DescentBB

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Without defending the shortcomings of the Republicans, it was the Democrats that enabled the biggest scandal that comes to mind AGAINST the better judgment of Republicans. I don't buy your argument. It's not adding up. Less regulations and less taxes is better than the alternative, unless the regulations are basic, common-sense based regulations which are necessary, and the taxes really benefit everyone. If you are able to get more specific maybe I would feel differently in some instances.

I'm not sure what "scandal" you're referring to, but I agree the Dems sold us out (thank you Clinton). But Republicans, 3 of them, came up with the idea, so at the very least we should return Glass Steagall to it's original form. Keep the wall of separation between banking and investing. All we're getting now is rampant gambling with other people's pension money and bank accounts, which, by the way, they seem to losing good sized portions of it quite frequently, even though they whine before Congress that they'll be more careful next time.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Just a few thoughts on this one, basic healthcare would have to be metered out, or you have a system of redistribution which causes the haves to medically support the bad decisions and bad life-styles of others. The dangerous alternative is that in order to keep things fair you have to control people's lives to ensure they're making healthy choices, which isn't freedom.

Retirement... I might be open to that, but it would have to also be met out evenly to everyone, with the option to opt out entirely.

My biggest gripe with both of these, is that there is no economic justice when you want to hit a wealthy person with a higher tax rate than a middle-income person.

Well, how would you meter out health care and not look like a heartless, inhuman cad? Everyone wants to live and everyone you ask, in private, will tell you they think it's a right. Life is precious that way. However, people don't want to help pay for "other people's health care", but whether they think so or not, they are already doing that through the marketplace, plus that 30% "profit" the goes to the insurance companies. And just how would you go about dealing with those who do bad lifestyle choices? Just about everything we do has consequences on our health, like drinking soda pop all the time, lighting fireworks or even riding a bike and snow skiing. How do you pick and choose what's "bad"? EVERYTHING'S bad for us, even breathing or going out in the sun!

As for hitting the wealthy for more taxes, I'm for a progressive tax system. If one makes more, one should pay more, just because the CAN. I constantly hear conservatives griping about that percentage of people who don't pay any income taxes. Well, they don't pay any because they're poor, they don't make enough! As for the rest of the rich ne'er do wells who hide their income in creative ways and avoid income taxes, like Mitt Romney, get rid of the exemptions, tax loopholes and offshore tax havens he so vigorously cherishes. I think a better starting point would be to roll back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:If government was made up of people who had the health, prosperity and safety of everyone as a whole in this country in their own interests, instead of pursuing power and money, it wouldn't be something we now fear.

This is a naive thought. The reasons for restriction on government is that people cannot be trusted to have our best interest in mind, but MORE IMPORTANTLY even the most well-intentioned people can institute well-intentioned policies which end up having very negative, unintended results. Welfare is a good example of this. I wouldn't give the most well-intentioned person in government free reign to infringe on my individual libertiies, no matter how bright the end results might seem from here. Even the most well-intentioned person CANNOT have OUR INTERESTS at heart, because they are OUR INTERESTS, not theirs.

You sit there and whine that government can take away YOUR liberties. Well, wake up! Not everything is free for the taking, and at times, we all have to make some sacrifice for the good of others. That's why we're a group as a nation, not a bunch of self-serving individuals. At least with a proper government run by our elected piers, you can have that chance to vote the bums out if they don't represent you properly, unless of course you take exception to what the "majority" voted in. But the way the system is now, it's hopeless to even think we can purge our government of the money interests and power elites. When could a common person ever fire some corporate CEO because that company was poisoning their water or food? All these guys have to do is grease the skids of Congress to get whatever slimy scheme they want passed through a crooked on-the-take Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/report-countrywid ... 19140.html

And those corporate special interest groups like ALEC only care about their corporate customers, not the welfare of the people. Listen to this ALEC guy nonchalantly tell the CBS reporter how they're lobbying Congress to roll back EPA protections so their corporate customers, like the Koch Brothers, can have free rain to poison the environment for their profits, an environment that's the "commons" by the way, that we all share and have to live in, just to make more profit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-5 ... o-is-alec/

So as a start, to take back our government, I would advocate a Constitutional Amendment to get outlaw Citizens United and corporate person-hood status from the land. I may be naive, but it would at least be a start in prying corporate America's meat-hooks out of OUR government. It may not be a total fix, but it would sure be a beginning.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:

That's the only reason guns would be controlled or restricted, to prevent an insurgence by the people against a controlling power.

You understand this is the whole reason for the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights?

um, no, it isn't. The facts are this: at the time, the nation had NO standing Army. Thus, to be prepared for military threats, they depended upon formation of militias. Now, go back and read the Amendment again............yeesh.

I'm not gonna argue the intent of the Second Amendment, the SC has given their opinion

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Now tell me, how are you supposed to throw off an oppressive government without an armed populace? You can't.

EDIT:

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

callmeslick wrote:Thorne, valid point on the 'foreign and domestic' part, but remember, the nation was hardly settled in the late 18th century, even within its borders(Indians, Canadian traders, various ne'er do wells). As for the premise that the 2nd Amendment provided recourse for an oppressive central government, there were some key founders who held that view, but it was hardly unanimous, nor was it anywhere near the intent of the Amendment. Further, in this day and age, the thought that any number of gun owning citizens could overthrow the central government is ludicrous. They would be so completely outgunned and technologically overmatched as to be laughable.

Just like the Taliban eh? And the Viet Cong/N. Vietnamese

Afraid I agree with woody. Guerrilla warfare is pretty hard to keep contained, let alone win. At best you get a bloody back and forth stalemate, but never a decisive victory for one side or the other. And you can be sure that we would have guerrilla warfare here if we needed to fight a government that became oppressive, whether they had the high tech weapons or not.

In fact, didn't Americans start the Revolution using guerrilla warfare? Back during the Revolutionary War, the "proper" method of battle was to stand still in large armies, massed in an open battlefield like convenient targets standing there as nattily dressed soldiers while pointing loaded muskets at the enemy and then start firing on one another when the word was given, until one side gave up or retreated? Didn't Americans start playing "dirty", at least according to the staid and proper British, and start their shooting from behind cover, or in darkness, like any smart soldier with a modicum of self-preservation would? Didn't we start espionage campaigns aimed at sabotage? I mean, we were pretty creative when it came to unconventional fighting back then. Maybe someone here had heard of Sun Tzu and liked the ideas.

callmeslick wrote: the thought that any number of gun owning citizens could overthrow the central government is ludicrous. They would be so completely outgunned and technologically overmatched as to be laughable.

Assuming the military “doesn’t” join the insurrection.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Thorne, valid point on the 'foreign and domestic' part, but remember, the nation was hardly settled in the late 18th century, even within its borders(Indians, Canadian traders, various ne'er do wells). As for the premise that the 2nd Amendment provided recourse for an oppressive central government, there were some key founders who held that view, but it was hardly unanimous, nor was it anywhere near the intent of the Amendment. Further, in this day and age, the thought that any number of gun owning citizens could overthrow the central government is ludicrous. They would be so completely outgunned and technologically overmatched as to be laughable.

Just like the Taliban eh? And the Viet Cong/N. Vietnamese

please, the US had the power to obliterate them, if it really wanted to, and we both know it.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote: the thought that any number of gun owning citizens could overthrow the central government is ludicrous. They would be so completely outgunned and technologically overmatched as to be laughable.

Assuming the military “doesn’t” join the insurrection.

true enough.......then, you would be dealing with more of a Civil War as opposed to an overthrow of power.

callmeslick wrote:please, the US had the power to obliterate them, if it really wanted to, and we both know it.

That's true, but we wouldn't have Vietnamese Restaurants to dine at now would we? We've got one here that serves the best food I've ever eaten and it's the cleanest place in town. The guy that owns it is the nicest person I've ever met. If we'd nuked the country, I wouldn't have any of that mouth watering Satay Chicken and Pho soup anymore.

laughable?

guerrilla warfare.

Like, I think he means business, eh.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Thorne, valid point on the 'foreign and domestic' part, but remember, the nation was hardly settled in the late 18th century, even within its borders(Indians, Canadian traders, various ne'er do wells). As for the premise that the 2nd Amendment provided recourse for an oppressive central government, there were some key founders who held that view, but it was hardly unanimous, nor was it anywhere near the intent of the Amendment. Further, in this day and age, the thought that any number of gun owning citizens could overthrow the central government is ludicrous. They would be so completely outgunned and technologically overmatched as to be laughable.

Just like the Taliban eh? And the Viet Cong/N. Vietnamese

please, the US had the power to obliterate them, if it really wanted to, and we both know it.

Yes we had the power but that would of entailed obliterating whole cities like we did in WW2. Not going to happen unless you think our govt. would be willing to carpet bomb American towns and villages just to kill off the citizens in revolt. Not going to happen and thus your premise fails. You also overlook the fact that a good number of those "gun owning" citizens are ex-soldiers, many with combat experience.

woody, Philly had a mayor that dropped bombs on a revolutionary group. What makes you think that the right bunch of reactionaries couldn't do the same nationwide if faced with dangerous armed groups.




now, mind you, none of this is going to happen. To return to my original point, the founders, when writing about maintaining regular militias, I strongly suspect, did not have in mind a bunch of loons with serious weaponry playing war games in the woods of Michigan or North Carolina and spouting hate-filled stupidity. They were thinking about the protection of a new and fragile nation.

The Supreme Court just recently decided that, I suggest we go from there forward The summary specifically covers all the implications from the Framers statements. Asked and answered

Slick, it is not the idiot militia wannabes that I'd be concerned about. They'd run at the first mortar round that land near them. A more realistic scenario would be a States right issue (like perhaps States not implementing Obamacare ) and the Federal govt sends troops to bring the recalcitrant State Leaders into custody to force a Federal mandate. The State Governor then calls up his Nation Guard units and request any able body citizen to join up in the defense of their state. While highly unlikely this will ever happen, it was equally unimaginable that the World Trade buildings would be toppled by planes flying into them.

