Would you flip the switch?

[AAFitz]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

I am sure it is, but I agree everything is debatable. But that hardly means it is not accurate, nevertheless.

[targetman377]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

notice the bold parts. If you truly are sitting there to flip a switch to launch one and you receive orders to launch they are going to be from the President. And as for that there is more than one person you confirms the authentic and also a cabinet member has to agree with the presidents order And in the situation being described you would not be at fault the president would be. Also no president would launch one with out first being attacked by one or being on the brink of losing a war!

Have you not read anything I've presented in this thread? Some of those quotes don't mean exactly what you seem to believe they do.

woodruff you teach cadates right? your training them to be military officers? which as such comes with more burden cause they are in charge of men. Yes I would agree that you can't do things that are immoral and if you do you can be punished for those actions. But in the case of pushing a button to launch a nuke the only reasons this would be done Is if America was already attacked by a nuclear bomb or was losing a war that was being fought. As the decision to launch a nuclear strike ways heavy on the presidents mind as he feels the most responsible for it Look at Truman and his autobiography. And There are safe guards in place for a president just wanting to attack counties as stated by saxy who said it needs to be verified and president can be claimed unfit for duty and be temporarily to be removed. This means you sitting in the bunker only knows that you have been given an order and you may or may not know America is under attack! just cause you do not know does not mean you should not flick the switch. the person you actually launched them would never stand trial the people who would would be the ranking authorities above you

[thegreekdog]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, nice roads, safe working conditions, limits to pollution, free education, etc, etc, etc.
That's even without getting into Welfare, food programs, work training programs, etc.

Care to try again?

Nah, you made my point for me... especially with the "free education" that isn't actually free.

The government's purpose is elucidated in the US constitution and none of those items you mentioned are included in the constitution. Over the course of time, it is clear (at least to me) that the government now exists to perpetuate itself and help those who help the people who run the government. So, while it is very noble to have free (hahahahaha) education and Medicaid, Medicare, and social security, it seems clear that those programs have failed and they have failed because of the ineptitude of government. These programs do not help people in real struggles, they help the people that work for the government. Do I think the government ideally have these types of programs to help people? Yes. Do I think they have these types of programs to help people now? No way.

[jay_a2j]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

Accurate it is not. I can testify to the absurdity of that statement both from people who receive such "help" and from my own personal experience. It's designed to keep people "in need" because if you somehow find that you no longer need "help" you will no longer support the party that champions free handouts! Thus, you must keep them down in order to secure their votes. And this is about as sick and corrupt as politics can get.

[thegreekdog]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

I'm stunned you would say this.

I'm stunned that people aren't as cynical as I am.

[pimpdave]

while oddly not cynical about a corporate plutocracy...

[Woodruff]

Have you not read anything I've presented in this thread? Some of those quotes don't mean exactly what you seem to believe they do.

woodruff you teach cadates right?

I teach high school students who are called cadets, yes.

your training them to be military officers?

No, I am not. Not even close, in fact. I use military "things" (such as marching, wearing the uniform, holding positions of responsibility) to train them for their future, whatever that future may be. For most, it is preparing them for college or working on the farm (this is Nebraska, after all). Nationwide, only 6% of AFJROTC cadets ever join the military...that's officer OR enlisted.

which as such comes with more burden cause they are in charge of men.

Or women.

Yes I would agree that you can't do things that are immoral and if you do you can be punished for those actions. But in the case of pushing a button to launch a nuke the only reasons this would be done Is if America was already attacked by a nuclear bomb or was losing a war that was being fought.

Were we losing World War II? I don't remember that part.

[thegreekdog]

while oddly not cynical about a corporate plutocracy...

What makes you say that? I do believe we live in a corporate plutocracy (I would call it feudal system I suppose). I just think that "corporate" is too specific a term and should include unions and non-corporations.

[Woodruff]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, nice roads, safe working conditions, limits to pollution, free education, etc, etc, etc.
That's even without getting into Welfare, food programs, work training programs, etc.
Care to try again?

Nah, you made my point for me... especially with the "free education" that isn't actually free.
The government's purpose is elucidated in the US constitution and none of those items you mentioned are included in the constitution.

There's a vast difference between your previous claim (that those programs do not exist) and your current claim (that those programs are not in the US Constitution).

[Woodruff]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

Accurate it is not. I can testify to the absurdity of that statement both from people who receive such "help" and from my own personal experience. It's designed to keep people "in need" because if you somehow find that you no longer need "help" you will no longer support the party that champions free handouts! Thus, you must keep them down in order to secure their votes. And this is about as sick and corrupt as politics can get.

