But no one treated Congress so much like an advisory body. Mr. Jarvis says the point of the three branches of government are to keep one another in check, but that was not much in evidence during his time as Vice-President, was it?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
But no one treated Congress so much like an advisory body. Mr. Jarvis says the point of the three branches of government are to keep one another in check, but that was not much in evidence during his time as Vice-President, was it?
((Yeah... I'm slightly younger than dirt, so I do want some yout' to run with me))
((Walsh! Why drag me into this?))
Mr. Walsh, the President is the head of state. I am not. I offered advice, and I hoped the president would agree to it. Oftentimes we disagree; but I respect him, and he respects me. I do not have the constitutional authority to order around the president, do I? It's not as though President Mandrake did something so horrible during his administration. He wasn't a do-nothing president, unlike some...
((Walsh! Why drag me into this?))
Mr. Walsh, the President is the head of state. I am not. I offered advice, and I hoped the president would agree to it. Oftentimes we disagree; but I respect him, and he respects me. I do not have the constitutional authority to order around the president, do I? It's not as though President Mandrake did something so horrible during his administration. He wasn't a do-nothing president, unlike some...
Concrete actions have been established in the manifesto to soon be published, consider that speech but a taster.
I've already said multiple times now that the Cubans shall get what they want, be it integration in the United States, autonomy, or full independence. It's a poor imperialist that suggests giving up a 'colony' just because it's what the people want. We shall aid them yes, just as we have assisted post-Santa Anna Mexico, Colombia and many other Latin American nations that in the long run has proven mutually beneficial. I shall never abandon the Cuban people, or any oppressed people across the world.
You act as if the majority of jobs are provided by the massive corporations and personally funded by the most very rich capitalists, when the real driver of our economic growth and employment for the most part is medium and small business, the corner-grocery in Manhattan, the local farmer in California, the printing presses in Chicago. I think the successful and highly regarded Cameron Report and its ensuing implementation, has proven that government spending is a force for good in those things essential to this nation. It most certainly won’t bias the electorate, it is indeed your ‘charity’ that shall truly bias the electorate, for this program should carry on regardless of whether or not we are in government, indeed it was in securing fundamental social rights regardless of party in power that caused be to propose the Second Bill of Rights. Whereas funding for your ‘charity’ is dependent upon your whims.
I suppose I shall wait for that platform to make any further opinion.
As for Cuba, or any nation, why should we spend money that could be going to law enforcement, the military, or back to the people, on building up another nation. We have no right to interfere in another nation, even to its benefit. I am certain that the imperialists have done some good in their colonies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is opposite to self-determination, liberty, and individual responsibility. As for 'abandoning oppressed peoples,' shall we attack Britain, France, Japan, Prussia, Belgium, Spain again (for its other colonies), Mexico, Latin American juntas, Russia, and every other state that oppresses people? Finally, we do not need to have official colonies to be an imperial power; we need only to interfere in other nation's affairs, force our values on other peoples, and invade and 'liberate' other countries.
If the Cubans want freedom, let them rebel! The Spanish are so weak they cannot effectively win there. Our forcing independence will result in only a dictatorship, as the Cubans know nothing else (a Russian Revolution would result in the same thing; a new autocratic regime).
Why are they massive corporations? Because they hire millions of people. But that is a moot point. It is poor policy, because it will encourage less growth, because a successful businessman cannot make more than a certain amount of money, or will make less than he would otherwise (i.e. 10% on $100, $10; 25% on 1000, $250). I t discourages enterprise on small business, lowers wages, stunts growth, leads to lower quality goods, weakens our market domestically and internationally, and overall weakens our nation. How is private charity biased? You make no sense; it is not a repsonsibility of the government to look after the people, to clean up their messes. Your convoluted statement proves nothing, and is only a criticism of individual aid, in favour of government programs and forced charity, which is nothing more than income redistribution, which I suppose your socialist ticket (remember, Callahan's a democratic socialist) would love!
As for Cuba, or any nation, why should we spend money that could be going to law enforcement, the military, or back to the people, on building up another nation. We have no right to interfere in another nation, even to its benefit. I am certain that the imperialists have done some good in their colonies, but that doesn't change the fact that it is opposite to self-determination, liberty, and individual responsibility. As for 'abandoning oppressed peoples,' shall we attack Britain, France, Japan, Prussia, Belgium, Spain again (for its other colonies), Mexico, Latin American juntas, Russia, and every other state that oppresses people? Finally, we do not need to have official colonies to be an imperial power; we need only to interfere in other nation's affairs, force our values on other peoples, and invade and 'liberate' other countries.
If the Cubans want freedom, let them rebel! The Spanish are so weak they cannot effectively win there. Our forcing independence will result in only a dictatorship, as the Cubans know nothing else (a Russian Revolution would result in the same thing; a new autocratic regime).
Why are they massive corporations? Because they hire millions of people. But that is a moot point. It is poor policy, because it will encourage less growth, because a successful businessman cannot make more than a certain amount of money, or will make less than he would otherwise (i.e. 10% on $100, $10; 25% on 1000, $250). I t discourages enterprise on small business, lowers wages, stunts growth, leads to lower quality goods, weakens our market domestically and internationally, and overall weakens our nation. How is private charity biased? You make no sense; it is not a repsonsibility of the government to look after the people, to clean up their messes. Your convoluted statement proves nothing, and is only a criticism of individual aid, in favour of government programs and forced charity, which is nothing more than income redistribution, which I suppose your socialist ticket (remember, Callahan's a democratic socialist) would love!
You say democratic socialist as if it is a horrible thing, this isn't Marxist-Vinogradism, and we don't propose to take land or business from people. We merely think that people pay their taxes when they're lives are going well so they should be supported when they are not doing so well. Imagine there was a massive stock market crash tomorrow and you went bankrupt overnight, lost your house, your money, your credit, your livelihood, your health, would you be so opposed to welfare then?
Why should we set up charities? There should be no such thing as charities, the Goverment should cover these areas and not rely on charities.
As for Cuba, we have a valid claim on Cuba ((cores)). I belive we should keep Cuba. Eventually, overtime it will become another state of America, just as we have done with the former Mexican lands. We can bring justice to the Confederate Goverment, punish Spain for their lack of cooperation and bring progress and strength to Cuba.
Socialism is counter to the principles of this nation; it is collectivist, and is ultimately authoritarian. Democracy as well is counter this nation; it does not protect the minority, and, as Marx wrote, will lead to socialism, and therefore, tyranny and statism.
No, I wouldn't want welfare. I am not a beggar. I will not be dependent on government. I trust my community, my friends, and God to help me in my hour of need. If that stock market crash were to happen, the government would be in as dire straits as any individual, so I doubt it would do anything really helpful of effective. More than likely, the excessive regulations placed on the market by socialists led to that crash!
We have never owned Cuba! Those claims are tenuous at best, an, in my opinion, illegal!
Let's end all charity! While we're it, let's take away property, too! And businesses! If we want government to provide charity, we should let them provide all our jobs, and divide property up equitably!
Individuals, not the collective, are the focus of nation. The government should not interfere in the affairs of individuals when they are not viloating the rights of another man. That the prevailing idea of the day is that government should become so intrusive is disturbing.
No, I wouldn't want welfare. I am not a beggar. I will not be dependent on government. I trust my community, my friends, and God to help me in my hour of need. If that stock market crash were to happen, the government would be in as dire straits as any individual, so I doubt it would do anything really helpful of effective. More than likely, the excessive regulations placed on the market by socialists led to that crash!
We have never owned Cuba! Those claims are tenuous at best, an, in my opinion, illegal!
Let's end all charity! While we're it, let's take away property, too! And businesses! If we want government to provide charity, we should let them provide all our jobs, and divide property up equitably!
Individuals, not the collective, are the focus of nation. The government should not interfere in the affairs of individuals when they are not viloating the rights of another man. That the prevailing idea of the day is that government should become so intrusive is disturbing.
If you call my father a do-nothing, tell the thousands of people who gained employment under my father's adminstration. Tell their sons who did not starve because suddenly they had money to spend that my father was a do-nothing. There are many more lives that my father saved by avoiding war, that cannot be counted or measured.
What about his inaction on slavery, which directly led to millions dieing in the War! His... policies successes, are dubious at best. Avoiding war? That's what I want to; the difference here is that his policies fomented the coming war, while mine would avoid it completely!
This nation is a democratic republic, all republic means is that the head of state isn't a monarch, you can have a non-democratic republic, and a democratic monarchy. Why do you not get this? There's a distinct difference between the Marxist and Vinogradist variant of socialism and the democratic socialism derived from the social and radical liberal movement of the mid-century, it was birthed from the very idea of liberty.
It's all good rhetoric but your words would be meaningless should that actually occur. And may I correct you on another thing; your government would be in dire straights, a sensible government would have contingency plans.
It's all good rhetoric but your words would be meaningless should that actually occur. And may I correct you on another thing; your government would be in dire straights, a sensible government would have contingency plans.
A sensible government wouldn't create regulations that strangle the market.
And I doubt those 'contingency plans' could be enacted, or implemented effectively.
Socialism was based on freedom; but it is foolish, and communal, so the individual becomes worthless in the grand scheme of things. This nation is a federal republic; The people elect state governments and Congressmen. The states elect Senators. The Electoral College elects the president. In a democracy, the people would directly on all offices and laws, and is ineffective on a large scale.
((OK these advertisements are getting on my nerves...))
And I doubt those 'contingency plans' could be enacted, or implemented effectively.
Socialism was based on freedom; but it is foolish, and communal, so the individual becomes worthless in the grand scheme of things. This nation is a federal republic; The people elect state governments and Congressmen. The states elect Senators. The Electoral College elects the president. In a democracy, the people would directly on all offices and laws, and is ineffective on a large scale.
