Howdy folks!

Welcome to another edition of Rob's Daily Disturbance!

Within the past couple of weeks, some political threads had popped up again and I totally went off the reservation (which I apologized for). It seems that within the past 20 years or so, this country grows more and more politically polarized and there seems to be no common ground anymore. You are either a conservative Republican or a liberal Democrat, both terms which have been demonized by the opposite political party. To say that you are one or the other invokes the most negative of images, most common among them is the myth that they wish to destroy either the moral fabric of America or they want to bring about theocratic rule.

I'm hardly the one to shy away from giving my opinion (if you haven't noticed, you must be dead) on any given matter, (mostly) showing restraint when I can, and always trying to further the debate into deeper discussions. Commonly, after shooting my mouth off, I'm libel to get a PM saying a variety of things. I'm a conservative in liberal clothing. I'm a peace loving hippie. My favorite one is, "you suprised the hell out of me".

So, I decided to give everyone on the forum a chance to ask me one specific question on my political views to show everyone exactly where I stand. Some of you may be surprised by what I have to say while others might reply with "that's typical". Hopefully, I'm able to spark some lively, civilized, discussions.

Now, keep in mind, when I first started to reply to these questions, I tried to keep it short while communicating my position in an intelligent manner. However, that quickly ended with droeblek9's question when I began to explain only one of the top five issues that needed to be addressed. I began with Health Care and wound up with about a 2,500 response before I realized what I was doing. Political platforms take months, sometimes even years, to fully explain and lay out in a coordinated manner. I decided to spare you the political bullsh*t and just tell it to you clean.

It may not sound pretty, but if you want it to be "flowery", then come see me next year.

Please feel free to ask any questions about my position; however, I ask that you directly quote my entire post when replying. This way, I know exactly which one question you are referring to, thereby eliminating confusion.

Well, here we go........off to question #1.

Quote: Originally Posted by droeblek9 What do you feel are (or should be) the top 5 most pressing national concerns?

1. Affordable health care.

From the year 2002 to the year 2003, health care expenditures in this country rose by 7.7 percent, four times the rate of inflation. Additionally in 2004, health care premiums increased by 11.2 percent. Health care spending currently is 4.3 times the amount that this country spends on national defense. In 2003, the prescription drug spending made it a $180 BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY!

The current health care system is corrupt with inefficiency, fraud, excessive administrative fees, and poor management. More and more Americans every year discontinue their health care plan simply because they cannot afford to pay the premiums. This country spends more on health care every year than all other countries spend on health care combined; yet, America ranks 22nd in the world for life expectancy.

The rising cost of health care in this country has made it one of my top five priorities to be addressed in some manner.

2. National security.

September 11, 2001. 'Nuff said.

However, that does not excuse the violation of civil liberties. If we are to embody the ideal democratic society, we must adhere to our own rules in this fight. Look up the quote from Ben Franklin about those that are willing to sacrifice their rights to the government in exchange for safety.

3. Education.

There cannot be enough said about the value of an education. Unfortunately, in our western society, we place a lower value on the ones we entrust to teach our children. We must reverse the course and begin anew in the field of education. We must take it upon ourselves to ensure that educational opportunities are available to those that seek out a way to better not only themselves, but the community around them.

4. Environmental conservation.

Global warming is not a myth. It is as real as inflation and the cost of war. If we do not start taking steps now, there may not be a world left to leave to our children.

5. Crime.

In 2004, America housed over 2 million people in our prison system nationwide. Our police risks their lives every day on the streets. The courts are strained to the limit. Rehabilitation services are underfunded.

What kind of country do we live in where citizens fear entering certain neighborhoods, even in broad daylight? What kind of country do we live in where an inner city child's only hope of survival is to join a gang rather than to become the target of a gang. Everyday, child victims of gang violence are buried across this country.

Quote: Originally Posted by Digital-World What is your REAL oppinion on americas patriot act? And specifically what measures would you change if any....

The PATRIOT Act is nothing more than a poorly written political agenda that grants unconstitutional power to the federal government and violates the Bill of Rights. Our elected representatives in Congress supported the legislation at the time for fear of political suicide in speaking out against some of its most blatant, unconstitutional measures. American citizens sacrificed a lot of their personal freedoms that day in exchange for a far more powerful government.

