay marriage, which in the eyes of god is wrong, but otherwise doesnt affect anybody else.

[Orange97GTVert]

Mr 5.0, I agree with everything you said!

bmxmon, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders at 18! It seems too many 18 year olders are swayed toward liberalism because it is promoted so much on MTV and by the Hollywood bigshots and on campuses. They just blindly follow what is poured into their brain. Oh, and you have a classic Mustang too

[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by bmxmon

The city that I live by, Detroit lakes Minnesota, just recently sold a large chunk of land, supposedly to Mills Fleet or Menards. Where did this land come from?? A private citizen, which the city took the land with some rediculious reason, they sold it for upwards of 1-2 million.

So much for the Founders enshrinment of private property rights in the constitution. A right that, once 'legally' abridged renders the individual powerless against his government - if they want his home - which is the antithesis of what the authors of the constitution wanted. This is the result of a 'liberal' Supreme Court that sees government as more important than the people it governs.

Liberalism I feel still has a role in America, but a much smaller role than 100 yrs ago, like I said earlier. The biggest issue that I feel they are just in fighting for is Gay Marriage. In another hundered or so years from now (or whenever it is allowed) I feel it will be looked back apon by future generations with shame, much like racism is today.

Here is where we must part company.

I believe a man has no more 'right' to marry another man than he does to marry his sister. That the marriage laws sensibly and naturally permit only a man and a woman - who were obviously meant for sexual intercourse and subsequent procreation - to marry, is hardly 'discrimination' against homosexuals. Just because a minority group who's sexual proclivity is opposite to the body they inhabit doesn't mean that not meeting their strident demands for marriage rights is automatically 'discrimination', as the gay advocacy groups keep claiming. Permitting that kind of ersatz 'marriage' between two people of the same sex weakens what is an already fragile building block of civilized society.

Marriage is clearly about a man and a woman and artifically stretching it to cover homosexual relations may not appear to have any effect on hetrosexuals, personally, but it's corrosive effect on a basic societial structure would be enormous and very destructive, in time. For what? To please a tiny but vocal and powerful group who find the same sex attractive? Homosexuality is not a result of biological processes and remains a mental choice, for whatever reason. As such, not allowing homosexual relationships to be included and legally viewed as equal to hetrosexual marriage is simply common sense no matter how much the gay groups cry 'discrimination'. Any attempt to equate the former U.S. discrimination shown toward people of color is invalid as homosexuality is not genetic, race is.

I am with you on those environmentalist. I feel that They have done their role, but now need step down. Did you know that trees are actually growing faster than what we can chop them down!!! That doesnt seem to get across too much. Certain things that they fought for I believe are right, like emissions on vehicles or having to go back and plant trees where they were chopped down. Also the regulations about the use of pesticides around bodies of water is an important one, which I feel is important. (remember, I live in the land of too many lakes) They do need to learn where to draw the line, when it becomes too much of a problem for people. I can see the pesticide thing, which is simple to obey, you just have to buy the right stuff. Now if it were that you couldnt run your cars engine 1mile from any lake, alot of people would be in trouble.

As I said, our air and water is much, much cleaner thatn it was 30 or 40 years ago - and we have to keep it that way. Auto manufacturers have reduced tailpipe emissions to practically nothing and the new Hybrid cars will reduce it below that so we are certainly on the right track there.

I also feel that god has no place in government. What I mean by this is that no decision made by the government should be based on god, only the moral beliefs of most americas, or the right decision to make everybody as free as possible. (even if it goes against what most americas feel. Monuments, to me, are fine to have on goverment property, as long as the goverment didnt pay for them or another religious monument is denied on the same property. To me this links back to gay marriage, which in the eyes of god is wrong, but otherwise doesnt affect anybody else.

American was founded and populated by 'God-fearing' people - but the government has always been secular - and we like it that way. Our government has also remained respectful of Christianity (it's major religion) yet our First Amendment allows the free expression of all religious faiths by all Americans as well as those who reject all religion to live in peace and relative harmony. Our secular government respects that a vast majority of it's citizens believe in God and respects that generalized belief - without making it a requirement for citizenship or anything else. Our religion is our personal business. A monument that has the Ten Commandments on it sitting on a piece of land that houses government buildings is hardly violating the longstanding concept (but not in the constitution) of separation of 'church and state'. It simply recognizes the majority religious faith (Christianity) the nation holds and states some very basic rules for living that harm no one by their presence.