Likes Likes:  2
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: The Coming American Dictatorship

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,936
    Likes (received)
    18

    Default The Coming American Dictatorship

    A dictatorship is possible anywhere. Throughout history dictatorships are the conditions under which most people have lived. Pick any time in historyt,then make a mental estimate of what percentage of humanity lived under dictatorships of one kind or another at that time. There have even been times when everyone on the planet lived under a dictatorship of one sort or another,and, as if we can’t stand freedom, it seems as if every place men have won freedoms, the generations that followed them gave them away. Always. There’s evidence that that’s what we’re doing now.

    The Constitution will still be there and not a word of it will be changed nor will it have been amended. It will remain in place, a showcase to the world, but it will mean nothing. We’re putting all the mechanisms in place that will make a dictatorship possible. Two hundred years ago, our Founding Fathers had put as many obstacles as possible in the way of a dictatorship because they feared that unless there were obstacles, specifically, the safeguards in our Constitution, a dictatorship was inevitable. but even then, many of them weren’t optimistic about our chances. When Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention, a Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ Franklin replied, ‘A republic if you can keep it.’ He expressed the sentiment of many of the delegates.

    Today, as if we’re bent on proving the cynicism in Franklin’s reply was deserved, we’re ignoring—no, we’re actually throwing away—the safeguards hammered out among the delegates to that Convention. We’re not changing the wording or the intent of the Constitution, we’re just ignoring it.

    If I had to summarize what’s happening,I’d have to say there’s not just one thing we have to worry about; there’s a whole bunch of things that are undermining our freedoms,but I’m not going to say there’s a conspiracy, like some people do, though there may be. I really don’t know. But I’d have to say that if there’s a concerted attack on our liberties, whoever’s doing it is a lot smarter than we are and he—or they—have my grudging admiration because these changes aren’t being forced on us, we’re just going along with them.

    There are six things that I’d say are sure signs that we’re in trouble.

    First there’s the steady erosion of our basic rights, the ones a lot of people call our constitutional rights, though that’s not a good name for them. It’s better to think of them as natural rights, the way our Founding Fathers did—or think of them as God-given rights if you want. Thinking of them as constitutional rights is part of what is getting us in trouble. You have to realize that our Founding Fathers didn’t think of them as constitutional rights because they knew that if our rights are provided by either the Constitution or the government, what the government gives, it can also take away. As natural or God-given rights, they’re absolute. That’s the way they were intended.

    The next problem we have is related to this erosion of our rights, but I’d treat it as a whole separate category. It’s the unintended consequences of having created new rights—legal rights created by Congress and which Congress and bureaucrats have decided supercede or nullify our natural rights. These include the new rights that have come about as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Environmental Protection Act, and the American Disabilities Act. Unlike our natural rights, which come to us at the expense of no one else, the new rights have to be provided by someone else. It’s in having to provide them that our government has found ways to erode our natural rights.

    Third there’s the unconstitutional bypassing of our legislative process by the President—not just this one in office now, but by all of the recent presidents.
    Using what are called Executive Orders, they create laws that are not only illegal and unconstitutional, but are created without the consent of the Congress or the people of the United States. Some of these edicts, believe it or not, explicitly suspend the Constitution for an indeterminate amount of time on the whim of the President.

    Fourth, there’s the new rules and regulations imposed on businesses by our federal government by which the government circumvents our Fifth Amendment rights by insisting businesses spy on us. This includes banks, airlines, and even manufacturers of things like light bulbs and paper.

    Fifth is the creation of a professional, standing army. The Founding Fathers feared a professional army. They believed this country should depend on the militia—and I’m using the word ‘militia’ in the way they used it in the Second Amendment, meaning the body of citizen, not the National Guard or some other professional organization. Professional armies lose their allegiance to the citizenry and have a history of becoming the accomplices of tyrants. It’s highly unlikely there would have been any protests to the illegal war we fought in Vietnam if we’d had a professional army then.

    Last of all, but not least, our economy is no longer a true free market economy. It is now one of the socialist economies. We’re now a fascist economy. For all of our posturing about how bad fascism is, we have created a fascist economy as a compromise between capitalism and communism.