What would I change? Currently, federal authorities can begin a criminal investigation, conduct wiretaps on your telephone and internet activities, and conduct "sneak and peek" searches of your home, auto, and work area. Previously, they had to provide probable cause evidence to FISA judge in order to obtain the authority to conduct this type of investigation. Now, all that is required is for the federal authorities to inform a FISA judge that this investigation is related to terrorist activities...no probable cause, no circumstantial evidence, NOTHING other than the word of the investigative agency. The FISA judge has absolutely no authority to deny the certification. No restraint mechanism exists to prevent this provision from being abused.

Also, persons (citizens and non-citizens alike) can be detained indefinately without access to a lawyer or even the court systems. All that is required is for the federal authorities to say, "this is related to terrorism". Recently, though, a Supreme Court decision has stated that American citizens must be afforded legal representation.

Quote: Originally Posted by BigAkita Do you feel that America needs to expand it's foreign policy or focus more attention at home?

This is a double-edged sword if I ever saw one, but I'm happy that you asked it.

I feel that we need to focus more on our internal problems before we attempt to solve the world's problems. We have homeless people living on the streets, we have children dying from drug overdoses, we have the elderly that are unable to afford live-saving medical treatment, and many, many other problems that we need to address. We need to work on solving our own problems before offering ourselves to the rest of the world.

However, that doesn't mean that we shut ourselves out from the rest of the world. As one of the world's leading powers, we are morally obligated to assist that that need our help. We need to offer ourselves up as an example for the other nations of the world to follow.

So, in conclusion, I believe that we need to focus more on domestic policy. We need to get our own house in order first. Only then can we go out into the world with credibility.

Quote: Originally Posted by Slider What would you do about Iran?

I answered this in a PM to Slider last week because I felt that Iran might not exist by the time this thread went live. Here is what I sent to Slider (with a few modifications).

The one thing in the world that might deter Iran from their plans is to rush a nomination and confirmation of bringing Israel into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Under the Articles of NATO, every member is obligated to defend the other. Currently, there are 26 member countries. As Iran sees it now, the only one willing to back up the bark with a bite is the US (and, believe it or not, France) and they know that we are already stretched too thin.

Bringing Israel into NATO is going to obligate the other 25 countries to commit to the defense of Israel. Right now, Russia is a little worried but it seems that India, China, and Pakistan just really don't give a damn. What they fail to realize is that another nuclear power in the region isn't going to provide stability but rather just an additional set of targets that they need to point their nukes at. Maybe, just maybe, if we were to apply a little bit more pressure, they would respond and try to reason with Iran. China has done a little bit after the latest round of trade talks we had with them, but it's more of a symbolic effort. After all, we can see how hard they are trying with North Korea on our behalf. They just don't care as long as we keep shipping over bales of money for all the crap we buy from them. China has nothing to lose with having Iran as a nuclear power; however, they do stand to gain an ally.

Nope, if bringing Israel into NATO isn't going to work (and that might make Russia nervous anyway but it will shove a big FU up Syria's ass), then military action is the only remaining option.

Full invasion? Most likely not. The country isn't fragmented into various religious sects like Iraq is. Rather, they are going to be pinpointed strikes against a few of the more likely harmful nuclear sites. Forces from the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Italians (maybe the Spainards and the Russians), with help from Canada, will make the strikes. I don't think that Israel will participate if they don't have to. Participating is only going to piss of their neighbors and they're nervous enough as it is.

The one thing that we have to count on is the moderate, younger crowd. The only ones giving us problems now is the conservative, hard-liners that control the military industrial complex over there. If surgical strikes could be coordinated to take out the key leadership (along with that insane president they've got), hopefully some of the moderate leadership will step up to the plate and diffuse their nuclear program (or at least take Russia's offer to enrich the uranium).

Occupation isn't going to work in this case and that's what has everyone wondering what the hell to do. First, we don't have the manpower available to us. Second, occupying another middle eastern country that is currently under Islamic rule is going to set off another religious fervor throughout the region and give credibility to the rumor that we (the US) wants to destroy Islam. Third, throwing more of our forces into that region of the world is going to make Russia and China nervous. Granted, they are our "friends", but in the real world, we are still enemies.

Quote: Originally Posted by Pharaoh What are your opinions on Home Land Security, especially the alarming rate that illegal aliens are crossing the US boarders?

I cringe every time that I see this in the news as the "alarming rate" at which illegal immigrants have been crossing the southwestern border has been going on for years and years.

Honestly, I have to feel some compassion as many of these illegal immigrants are just trying to provide for their families. If you and your family lived in the poor northern Mexican region, I'm sure that you would be tempted to cross over in America, the land of opportunity. Wouldn't you risk your life to support your family? Of course, you would. So why feel anger when another man is simply trying to feed his family?