What is sick and corrupt is that you try to make out some of these programs to be partisan in nature.

[thegreekdog]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, nice roads, safe working conditions, limits to pollution, free education, etc, etc, etc.
That's even without getting into Welfare, food programs, work training programs, etc.
Care to try again?

Nah, you made my point for me... especially with the "free education" that isn't actually free.
The government's purpose is elucidated in the US constitution and none of those items you mentioned are included in the constitution.

There's a vast difference between your previous claim (that those programs do not exist) and your current claim (that those programs are not in the US Constitution).

I edited (after I saw your post and AA's post right after mine). Take another look.

[Woodruff]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

I'm stunned you would say this.

I'm stunned that people aren't as cynical as I am.

Believing that Medicaid doesn't help people in need isn't being cynical...it's being blind.

[thegreekdog]

areas of government set up to actually help real people with real struggles.

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

I'm stunned you would say this.

I'm stunned that people aren't as cynical as I am.

Believing that Medicaid doesn't help people in need isn't being cynical...it's being blind.

I'm stunned you would say this.

[PLAYER57832]

Nah, you made my point for me... especially with the "free education" that isn't actually free.
The government's purpose is elucidated in the US constitution and none of those items you mentioned are included in the constitution.

There's a vast difference between your previous claim (that those programs do not exist) and your current claim (that those programs are not in the US Constitution).[/quote]

I edited (after I saw your post and AA's post right after mine). Take another look.[/quote]
Well, then my statement would change as well.

And no, I never said they were free, in fact I almost specifically added in "free meaning paid for by taxpayers, not the users" or "free to the users".

But as per the not in the constitution bit... the government is given the power to create programs it needs or that people want.

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure this phrase is accurate. It's at least debatable whether the government has any of these programs.

I'm stunned you would say this.

I'm stunned that people aren't as cynical as I am.

Believing that Medicaid doesn't help people in need isn't being cynical...it's being blind.

I'm stunned you would say this.

I see Medicaid helping my students every day.

[PLAYER57832]

Believing that Medicaid doesn't help people in need isn't being cynical...it's being blind.

I'm stunned you would say this.

I gotta step forward and say that as angry as I am that I have to rely upon Medicaid, that we cannot obtain reasonable insurance even though we have paid into the programs for many years, etc... I am EXTREMELY grateful my kids are covered.

The problem with Medicaid is not that we have it. It is that it covers too few people and only the most sick, leaving cheaper individuals for insurance to cover, so it costs far too much.

To be blunt, if my son had not had Medicaid these past 6 months, I would have had to put my son's medication on a credit card at almost 30% interest, or face him again doing poorly in school because the school could not manage him.

I have gotten into more stuff in the medical thread and don't really want to revisit all that, but

YES, MEDICAID HELPS PEOPLE!!!

and.. heaven forbid you should ever have to find out how much it can help.

[thegreekdog]

Meh.

Look, here's the deal - there is an ideal that the government should live up to. The government hasn't lived up to that ideal since after World War Two (at least in my humble opinion). The government no longer exists to serve the general public. It serves the people who give the government employees the most money (whether that's a union or a corporation or the Chinese). It's very noble to want public education. I'm a supporter of public education. I attended public school. But to think for one minute that it's hypocritical for me or anyone else to criticize our education system and to ask for cutbacks in education and at the same time not care what happens to the poor (or whatever AA and jay were arguing about) is idiotic. When I read AAFitz, someone who had reasonable thoughts, call jay a hypocrit because jay has criticized government spending, I got a bit incensed.

[Woodruff]

Meh.
Look, here's the deal - there is an ideal that the government should live up to. The government hasn't lived up to that ideal since after World War Two (at least in my humble opinion). The government no longer exists to serve the general public. It serves the people who give the government employees the most money (whether that's a union or a corporation or the Chinese).

I don't at all disagree with this. But it is irrelevant to the point made previously.

It's very noble to want public education. I'm a supporter of public education. I attended public school. But to think for one minute that it's hypocritical for me or anyone else to criticize our education system and to ask for cutbacks in education and at the same time not care what happens to the poor (or whatever AA and jay were arguing about) is idiotic. When I read AAFitz, someone who had reasonable thoughts, call jay a hypocrit because jay has criticized government spending, I got a bit incensed.

Ok. And?

[thegreekdog]

It is that it covers too few people and only the most sick, leaving cheaper individuals for insurance to cover, so it costs far too much.

YES! Now you're getting it! When Medicare pays 500% of the regular cost of a wheelchair because the government has said it has to, there's a problem. When Medicare doesn't cover the people it should be covering because the government won't adjust for inflation, there's a problem. When there are five government departments doing the same thing, there's a problem.

[thegreekdog]

But it is irrelevant to the point made previously.

No, actually it's not. It is relevant to my point in that my point is to get AAFitz to stop calling jay a hypocrit because, while jay may be espousing disgusting views, he's not a hypocrit. Perhaps you think I was making a different point (the point that you wanted to argue with, but that I'm not trying to make).

[Woodruff]

But it is irrelevant to the point made previously.

No, actually it's not. It is relevant to my point in that my point is to get AAFitz to stop calling jay a hypocrit because, while jay may be espousing disgusting views, he's not a hypocrit. Perhaps you think I was making a different point (the point that you wanted to argue with, but that I'm not trying to make).

Then that's why you should quote the individual you're responding to. It provides that necessary clarity.

[thegreekdog]

Not necessarily!

EDIT - We should stay on topic. If someone wants to create another thread about whether or not the government provides necessary services, go ahead. And I take full responsibility for derailing this thread.

[PLAYER57832]

Meh.

Look, here's the deal - there is an ideal that the government should live up to. The government hasn't lived up to that ideal since after World War Two (at least in my humble opinion). The government no longer exists to serve the general public. It serves the people who give the government employees the most money (whether that's a union or a corporation or the Chinese). It's very noble to want public education. I'm a supporter of public education. I attended public school. But to think for one minute that it's hypocritical for me or anyone else to criticize our education system and to ask for cutbacks in education and at the same time not care what happens to the poor (or whatever AA and jay were arguing about) is idiotic. When I read AAFitz, someone who had reasonable thoughts, call jay a hypocrit because jay has criticized government spending, I got a bit incensed.

[/quote]
OK, to take jay first, its not that he criticicized government spending, its HOW he does it and his reasoning, his utter ignorance of impacts along side his other claims. Together, they are hypocrtical. You... I may disagree, you may make faux pas (I believe the above was such a one), but you are not, fundamentally hypocritical.

Now for your debate...
It is easy to claim that the "government no longer exists to serve the public". But, its sort of like the old "state's rights" debate being a nice way of talking about racial discrimination, the ability for some states to exclude people because they want to do so. I never thought you to be that superficial.

I take real issue when you say that "government just serves to meet the needs of public employees...etc.".

Here is what I see.

The government does a LOT of jobs that just don't work in market economics. (we've debated this elsewhere, won't reiterate). (I will get back to those shortly.) The you have a few jobs that are essentially "marketable" jobs or that can be made marketable. A lot of stuff in the military is like that. You can build a building with miltiary recruits or hire contractors. Using the direct guys is cheaper, but people want jobs. Contractors want tax money to go to support their businesses, not the military workers. So...

They do 2 things. First, they talk of "unfair competition". "We cannot have the government hiring cheap military labor.. it undercuts the economy!!" So, they pushed for minimum wage rules, so that the government essentially cannot hire for less than the "prevailing wage". (and that figure gets complicated, but is usually based on the union wages where there is a union). Then, unions more or less became defunct in most regions, so the argument moved to "gotta reduce the size of government". Translate that into "Make Blackwater rich" (yes, I AM picking the extreme example, to be clear, but note that blackwater is not some "small exception", it is a HUGE company with a HUGE impact.. and very tied in with the old Bush administration!). Even when not "rich", contractors mean a company that makes a profit. Sometimes workers in those companeis make more, sometimes less than government workers, but the overall cost for the jobs is almost always more (including administration, etc.. double administration, always because the government has to administer the contract). The exceptions to that are very, very few and isolated cases.

That "battle' was largely won. So, now the "threat" to "attack" is public unions.

You say that unions are in the way of good education. Maybe in some cases, maybe not. It is NOT the case here. But, the real REASON for the attack has nothing at all to do with expanding or improving education, it is purely an attack on the idea of collective bargaining, on the idea that public employees ought to be paid well, etc.



Even so, they require a lot of education and training. You have a

[Valykrie]

Not necessarily!

Actually yes it does. I fyou're not responding to the thread topic, you qoute what you're responding to.
Saying "Not necessarily" witout qouting lead me to the conclusion that you would not necessarily flip the switch, as that is the topic. Could you explain why you would not necessarily flip the switch, please? This is a discussion, after all.

[PLAYER57832]

Not necessarily!

EDIT - We should stay on topic. If someone wants to create another thread about whether or not the government provides necessary services, go ahead. And I take full responsibility for derailing this thread.

Ok, I answered the jay bit, because I was the one making the initial accusation (not Fitz)... and note that it is at least a partial 'within the church' debate.

Anyhow, I posted my comment above before reading this. yes, we can go to another thread if you wish to continue.