    All of these changes are milestones on the road to tyranny. If they had all been invoked at once, we’d have seen them for what they are, an attempt to subvert what had once been the freest society history has ever seen. There’d have been a revolution in this country; blood would have run in the streets,but they’ve come over generations, and the American people, whose collective attention span is brief and whose memory is even shorter, have come to believe that the way things are in this country today is the way they’ve always been.

    Maybe, even though we are putting all mechanisms for a dictatorship into place...maybe it won’t happen. Though why we’d want to tempt fate by putting all the machinery for a dictatorship in place, I don’t know. If I had to bet, I’d say that sometime in the not too distant future we will live under tyranny. Sometime after that historians are going to look back to where the United States stood on the dawn of the new millennium and wonder if we’d gone mad or if we were just idiots. History is not going to treat us well; I can almost assure you of that.

    For years, while I’ve been talking to people about this very subject, I’ve been telling them our government is illegal, that it violates Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, that it tramples all over the Bill of Rights. And just recently it dawned on me that in all those years not one person has ever said to me, ‘Our government is legal; it complies with the Constitution.’ Instead, they tell me, ‘Things are different now.’ Or, ‘We have different problems now.’
    No one’s defending the actions of the government as legal, constitutional, or even right. They’re saying they know our government doesn’t operate within the confines of the Constitution anymore, but they say that’s okay because our problems are different from the problems the Founding Fathers faced. Or they just say the Constitution is old. Even Franklin Roosevelt said our Constitution was only fit for horse and buggy days and he never let it get in his way.The Constitution’s being trampled on but we the people don’t complain about it. We make no noise when the safeguards are breached. We don’t protect our rights from the very entity our Constitution is meant to protect us from, our government itself. If we don’t stop them, then it’s our fault.

    The Constitution isn’t there to tell us, the citizens, how to behave; [B}it’s there to set limits on government.[/B] We’ve got to hold them to it. For the first 150 years or so of this country, it worked pretty well,but now the government ignores the Constitution whenever it’s convenient for them to do so. And I mean government at all levels—federal, state, and the local level.

    We expect the so-called average citizen to obey the law, even when it’s absurd or unfair, but we don’t want our politicians or bureaucrats to have to obey it if we figure there’s a payoff for us. And every time we allow exceptions to the Constitution, we do it because we expect some kind of payoff. You see, the worst enemy of liberty is not the tyrant without, it’s the tyrant within us all : we all want to be free, but we want to dictate to our neighbors. There’s always something our neighbors do that we don’t like and that we think there should be a law against. I’m not talking about murder or robbery where there’s a victim and upon which we can get almost universal agreement that it’s wrong. I’m talking about gambling, prostitution, drug use, putting additions on your house, wearing seat belts, how children are educated, etc. I think there should be a law against something you’re doing or not doing and you, in turn, think someone should make a law against something I’m doing, and there’s always a politician trying to curry both of our votes. So he’ll try to get the laws enacted, laws you want imposed on me and laws I want imposed on you. So we get drug laws, zoning laws, laws about politically correct speech, guns laws, restrictions on businesses—you name it and somebody wants it outlawed or regulated and there’s a politician somewhere listening. But you can’t blame him. He’s just doing what both you and I and all of our neighbors are trying to do to each other.

    The net result is that we are imposing tyranny on each other, often in defiance of the Constitution and the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, and we create bureaucracies to manage and enforce our rules and these bureaucracies benefit from the existence of these new rules, these new laws. And, no matter how unconstitutional they may be, soon the bureaucrats themselves will fight to keep bad laws in place, even when you and I have seen the light and want those laws repealed.

    Drug laws started out as tax laws not long after the turn of the century. But we need to fast forward to 1934, when Prohibition was repealed, to see how they got worse. When Prohibition ended, there was the question of what the government was going to do with all the agents it had hired to run down the bootleggers, speakeasy owners, and rumrunners. The obvious answer was to send them home. But FDR was too kind hearted to throw anyone out of work once they were living off the largess of the taxpayers, even though, in his election campaign, he had sworn he was going to cut the size of government. So he set this crew off to chase drug users.