The news reports of the illegal population "draining" our nation's resources is total bupkis. Many illegal immigrants refuse to seek out medical attention at hospitals unless it is life-threatening simply because they believe that they will be caught and returned to their native country. A lot of reports that I have seen show that illegal immigrants are only 3% to 5% of the total number of uninsured patients that seek out medical care. They can't claim government benefits because they do not have a Social Security card. Granted, some receive benefits through fraud but that number is extremely small.

There is only one thing that is going to stem the flood of illegal immigration across the southwestern borders and that is we need to work with the Mexican government in providing opportunities to their citizens in northern Mexico. NAFTA was a huge failure and needs to be tossed out the window. New legislation needs to be drafted that will aid in the economic development of northern Mexico, providing opportunities for these families to be able to survive. If we are able to assist the Mexican government in developing modern factories, hospitals, schools, and neighborhoods in northern Mexico, you will see quite a bit less illegal immigration.

Don't get me wrong...I'm all against illegal immigration. If they want to come here and work, then they need to do it legally. However, I'm not going to condem a man for trying to feed his children.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bionic What is your opinion on cloning? If possible, please comment on both reproductive and therapeutic cloning.

I'm all for it. Seems like a short and sweet answer to a very complex question, but with all religious objections aside, why would anyone not want to support it? Approximately 4,000 Americans die every year sitting around waiting for an organ transplant. It's not the business of the government to deny scientific medical advancments based solely upon the grounds of what may or may not be moral under certain religious dogma.

Quote: Originally Posted by j-dogg Tell me about the Aurora. And no, not the Oldsmobile Aurora.

The Aurora, on Earth, appears in the northern and southern polar regions. Auroras are powered by solar winds that collide with the Earth's magnetic field in the upper atmosphere. I'll let Wikipedia explain it in more detail.

As far as my political opinion on it.....no comment.

Quote: Originally Posted by graaille Moving off of the gold standard, good move or bad move?

The major currencies of the world currently work off of a fiat system pegged to the value of the US dollar. This floating system has been in place since 1971 and seems to have gone through quite a bit of growing pains (and still is). What happened when we moved off of the gold standard is that we have left it up to the governments of the world to decide just how much their money is worth. One of the major disadvantages of this is runaway credit and debits, in addition to the government being able to "wipe out" their public debt (China has done this a few times over the years). Thankfully, the major banks step in from time to time, implementing their own controls to bring balance to the equation.

Interesting enough, every single fiat currency of the past 3,000 years has always been replaced with the gold standard. Leaving the fiat system in place sets up a major disadvantage, though. It requires the faith of the people to believe that the money actually holds some sort of value.

There is no perfect monatary system out there.

I'm fine with the system the way it is.

Quote: Originally Posted by incarnate1308 Should the US contine is push into space, more specifacaly: a mission to put a person on mars?

Absolutely, 100% agree with the need to push further and further out into space. We are currently depleting our natural resources at an unsustainable rate and one day, we'll go the way of the tribes of Easter Isle. Personally, I wouldn't stop at Mars but we do need to get their first to understand more about space travel.

Would I go? In a heartbeat.

"Second star to the left...and straight on till dawn"

Quote: Originally Posted by Reza How do you feel about the push from many groups to get the Creationism theory taught in science classes?

Just to get things out of the way, personally, I am a Deist.

When reflecting on your question, I think you meant to ask that Intelligent Design be offered in science class. Doesn't matter, really, since I feel the same way about Intelligent Design as I do Creationism. Save it for the philosophy classes, not the science classes.

Each religion in the world has their own unique genesis to the world and the human race. To give credence to one version over the other is to offer unfounded validation of that religion. Theological arguments such as this have no place in the exact nature of science.

Why?

Robert A. Heinlein explained it best. To start off the discussion, we all have to agree on the subject matter, no? Let's begin. "-ology" in Greek means "the study of". "Theo" in Greek means "god". Well, o.k., let's decide upon a god to discuss. Shall we use yours? Or should we use someone else's? Who decides? That, my friend, is why you cannot bring a theological discussion into a scientific classroom. To explain away what cannot currently be explained, stating that some "power beyond comprehension" is responsible for it, will effectively end all further scientific research.

Why continue scientific research if you've already laid out an answer for it?

Quote: Originally Posted by Jager do you think the united nations today is still preforming a valuable service to the world, or is it just become a stumbling block toward safety, and what do you think needs to be changed if anything in the un to make it better.