Not gonna work that way woody. Money will speak louder and carry more clout than the use of weapons in the instance of Obamacare.

On the same vein, are you against the use of the National Guard to put some state in it's place when it doesn't want to follow federal law? I recall the University of Alabama had to face enforcement by the National Guard just to persuade a racist Governor, George Wallace, to finally implement desegregation. I'm sure a few African Americans appreciated being able to attend University in their home state.

The Guard was also used to kill some unpatriotic, flower-carrying hippie students protesting the Vietnam War at Kent State. Is that a viable case for using lethal federal force either?

TC wrote:"a Democratic racist Governor"

fix it for ya

He was a "Southern Democrat" racist governor by the way. Most of whom broke with the Democratic Party during the Civil Rights Movement and joined the Republican Party to become racist "Republicans". Nixon's great Southern Strategy. Glad they're in the Republican Party now. They can have 'em.

i hate to break it to ya, but there are probably more racists in the DNC then there are in the RNC, you just cant call them racists because of their skin color

Racism seems all but dead here except on the news and online political forums. People are getting tired of the energy it takes, but not sure how to proceed. IF, the media were to actually try and make peace, instead of stirring the pot, we would be in good shape in a few years.

CUDA wrote:i hate to break it to ya, but there are probably more racists in the DNC then there are in the RNC, you just cant call them racists because of their skin color

Do you have the first clue who is even a member of the Democratic National Committee? Further, when will the lunatic fringe latch onto the idea that the Democratic party is so disparate and unorganized as to render any central national committee close to worthless? Yet, over and over, from you and some others, I hear DNC this and DNC that, while as a 30 year plus member of the party, and former local party official, I have had virtually no contact with, nor direction from the DNC. Ever.

flip wrote:Racism seems all but dead here except on the news and online political forums. People are getting tired of the energy it takes, but not sure how to proceed. IF, the media were to actually try and make peace, instead of stirring the pot, we would be in good shape in a few years.

I think we're still a couple generations away from true, color-blind status, as a nation. But, we've made real progress in my lifetime(hell, I grew up in a town with separate water fountains and restrooms, clearly marked, and remaining several years after the Civil Rights Act), and we'll get there. Good thing, because in 50 years, white people will be the minority in the nation......

Racism will be alive and well in 50 years as long as the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson exist to promote it.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are almost dead

CUDA wrote:i hate to break it to ya, but there are probably more racists in the DNC then there are in the RNC, you just cant call them racists because of their skin color

Still alive and kicking in a few conservative pockets of racism in Alabama, and surprise, they're WHITE.

http://newsone.com/2024026/alabama-chur ... onference/

But I will concede that there are probably a lot of Black Americans in the DNC who are racist as well. But when you've got people like the above, still promoting themselves as the "Chosen Race" above all others, I don't blame Blacks who get pissed off at crap like this at all.

I don't blame blacks who are pissed off either, but maybe you've heard the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right". I am not willing to grant anyone a pass to do evil things against others using ANY justification. It's reactionary, perhaps, but it is not understandable.

woodchip wrote:Racism will be alive and well in 50 years as long as the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson exist to promote it.

and those two have found the fountain of youth? Heck, most of black America is passing them by, especially Jesse. In 50 years, they will both be around 120 years old. I don't expect to see the tolerance, let alone tacit acceptance of either black or white or brown racists by that time. Perhaps I am overly optimistic on the matter of maturation of our society. I likely won't be around in
2062 to be proven wrong or right, at any rate.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't blame blacks who are pissed off either, but maybe you've heard the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right". I am not willing to grant anyone a pass to do evil things against others using ANY justification. It's reactionary, perhaps, but it is not understandable.

No, maybe "two wrongs don't make a right", but when it comes to hatred, it's very hard to not react the wrong way.

That may be true. A person can't be reactionary their whole life, though (more than 10-20 years or so, for anyone taking this too literally). Sooner or later you're completely accountable for your behavior, whether you were wronged or not. That's the way life works.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Racism will be alive and well in 50 years as long as the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson exist to promote it.

and those two have found the fountain of youth? Heck, most of black America is passing them by, especially Jesse. In 50 years, they will both be around 120 years old.

You do understand the term "Likes of" ?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:i hate to break it to ya, but there are probably more racists in the DNC then there are in the RNC, you just cant call them racists because of their skin color

Do you have the first clue who is even a member of the Democratic National Committee?

do you?? what I do know that if the current and Former lying leadership mouthpiece's Dean and Wasserman-shultz are any example it's no wonder the party is, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION F'd up

Further, when will the lunatic fringe latch onto the idea that the Democratic party is so disparate and unorganized as to render any central national committee close to worthless?

well that explains our current administration then doesn't it

Yet, over and over, from you and some others, I hear DNC this and DNC that, while as a 30 year plus member of the party, and former local party official, I have had virtually no contact with, nor direction from the DNC. Ever.

and this is pertinent to my statement how?? I see you again did nothing to answer my comments I not surprised.

CUDA, it's pertinent in that you have no clue what you're talking about, who you're talking about and persist in ranting about something you don't understand. It's sort of like me trying to define Hassidic Judaism.