    It was a practical decision. Prohibition had failed because it had been imposed on whites; whites wanted to drink so whites ended it. But whites didn’t do drugs. Only blacks and Mexicans did. So Roosevelt turned the otherwise idle agents of the war on alcohol to pursuing drugs, and the rest was history.

    No one foresaw the 1960s when white kids would start smoking pot, dropping acid, and snortin’ coke the way their parents and grandparents had been swilling beer, wine, and bathtub gin,but suddenly, white America found itself throwing its own children and grandchildren in jails.

    The drug laws are unconstitutional. The federal government has no authority to make such laws. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution make it pretty clear that we can do with our bodies as we wish. The 14th Amendment says the states have got to leave us alone, too.

    In a cruel twist of fate, by the 1960s the antidrug campaign had become a huge industry. There were people who benefitted from it despite the fact that it is illegal and was ruining millions of lives.
    The livelihoods of police, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, and many others depend on drugs being illegal and remaining illegal. And, like many other industries, the drug prohibition industry is a growth industry; it grows by making more and more laws which are increasingly pervasive and harsher and have less constitutional basis, like RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. When RICO was passed, it became legal, despite the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, for the police to deprive citizens of property without due process. They can do this simply on the suspicion alone that the property is linked to a crime. They don’t have to have a warrant, they don’t even have to prove their accusations. RICO is not only unconstitutional, it abrogates the body of common law and tradition our legal system rests on. The state no longer has to prove citizens are guilty of anything to seize their belongings; the citizens must prove they are innocent through an almost impossible and expensive process which includes posting bonds which, in theory, the government can also seize.

    The same goes for prisons. If the War on Drugs were dropped and the P.O.W.s, the hostages taken in that war, were sent home, some three quarters of our prison population would disappear.

    Today the United States imprisons a greater percentage of its own citizens than any other country in the world.So what would all the prison guards currently employed to do this do? Where would the wardens get their next jobs? What would happen to all those communities in the middle of nowhere whose main industry is the prison? As prisons closed, real estate would plummet in those communities and people would lose their life savings. Do you think someone with $100,000 into a house, in one of these backwater towns, wants the illegal War on Drugs stopped? Think about it.

    How do you think lawyers would fare if drug laws went away? Have you ever stopped to think of how much of the legal system is employed prosecuting or defending people in drug cases? Even court appointed lawyers are on the payroll. How many lawyers would suddenly discover they can’t afford to feed their kids if all the laws concerning drug and other victimless crimes disappeared?

    the economics reaches even beyond them. It goes all the way to corporate America which manufactures drug detection chemicals and equipment, builds prisons, even makes uniforms. Many livelihoods depend on these laws, and the amount of money involved runs into the hundred of billions. It’s more money than goes through any of the corporate giants in America today.

    People are going to prison, losing their property, having their lives destroyed, and sometimes they are dying because of these unconstitutional laws. And we all have blood on our hands.

    The rights we bought with blood more than 200 years ago we now exchange for loaves of bread. As a friend of mine once said, "the War on Drugs is nothing more than a Full Employment Act for lawyers, judges, policemen, prison systems, corporations, and their attendant bureaucracies," and he’s right.
    Aaron J. Cuffee


    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    - H.L. Mencken

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Denton, Texas
    Posts
    625
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default I'll vote for you

    You talk like a libertarian.
    Jack Bieler

    "The best things can't be told; the second best are misunderstood; the third best are what we talk about." - after Heinrich Zimmer

  3. #3
    Tamdhu Guest

    Default

    All this is rendered moot by the simple fact that once my dictatorship is up and running, I promise to be really, really nice to people.

    Honest!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    418
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    The drug laws are unconstitutional. The federal government has no authority to make such laws. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution make it pretty clear that we can do with our bodies as we wish. The 14th Amendment says the states have got to leave us alone, too.
    There is an entire cult out there who say the 16th Amendment (Passed 1913): "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

    ...was NOT PROPERLY ratified amongst the States at the time and is null and void, and every year these true believers get sentenced in US Tax Courts.

    Also where does the word "privacy" exist in the US Constitution?

    Again I understand your issues with our onerous and growing Nanny Government. Soon smokers will be sent to prison. Then the hard liquor drinkers, then the wine and beer drinkers, then they will come for the fatties...