The potential for the United Nations to lead our world into a new century is boundless. Unfortunately, it has become a bureaucracy riffed with burdensome rules, red tape, and, worse of all, greed and corruption. President Franklin D. Roosevelt would be rolling in his grave if he knew what kind of organization it has become.

The United Nations has the potential if and only if it were to gain some semblance of legitamacy. Many of the nations involved in the United Nations act upon their own national interest, citing sovereign rights, rather than acting in the best interest of the world. Am I saying that every nation needs to sacrifice their sovereign right in every instance? No. However, nearly everyone does. That is where the United Nations fail.

Quote: Originally Posted by denacopoliez What are you Opinions of Women in the Military and Our actions abroad/ Also What are your feeling over the (mis)behavior of my borther and sisters in arms in Iraq with the Iraqi POW's?

Women in the military? If they can do the job, why not? If they want it that bad, then they need to accept the consequences of what could happen.

As far as the behavior of military servicemen and women towards Iraqi POW's? There are many, many honorable men and women serving in the United States military, both today and in the past. I've had the honor of serving with many of them myself.

The misbehavior of these servicemen and women has created a huge stain upon that honor. They showed a blatant disregard towards the principles that our military, and our country, has held dear for over 200 years. They spat upon foundation of our Bill of Rights, disgracing not only themselves, but every man and woman that ever wore a uniform. In my opinion, these individuals are no better than the horrible terrorist creatures that we are currently fighting against in Iraq.

We must actively eat, breath, and sleep the very ethic principles that we are trying to bring to Iraq. To do otherwise is to replace one dictator with another of a different color.

Quote: Originally Posted by HTRN What are your views on all the gun laws in the USA ??

The focus, unfortunately, are upon the guns and not those that use the guns for their own illegal means. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. The focus should be shifted towards holding people more responsible, both in legal gun ownership and for the criminals that use them. If a person who owns a gun has that gun stolen and cannot prove that they took reasonable meausre to protect against theft (i.e., having it laying on the dresser rather than in a gun box), then that person needs to be held responsible for that theft, even if it was from their own home. A person who utilizes a gun in a crime should automatically have the charge upgraded by a step, and if it's a misdemeanor, bump it to a minimum felony (which most states already do).

Some people say that they kill too many people every year. So do car accidents. So do industrial accidents. What if all of a sudden the rage becomes to drive cement trucks into a kindergarden playground at recess becomes the rage? After the first few incidents, are we going to be screaming to get rid of cement trucks? Probably not.

That being said, I am for the ban on personal ownership of automatic weapons. For what lawful purpose why anyone should own a fully automatic weapon? When someone can give me a valid reason other than citing the Second Amendment to own a fully automatic weapon, then perhaps I'll change my mind. Until then, you might as well try to sell me on personal ownership rights to nuclear weapons.

Quote: Originally Posted by Nerdz Do you think it is morally sound to wait untill marriage to have children? Why or Why not?

Morality has a strong basis in religion and cultivated by the society that it exists in. Some people may feel that it is unmoral to masterbate in private while others feel it is a healthy way to relieve stress. Some people may feel that it is unmoral to keep any overpayment of change at Target while others see it as simply getting a bargain. The question of the morality of children born out of wedlock is a question that needs to be addressed by the woman who has the child.

As far as addressing the question of young women (age 18 and below) having children is largely a matter of providing the proper sexual education. I can already hear the arguments generating against this, but it's the only solution that I can think of. When a child begins to enter into puberty, they need to be given as much information as possible.

Now, you may say that there are some things that you may not want your child to know. Well, I've got news for you. Over 88% of children today say that their major source of information on sex comes directly from their peers. If you don't let them know, nine out of ten of their friends are going to attempt to fill in the blank spots for them. You may not think your child knows anything about sex, but I guarentee that they've already been exposed to some of the information.

Would you rather your child learn about sexual education from an adult qualified to teach sex education or would you rather they learn it from one of their friends who read something in their dad's collection of Hustler's out in the garage? There is only one way to keep them from learning and that is to severe every contact your child has with the outside world by homeschooling them.

Children are smarter than we give them credit for. I say give them the information...all the information, and let them decide for themselves. Certainly, you can influence by providing your input. Children are more apt to follow a parent's point of view when provided with all the information. Take the mystery out of it, treat it as a fact of life, and just perhaps you can save your child from a painful learning experience.

Quote: Originally Posted by mr.mods What is your stand point on our massive national debt and how do you think this could be remedied?

Much of our massive national debt to this day is a byproduct of three major events. September 11 and the subsequent hunt in Afghanistan, the Iraq war, and the devestation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Personally, one of these could have been avoided but that's besides the point. There is only one way to pay the national debt and it's one way that everyone loves to scream about. Taxes.

Yes, folks, that's right. The government operates through the spending of money and where else are they going to get that money. It just doesn't generate itself by growing on trees. Tax cuts are fine and all, but what is the end result? The government continues to spend on a "credit card" budget, driving up debt and bequething to our nation's young the problem of paying it all back.

Can the government be a little bit more responsible in its spending? You're darn tootin', they can. There are massive programs running rampart throughout the government, sucking money and resources away from where it is needed most. These programs need to be identified early and nipped in the bud before it gets out of hand. We, as citizens, need to start identifying those elected representatives that support "pork barrel" spending and holding them accountable.

Would you like an example of "pork barrel" spending? How about the Office of the CFO for USDA bought one HP laptop with a travel case, extra battery, a USB drive, and a docking station for just over $25,000 for Hurricane Katrina? Big deal? How about $315 million (according to Alaska DOT&PF) of your tax money going to build a bridge in Alaska that connects the island of Gravina (population of less than 50 people) to Ketchikan when the ferry ride is only seven minutes long?

We let it happen by not paying attention and caring less. The only time we pay attention is when our taxes go up so we scream and yell. We need to become better, more responsible citizens by keeping a closer eye on the spending habits of our federal government.

Quote: Originally Posted by someone with jokes Gerald Ford vs Margaret Thatcher (both in their prime) in a "golf club cage match" ...15 minute time limit, 3 fall limit?

No question about it. You give Margaret a nine iron and she'll own Gerald. Gerald, being from Texas, is the kind of guy that would go straight for the one wood, the heaviest club available. Margaret is pretty light so she would dance around a bit. By the time Gerald got the club swung, she won't be there, having ducked out of the way and coming back strong with the nine iron on Gerald's weak side.

She'd use this exploit, letting him wear himself out with the big swings. Just when you think he's going to connect...WHAM! Margaret with a nasty upper cut using the wedge.

I'd say Margaret with the knockout within the first ten minutes.

That folks, is my political agenda/platform/whatever you want to call it. Of course, views can change over time and with different circumstances, but generally overall, this is what I believe. I'm not an expert in these matters, but who is? I may be dead wrong on a couple of things or even the whole thing, who knows? Take it for what it's worth.

Coming up next week! Stay tuned for one of the most emotional Daily Disturbance posts Rob has ever made. He is going to finally reveal what he has suffered from for over 20 long years.

Until next week, stay safe out there,

Rob

Quote: Originally Posted by Rob You are either a conservative Republican or a liberal Democrat, both terms which have been demonized by the opposite political party.

This is what really pisses me off about the political system here in America...they say they're a choice, but they are both the same! It's just different rhetoric. It doesn't matter who gets elected president or who is "in charge" of the house and senate, we'll still have the same problems. The same huge budget problems, the same wide-open borders, the same rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer, the same bloating bureauocracy that is strangling the people of this country do death.

We need to flush out this crappy two-party system, and instead of focusing on the partys' rhetorical platform garbage, focus on the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

While i didnt read your stand on any of the other topic's ** read my post in your thread , where we asked your viewpoint** I did however read your reply to my question , and I must say I was plesently surprized. I agree with everything you say , including automatic weapons. I might love to hunt, target shoot and blow beercans away but i see NO reason for an automatic weapon other than to kill as many things as you can by spraying a target area with bullets, and anyone that says they're for hunting , well , maybe if the deer had an uzi or AK too then i could see it, but to me if you hunt and you miss with the first shot , the deer was ment to live that day.

As to gun control, I also firmly believ that if you own the gun its YOUR responcibilty to know where it is and that it is out of reach of anyone that would / could misuse it . The laws that are made to " CONTROL " guns , do nothing more than make it harder for normal folks to get them , while doing little or nothing to prevent criminals from aquiring them on the black market.

The constitution says we have the right ot bare arms , but if you think about it, it was writtin when it took 30 seconds or more to load a weapon and then only shot one round. I dont think it was ment to include weapons that fires 30, 50 or more rounds a minute.

EDIT : BTW , if YOU were runnin for a government office, then i'd vote . Ya got Class & Brass Bubba.