((OK these advertisements are getting on my nerves...))
I offer the Democrat-Federal ticket my personal and financial support. The Republicans are short sighted neanderthals who believe in a terrible tax system, the privatisation of a schools and the abandoning of cuba.
As for charities, it should be the Goverment running hostels, soup kitchens and aid centres. If the Goverment runs them they will be able to help everyone and won't be restricted by funding.
As for charities, it should be the Goverment running hostels, soup kitchens and aid centres. If the Goverment runs them they will be able to help everyone and won't be restricted by funding.
The thousands of people who gained employment under your father's administration gained employment because of the free market, not because of anything your father did. In fact, the only notable thing your father did in regards to the economy was open a single factory that was very quickly closed down because the Southerners refused to have any government interference in their business (one of the few things I and my father could actually agree with them on).
As for avoiding the war, that is ridiculous. Had your father been any more a buffoon, the Civil War could very well have happened earlier and in the North instead of the South!
I agree, to say your father was a do-nothing is most certainly incorrect; he most definitely nearly destroyed this country.
And you criticize us for mud-slinging.
I am sorry you feel that way, Mr. Howard. Perhaps when the government nationalizes your businesses for the collective good, you'll agree with me. Perhaps when your sons die at Guantanamo, or in Galicia, you'll agree with me. Perhaps, when the governments bureaucracy becomes so great that the market is stifled, and stagnates, and all are poor, you'll agree with me.
The day when government is unrestricted by funding is the day all men are taxed at one-hundred percent. Government always needs the money it gets, and its never for the good of the people. The market can provide more for less, and is efficient, and overall better for the individual.
If the government is so good at helping people, Mr. Howard, why don't you give your business to it?
The day when government is unrestricted by funding is the day all men are taxed at one-hundred percent. Government always needs the money it gets, and its never for the good of the people. The market can provide more for less, and is efficient, and overall better for the individual.
If the government is so good at helping people, Mr. Howard, why don't you give your business to it?
Last edited:
Very well then, since you are so confident on this matter, what would you have done? It was only thirtry years ago, you were eligible to run for President after all.
The federals are socialists, not communists. I and my sons are willing to die for America as well as the greater good. I also simply believe we should help everyone with Goverment money, not help the few with public donations.
When did I criticise you for mudslinging?
Last edited:
Through the market system, all we need to do is help a few people; the rest are finding employment in the market. It is a more effective system. Not only that, it is constitutional, while government expanding into social programmes is not. Socialism is anarchic communism; eventually, socialism devolves into communism, as all democracies fall to tyranny. Is nation-building for the greater good, or does it undermine liberty and self-determination?
I would have proposed a moderate proposal, such as a gradual phasing out of slavery, say, by the 1880's, which would have been gradual, rather than the dramatic changes proposed by King, and the ignorance of the issue your father endorsed. As well, I would have argued on a constitutional standpoint in opposition to slavery, that all men have a right to be free. Would it have averted the war; I don't know. But the Civil War was unnecessary and was waged over for more than only slavery.
I would have proposed a moderate proposal, such as a gradual phasing out of slavery, say, by the 1880's, which would have been gradual, rather than the dramatic changes proposed by King, and the ignorance of the issue your father endorsed. As well, I would have argued on a constitutional standpoint in opposition to slavery, that all men have a right to be free. Would it have averted the war; I don't know. But the Civil War was unnecessary and was waged over for more than only slavery.
Socialism is not communism, no matter how much you say it is the same. I dont see why you wouldn't want to help everyone. Charities cannot feed all the homeless or give them all homes. It is our job, as representatives of every American to help every American.
We all know that slavery wasn't the only reason for the civil war. And you cannot say how other people handled the civil war when members of your own party handled it in a questionable way. However that was the past.
I agree with you, Mr. Howard, we should help people. But the government is the wrong instrument for this help. Government cannot aid the poor any better; if it could, the first state ever created would still exist, a one world government built on equality and egality would be so, and poverty would be eradicated from the world. That sadly is not the case. Socialism, communism, and all forms of totalitarianism promise great things; but they never come true. It's a pipe dream. And as such, it is a gross expansion of government in an area that the market could handle just as effectively, if not better.
I agree my party mishandled itself. I was a Whig, and disliked King's aggressive stance on the issue; I mentioned mih by name for that purpose. I agree with you here as well, Mr. Howard, it is the past, and it should be left there. If it had some significance in this election, then it would merit discussion, but as of now, it doesn't. I apologise, Mr. Walsh, if I offended your family. I do respect your father, even though I disagreed with him.
I agree my party mishandled itself. I was a Whig, and disliked King's aggressive stance on the issue; I mentioned mih by name for that purpose. I agree with you here as well, Mr. Howard, it is the past, and it should be left there. If it had some significance in this election, then it would merit discussion, but as of now, it doesn't. I apologise, Mr. Walsh, if I offended your family. I do respect your father, even though I disagreed with him.