    If drugs were decriminalized - the prisons could then take in violent offenders that SHOULD BE IN THERE NOW. People would still go to jail for selling drugs to minors - that still be illegal and a crime right? However where would the inevitably increase of junkies go to get rehab? What would be the costs in additional medical expenses to the GNP due to increased substance abuse?

    The growth of legalized gambling (casinos) does have a dark side - increase bankruptcies, broken homes, embezzlements, loan sharking.

    In order for your concept to work, I think you would have to start by looking at every government program initiated since 1932 (New Deal) and ask is this in line with the original intent of the Constitution?

    What are the obligations of citizenship - should citizenship be granted automatically to all? What of those who take but do not give anything back???

    It's so radical it will never see the light of day.

    Start the Revolution without me...

    P.S. The Social Security Trust Fund is the biggest Ponzi scheme of the 20th century. Soon the battlecry of youth in 2030 will be "Death to the Grandparents! Let them eat Purina Cat Chow"!!
    John McPartland
    Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!  I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Re: The Coming American Dictatorship

    Originally posted by elder999
    Fifth is the creation of a professional, standing army. The Founding Fathers feared a professional army. They believed this country should depend on the militia—and I’m using the word ‘militia’ in the way they used it in the Second Amendment, meaning the body of citizen, not the National Guard or some other professional organization. Professional armies lose their allegiance to the citizenry and have a history of becoming the accomplices of tyrants. It’s highly unlikely there would have been any protests to the illegal war we fought in Vietnam if we’d had a professional army then.
    I'm a bit confused on this point, Aaron. First, during the days of the Founding Fathers a militia would have been workable - there were few technical skills needed in order to wage war. Today it would simply not be possible to train fighter pilots, Patriot missile technicians, or pretty much any fighter aircraft, warship, or artillery mechanics or technicians at the drop of a hat in time of emergency. Certainly nowhere near the numbers or quality that we now require. Secondly, only 25% of our forces in Vietnam were draftees, as opposed to 66% during WWII. The other 75% were 'professional army'. The fact that we had a professional standing army throughout the Cold War may well account for the fact that we are not speaking Russian right now - effectively negating our present-day discussion on the erosion of natural rights. I cannot see how we could have kept up with the Soviets or become the power we are today without a standing, well trained army. I dunno..perhaps I am misunderstanding this part of your post.
    David F. Craik

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,936
    Likes (received)
    18

    Default Re: Re: The Coming American Dictatorship

    Originally posted by Soulend
    I'm a bit confused on this point, Aaron. First, during the days of the Founding Fathers a militia would have been workable - there were few technical skills needed in order to wage war. Today it would simply not be possible to train fighter pilots, Patriot missile technicians, or pretty much any fighter aircraft, warship, or artillery mechanics or technicians at the drop of a hat in time of emergency. Certainly nowhere near the numbers or quality that we now require. Secondly, only 25% of our forces in Vietnam were draftees, as opposed to 66% during WWII. The other 75% were 'professional army'. The fact that we had a professional standing army throughout the Cold War may well account for the fact that we are not speaking Russian right now - effectively negating our present-day discussion on the erosion of natural rights. I cannot see how we could have kept up with the Soviets or become the power we are today without a standing, well trained army. I dunno..perhaps I am misunderstanding this part of your post.
    You're right, but a professional standing army also negates the purpose of the Second Amendment, which is to enable the populace to overthrow the government.This has not been a credible possibility for a long time, in part because of a professional standing army-whatever the geopolitical benefits are, aside.
    Aaron J. Cuffee


    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    - H.L. Mencken

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Conversely, a professional standing army is quite possibly the reason we still have a Second Amendment - or even a Constitution, for that matter. I doubt the Axis, Soviets, or Chinese would have allowed us to keep it after they soundly stomped us.
    David F. Craik

  8. #8
    Gene Williams Guest

    Default

    Well, Aaron, I think you are reaching...for anarchy Like it or not, we live in world in which the things that so alarm you are necessary. Sometimes freedom is a compromise...at times we have to give up a little freedom in order to preserve more basic freedoms. There has always been an ebb and flow of constitutional interpretation and restrictions...Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy all restricted certain freedoms in one way or another, then there was a loosening, now it is swinging the other way. I believe the world is much more dangerous, and our country much more of a target than many "feel goods" are willing to believe. We in this country do not understand what a "war" footing is. I pray that we are not brought into much closer contact with it through the denial and hypocritical outrage of liberals.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,936
    Likes (received)
    18

    Default

    Originally posted by Soulend
    Conversely, a professional standing army is quite possibly the reason we still have a Second Amendment - or even a Constitution, for that matter. I doubt the Axis, Soviets, or Chinese would have allowed us to keep it after they soundly stomped us.
    Granted-and spoken like the professional soldier that you are-I mean no sarcasm with that;you sould be proud of what you do...

    ...and recognize it's potential abuse.
    Aaron J. Cuffee


    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    - H.L. Mencken

  10. #10
    Gene Williams Guest

    Default

    Aaron, I think you are setting up a straw man with this "potential abuse" of the armed forces. We have less military than ever, even with the recent conflicts. I think we need a million combat ready troops, a 600 ship navy, and a larger airforce. I think troops should guard the Canadian and Mexican borders, and at least a couple of combat platoons should be stationed around nuclear facilities and other sensitive areas. We should aggressively pursue space based weapons, and go on a recruiting spree for the CIA. When you are the meanest S.O.B. in the valley... "If you want to insure peace, prepare for war." That is the truth, like it or not. Gene

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Also, and as I posted before long ago (post is gone now), although the ownership of firearms which are legally available to civilians would be negligible in overthrowing a government, I believe that it would still be very possible - just as possible as when we were all armed with muskets, because the means of attack are now far more numerous than in days of old. A few points:

    1.) In the event of a truly tyrannical government, especially one that uses it's forces to subjegate and abuse the populace, I am very certain that many of it's servicemembers will vanish from their units. I would be one. We are, after all, sworn to uphold the Constitution above all else.

    2). Who supplies the military with it's power, water, parts, technical support, ammunition, food, uniforms and weapons? Privately owned, civilian companies. Hmmmm...

    3.) Although it may not be possible for civilians to effectively attack government forces with conventional weapons, what of all the civilian computer experts, electrical engineers, demolition experts, veterans, scientists, etc. etc...there are methods of attack and disruption undreamed-of in colonial times. Can you imagine a nation of "terrorists"? (wrong term, I know..but 'guerilla' tends to connote armed resistance).

    4.) How many of our pilots, artillery commanders, and missile guys will be able to push the buttons that will obliterate neighborhoods of our own people - women, children? I don't know of any.

    All in all, the whole of the populace would have to be held hostage, as Americans tend to be a rather unruly anti-authoritarian bunch, and even though our armies are large (once again - they wouldn't be near as vast minus defections), I don't believe they could do it. We still have not been able to control Afghanistan or Iraq - I hardly think the government could sustain a prolonged anti-guerilla war against our own people.
    David F. Craik

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by elder999
    ...and recognize it's potential abuse.
    Noted. Once again, you can't use armed forces as a tool to tyrannize the populace when most of your Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen have not shown up for roll call. We are not indoctrinated, mindless robots who will unblinkingly execute the orders of a Fuhrer. The service we render is for the Constitution and people. I cannot think of a single man that I have met over the course of over a decade and a half of service that would be a party to such a thing..even the lousy ones. Undoubtedly some exist, but far less than would be neccesary to subjegate the whole of the nation.

    You're a great man, Aaron, but I think sometimes you see boogeymen and conspiracies where none exist.
    David F. Craik

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,936
    Likes (received)
    18

    Default

    Originally posted by Soulend
    Noted. Once again, you can't use armed forces as a tool to tyrannize the populace when most of your Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen have not shown up for roll call. We are not indoctrinated, mindless robots who will unblinkingly execute the orders of a Fuhrer. The service we render is for the Constitution and people. I cannot think of a single man that I have met over the course of over a decade and a half of service that would be a party to such a thing..even the lousy ones. Undoubtedly some exist, but far less than would be neccesary to subjegate the whole of the nation.

    You're a great man, Aaron, but I think sometimes you see boogeymen and conspiracies where none exist.
    Well, jeez David, thanks!If it were possible, I'd be blushing!
    Actually, I can and do blush.

    I never said conspiracy or boogeyman.

    The military has been misused-if not abused-since the inception of the republic.

    See the "Whiskey Rebellion," or "Shanksville,"-ironically. See the "Bonus Army":In 1932, MacArthur led a force of tanks, cavalry and infantry against a group of 15,000 unarmed World War I veterans who had camped in Washington to petition Congress for early payment of their service bonuses.

    See any number of questionable exercises of military might abroad....Nicaragua, El Salvador,Guatemala, the Phillipines.

    I never said that servicemen are unquestioning robots, but they are susceptible to duplicity like the rest of the American populace.
    Aaron J. Cuffee


    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    - H.L. Mencken

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,809
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    The Whisky Rebellion was precipitated by folks who didn't want to pay tax on booze they made. This excise tax, as you know, was proposed by Alexander Hamilton, one of the Framers of the Constitution. A bad idea, but we are talking about 1792 here. And yes, MacArthur led these troops against the Bonus Army because they were raising hell, attacking police officers and hurling bricks at senators' cars. Not one shot was fired in MacArtur's operation.

    Hardly tyranny. As far as rights and wrongs of the use of the military in foreign countries in recent times - I see a vast difference between this and gunning down the very people we are sworn to protect to support a true tyrant.

    At any rate, I guess this is getting away from the original discussion about the value standing armies. Militia in modern times wouldn't have a hope against a remotely comparable enemy utilizing professional full-time forces. Although only 25% of the force in Vietnam, draftees sustained over 30% of the casualties. Can you imagine if the entire force were 'militia', led by 'militia', and trying to execute strategy and tactics formulated by 'militia'? Good God, Aaron, we'd be wiped out.

    Command of troops - from Generals to NCO's - is not the simple, mindless task that the public seems to imagine. You can no more pull a fellow with from civilian life, give him rushed and minimal training, and expect him to effectively command troops in combat than you could expect him to perform back surgery. Not to mention perform technical maintenance and tasks which have no equivalent in the civilian sector. Effective soldiering is a profession, especially in modern times - not a part-time gig.
    Last edited by Soulend; 22nd October 2003 at 01:46.
    David F. Craik

  15. #15
    bruceb Guest

    Default shoot first, the strongest should win??

    Well then, Aaron .... just what should we do to fix the burdoning structure of our social system and laws?

    Return to territorial marshals who come in when murders or crimes appear to fix the problems of local government, or just wait for citizens to get their guns to answer the call to duty when duty calls?

    The evolving of society, evolving of the mechanical age into the electronic age into what?? What checks and balances would be sufficient to employment at a constant rise to the gross national product would reflect the discretionary spending of the citizens?

    There may be a whole slew of problems, but the underbelly of drugs, illegal activites, prisons, government employees serve to balance the economy, keep the growing population within the tolerances of a peaceful growing society. Sometimes I think that the powers that be create as much chaos and they do law / order?

    In some sense, the government of every nation, including the good ol' USA, is on some levels of thought a dictatorship, but only when you are in the crosshairs of the legal system or caught up within the system.

    I told you this would happen Aaron, and now over the past couple of months a variety of posts about th secret underbelly of politics, government, and the many many posts about the secret controlers of America? Feeling them cross hairs, or maybe a laser light dot on your forehead, eh?

    Well, maybe being stupid has its benefits as the stress of knowing too much seems to have triggered a whole set of scenarios that can either be written about in a fictional fashion, or they can be written about for a number of publications?

    Instead of calling up the ghosts of the founding fathers, maybe you should sit down and write a few papers, some short stories to figure out how to deal with your present fears about what is happening in the USA and the world today? If not for money, do it for your own sanity ... please.

    If not for your sanity, then for the rest of us .... huh?

    If you examine what you are saying, you are saying that we should go back to shoot first, or letting the strongest win, which would open our society as we know it to a new black age of crime and killing, wouldn' t it?

    Either point out th particulars that need to be corrected and how they can be corrected, or just keep your fears on the QT.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •