Future Of America II

P

Phred

New member
(Continued)
Those of us who are pro-gun have taken some hits in the legislatures, but we also have people in 30 states carrying under "shall-issue" permit laws. Could anyone have imagined that 20 years ago? And the research of John Lott and others has helped turn the tables in the intellectual debate.

And who would have thought 20 years ago that there would have been so many challenges to the monopoly of the public schools? Who would have imagined the explosion of home schooling and the pressure for vouchers?

20 years ago the Supreme Court was still dominated by Warren Court holdovers. Now the ideological balance has shifted, and it will continue to shift if people contribute votes, time and money to WHOEVER the Republican alternative to Gore is in November. In the real world, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for Gore. The Republican candidate will not be perfect from a pro-gun viewpoint, but he will take office owing US, and Gore will take office owing THEM. How do you want it?

I often read liberal magazines and listen to left wing talk radio (i.e., Pacifica). The good news is that the liberals think THEY'RE losing. And to some degree they are right.

Socialism-is-inevitable talk is bad because
A.) It's not accurate, and
B.) It undermines the morale of those of us who favor a Constitutional republic.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phred:
Socialism-is-inevitable talk is bad because
A.) It's not accurate, and
B.) It undermines the morale of those of us who favor a Constitutional republic.[/quote]

Amen!

And . . .

C.) It's Marxist! :D
 
I wonder why the Democrats don't run around saying "a vote for a third party is a vote for the Republicans!"? Could it be that the ideology of the Republican party in practice has become repulsive and unidentifyable to a lot of Americans today? Granted- the Republican party official platform is wonderful. Unfortunately, I cannot see but a few Republicans who are trying to adhear to the platform. I will vote my conscience. I will not be so weak minded as to worry about who I am voting for because I am voting for the Libertarian candidate unless Alan Keyes by some miracle wins the primary. The gulf between where I stand and the two likely Republican Candidates cannot be breached. I am pro-life. I am strictly pro-gun, I am even very strictly pro-constitution. I know that the Libertarians are pro-choice, but on the rest and especially the Constitution, they are right on the money. They seem to be the only ones who care about the intent of the founders, and so I will continue to vote for them until the Republicans produce a candidate that is more on target with my beliefs. Maybe the Republicans have moved so far left, that they are where the Democrats were in the '80s. This could be why they're losing votes to the third parties, and I don't care what folks say, you should first vote your conscience. Things won't get better voting for the lessor of two evils. If the Republicans lose the election, then they get what they deserve. Maybe they'll learn, and run better candidates. At what point do these parties start to say: "hey! we're losing votes to the Libertarians, maybe we ought to move our philosophy in their direction." I don't think it takes a genius to figure this out. If I had to choose between John McCain and Al Gore, I wouldn't vote. The Republicans didn't lose my vote because they never had it to begin with. All parties have to compete for it, and I will vote for who I think is right. Alan Keyes hit the nail on the head when he said that the Democrats are going to whoop the Republicrats this November, because the one thing that the Repubs have going for them (character) will be neutralized as soon as McCain gets the nod. Keating 5 will be a big issue, and if you don't know much about it, the only reason McCain wasn't busted out of Congress (and thrown in jail)is the Republicans nailed John Glenn with dirty hands, so they called it a draw, and let bygones be bygones. The Taxpayers still paid the debt, and McCain pocketed $70K+ (of taxpayer money). McCain has been involved in quite a few scandals that most people don't know about. If you produce a candidate like this, there will be mass defections from the die-hard conservatives, and you'll see Al Gore win. A vote for McCain is ultimately a wasted vote. A vote for Bush is a maybe vote. His scandals have come out ie: Cocaine use, National Guard to avoid Viet-nam, drinking, and the "no blacks allowed vacation home". He could probably overcome this, but I wonder. If Keyes were white (to borrow from Roy Innis, chairman of the council for racial equality), he'd be the talk of the nation, and would have already knocked out everyone running against him. Sad to say it, but it's true. Since he's black, the Republicans (party)are wary to elect a black Roman Catholic, so he doesn't stand much of a chance. Rush Limbaugh (for all you ditto heads) even said that he's the one true conservative standard bearer running. Every body is afraid to vote for him even though they all say they'd rather him win. The blacks are starting to organize behind him, and the Roman Catholics would probably too. Why? . Democrats on the other hand will vote as a block whether or not their candidate is rupugnant or not. They don't care. To them it's about winning or losing, not about issues. Partial Birth Abortion I'm sure everyone agrees is hard to stomach. They deliver all but the baby's head, sometimes using force to keep it in the vagina, while the doctor cuts the base of the skull and suck the brains out. This isn't a little blob of tissue, this is a fully formed infant that is viable in every way and can live outside the womb if it slides just 3 more inches. Pathetic, and most Democrats don't care. They may not like it, but their candidate comes first, and no issue will stand in the way of their guy. If you truly want to change somthing, vote Keyes or Libertarian. Take the High Road, and let the chips fall. Right after you vote your true conscience, donate $50.00 to judicial watch so Larry Klamon can proceed with his 47 civil and criminal suits against Bill Clinton, Hillary, Al and Tipper Gore, and some of the Cabinet members. This will come to trial about a month or two prior to the election, and will probably result in 2 felony convictions for Al Gore. Hard to elect a convicted felon. The rest will land squarely in the lap of Billary.
You can play petty political strategist all you want, but in the end you'll wish you hadn't, and in 20 more years, as you're handing a representative of a Republican Government your guns, and your rights, you can at least be happy that you kinda held on to your rights for a few more years than if you voted Democrat.
 
A white Keyes or a black Keyes -- it doesn't really matter. He's a pariah, and that's what turns most people off. A president Keyes would be uncomfortably close to rightwing dictatorship for most Americans.

:eek:

As for other candidates, have some faith in the American political system! Politicians are human, too -- they make mistakes! At least McCain is honest and open about it. I believe it was in Iowa when all the candidates were asked what their biggest mistake was. McCain was brutally honest, even though it was not in his interest to be. Keyes was evasive and arrogant. Doesn't it make you at least wonder if he's hiding something?
 
Saying McCain is honest is like sayin Clinton has character. Consider:

JOHN McCAIN – S&L thief, pampered elitist snob, school yard bully, abortion flip-flop artist, "campaign finance reform" fraud, socialist agenda puke, and one really, really weird lookin’ guy, all rolled in to the original putrid package nobody with any sense would touch with a ten foot pole. I know you’re not the only hair ball runnin’ for office, but right now you’re the biggest burr under my saddle. Listen up little John, you are NOT a war hero, you are a war SURVIVOR. I happen to personally know a few returned POWs, and you shouldn’t be allowed to stand under the same sun with them. I don’t discount your service, Mr. bank robber, service to one’s country is an honorable thing. But I detest your attempted march to the White House over the bodies of the men I served with in Viet Nam. You should be ashamed. Then you should be indicted.
 
Shotgun,

You are entitled to your opinion about McCain's lack of appeal, but the polls suggest many people disagree: not only will people touch him with a ten foot pole -- they really like him.
 
Bezdelnik: In what sense would a Keyes administration be a "dictatorship"? Has he announced or even hinted at plans to disband Congress and the Supreme Court and suspend the Constitution? I don't see how Keyes' plan to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the federal government could be seen as dictatorial, except perhaps in an Orwellian "Freedom is slavery" sense.

If Keyes doesn't win (which seems a safe bet), the biggest reason will be that his ideas are outside the bounds of political discussion set by the national news media and accepted by most of the public.
 
Originally posted by Shotgun:
It is not a matter of my opinion. It is documented fact if you would search the congresional record over the past few years. And I also don't care what the popular opinion is. Most people who respond to polls know nothing about the subject except what they read in the papers, and of course McCain is the Media darling of the moment. The fact that the media love him should tell you to avoid him like the plague. :mad:
Click to expand...
 
Matt VDW: I didn't say he would be a dictator, I said he would be closer to that extreme than any of the other candidates (except maybe Buchanan, who is also a pariah). I didn't mean to imply that he would disband the Congress or suspend the Constitution (though he does want to disband the IRS). But, some of the things he has said about combining the church and the state seem pretty strange (and unconstitutional) to me, and I'm sure they sound strange to most moderates, the "silent majority."

But you're right, if he doesn't win it will be because he is too far to the right for most voters. The best effect he can hope to attain would be a long-term effect on American politics. At this point, it seems his most significant short-tem effect is to strengthen McCain's position by keeping ultra-conservatives from voting for Bush.

Shotgun: I'm sure you can document your claims. I wasn't disputing that. My point was just that those "most people" that you describe are eligible voters who will probably go out and vote -- regardless of whether they are influenced by the press or not.

If you are as mad about McCain as your post suggests, then you should go out and try to convince as many people as you can with your evidence. That's the great thing about the American political process.
 
"Socialism-is-inevitable talk is bad because
A.) It's not accurate, and"

How is it inaccurate??? Do you mean to tell me that the EO's to procure land in the form of National Parks is not eliminating private property??? How about the "redistribution" of wealth based on some government minimum standard. If that is not some sort of transition from capitalism to something else what is??? I think that the only way in which it is inaccurate is in terminology. Socialism, if I remember correctly, has a strong central covernment that does not allow for private ownership of land and or production/distribution, but it does allow for the distribution of wealth based on amount of work put in. This is a precursor to Communism where the central government controls everything and distributes godds/services equally to all (in theroy that is). I think the term facism is more appropriate for our transition. This is a precursor to Socialism. Here the central government is as strong as possible, but not quite strong enough to directly control land ownership, production, distribution and wealth; but it does so through the use of taxes, fees and other economic controls. Just think of how the FED controls interest rates. Is that not a means by which to control wealth. How about EPA fines, ... If you do not think we are transition oing away from a Constitutional Republic, just go down to the nearest Law Library and read some of the laws currently on the books.

"B.) It undermines the morale of those of us who favor a Constitutional republic."

Interesting choice of words. If you are being sarcastic I'm sorry for taking you seriously. I place this issue along side the self esteem isuue. As long as everyone feels good all is well. Those that favor a Cpnstitutioal Republic, myself included, should be well aware of what things are being done to transition away from what we cherish so that we may act before it is too late. The truth does not or should not kill morale. What kills morale is knowledge of the truth coupled with an inability to do anything about it. We are nowhere near that stage where we cant do anything about it. There are still elections to be voted on at all levels of government... We can not let ourselves believe the crap about not being able to fight the system. The minute we fall for that line of BS we are dead and so is our Constitution; a state that many of our "leaders" would be happy about

------------------
If stupidity hurt, liberals would be walking around in agony.
 
This whole line of thought, that "we" are winning because the Supreme Court is more Conservative and that talk radio and the internet are liberating speech, etc., is missing the big picture.

What have we lost? How will we get it back?
Here's a tiny snapshot of what I'm talking about:

Who gets first crack at your paycheck?

Do you think that will change with Bush or Gore or McCain in office?

If you trade your time on Earth, which is finite, for a paycheck (essentially the agreement you make with your employer), and the gubmint takes the lion's share of that BEFORE you even get a whiff of it, are you now a peasant or a citizen?

What do you think it would take to get this situation changed?

If this is a govt of, by, and for the people, how is it that something as abusive and aggregious as the IRS exists?

Who's interests are served by a 3000 page tax code unfathomable to the average citizen?

Do you think the gubmint has any qualms about killing people over taxes?

Multiply that by 100 different issues with battles on 1000 different fronts and the scope of "the problem" only begins to be apparent.
 
From Taz--"We cannot let ourselves believe the crap about not being able to fight the system...we are nowhere near that stage."

I AGREE. That's why I wrote: to argue with several people on the Future of America #1 thread who said that it is TOO LATE to fight the system. When I referred to "undermining the morale" of those who oppose the Left, I was referring to this attitude.

I feel the same as you and Jack 99 on property rights, the IRS, etc. But in some ways, things have the potential to turn around The political and judicial atmosphere is more favorable to limited government than it has been in 50 years.

What we have at the moment IS entirely too close to Socialism for my liking, but the situation can be turned around IF people refuse to give up.

I think we are more in agreement than opposed.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAZ:
"Socialism, if I remember correctly, has a strong central covernment that does not allow for private ownership of land and or production/distribution, but it does allow for the distribution of wealth based on amount of work put in. This is a precursor to Communism where the central government controls everything and distributes godds/services equally to all (in theroy that is)." [/quote]

Your recollection of socialism is more less on target. Actually there can be and is private property under some socialist systems, but the government owns the "major means of production" (Sweden is the classic example). Communism, in theory, has NO GOVERNMENT (remember Stalin's terminology, "whithering of the State"?). That's what makes communism such an idealistic, but unrealistic system.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAZ:
"I think the term facism is more appropriate for our transition. This is a precursor to Socialism. Here the central government is as strong as possible, but not quite strong enough to directly control land ownership, production, distribution and wealth; but it does so through the use of taxes, fees and other economic controls. [/quote]

This really makes no sense. Fascism is diametrically opposed to socialism on the political spectrum. You cannot have two types of government more opposed. Fascism is not a precursor to anything -- certainly not socialism. Read your Marx more carefully!

Furthermore, all governments levy taxes -- ALL governments. Without taxes, you would have no government at all. You need at least SOME government to allocate public goods such as fire protection and sewage. Even libertarians acknowledge that.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAZ:
"Just think of how the FED controls interest rates. Is that not a means by which to control wealth.[/quote]

No, it isn't. There are some redistributive mechanisms in the US, I'll grant you that, but the Fed is certainly not one of them. The Fed does not control interest rates. The Fed only controls ONE RATE. Banks usually follow suit -- not because the government forces them in any way to do so, but because it is in their financial interest to do so. That is capitalism, pure and simple. What the Fed does is to play on peoples' and companies' expectations in order to nudge the market in one way or another. That's not control. If you want to learn about economic control, I can recommend several good books on the Soviet economy.
 
Marx was an expert on fascism?
Lawrence Henry on fascism - www.americanpartisan.com/ :
"My Random House College Dictionary (30 years old; no PC here)
defines fascism as a totalitarian scheme of government under the
direction of a dictator, often including racist elements. (No, George
Will, fascism is not a feeling.) This definition needs some enlargement.
For example, Communist governments exercised totalitarian control by
taking over the means of production. Fascist rulers, by contrast, chose
to leave private enterprise nominally private, while exercising dictatorial
control over its scope and actions. Fascists formed "syndicates" with
industry; therefore the term "syndicalism." In practice, as well, many
Communist and fascist governments implemented murderous racial
policies via police and military power, the police and the military
becoming indistinguishable under most iterations of both systems.

Now who's the fascist with the happy face?"

My response: The current political establishment wears this mask and it is mistakenly called creeping socialism.

Keyes is perceived as a potential dictator?
The most ardent defender of constitutional rule, which accurately limits the powers of the office he seeks, currently in the race; is a threat to the individual liberties of the people? I am confused.
 
"You need at least SOME government to allocate public goods such as fire protection and sewage. Even libertarians acknowledge that."

Actually, they do NOT.
 
Phred,

Big forest, many trees obscure the view.

In a way, the bigger the forest, the more trees there are to obscure the view.

Underlying everything in the world is a basic premise. The premise determines the nature of whatever you want to describe or talk about.
The premise of the US Government is no longer the ideas found in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. If it was, you wouldn't even have a BATF, for instance. There wouldn't be horror stories about IRS abuses. There are way too many examples here to list, but you get the point.

Instead, we've changed the premise of gubmint and in so doing, changed "the nature of the beast". By focusing on this agency or that court decision or such and such an act passed by Congress, we lose sight of the fact that the basic premise has changed. Hard to describe, but on most levels government has ceased to exist "for the people," rather the people exist for the government. This is the premise govt operates under now, they assume control of your paycheck, for instance, or your property. An agency of the govt regulates just about any important aspect of your life you care to name. By changing the premise, we're now reduced to quibling about "how much" rather than arguing about whether or not the govt has any right to control this stuff at all.

You are now a peasant for all practical purposes.

Here's something to chew on:

They claim to have a "budget surplus" but want to tax the 'net. Why? They don't need the money by their own accounting. The answer is control. Taxation is control. Controlling the 'net is the goal, but taxes are only supposed to be used to generate NEEDED revenue for the state. Total reversal of the principles found in the Constitution. Get it?

Washington said it best: "government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
 
FWIW, I once had a professor who illustrated left and right by putting two pieces of chalk next to each other at the top of the blackboard (yes, I'm that old). He said, that was the political center. He moved each marker outward and down, describing the types of political views at each point. Eventually, the two marks met at the bottom. "And down here", he said, "are the far left and the far right; the firing squads sound the same."

Jim
 
Dear Jack, You have stated that government has changed "the premise of government "
from the ideals set forth in the Constitution
, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence .

The change is from government for and by
the people to the current situation where
the people exist to support the government,
weather we want to or not,doesnt mater,and the government controls all important aspects of our lives.

I believe this adiquatly reflects the current situation.

The govt has myrid powers, far above and beyond any legally granted to it by the Constitution.

It seems like a 500 pound glutton on a never ending eating binge and you and I are paying the waiter's check!

OK, I agree with you view; now ,any ideas
about how to get things back to the way they were before it all began going sour??

Please, dont say Second Ammerican Revolution or Civil War, I really dont care
to go out & try to shoot up a bunch of goons;
just like Danny Globber in Leathal Weapon---
"Im too old for this sh~t!" --fully applies
to me.

So lets explore legal & peacefull means
to fix what the Left Broke.

Let them without gray hair worry about
revolution cause Im too old for this ****!

So, what do you suggest us old guys do??

------------------
-They call 'em POLUTE-TICIANS because they POLUTE the MINDS
of OUR CHILDERN with their ANTI firearm RIGHTS SOCIALIST
political agendas. We of the older generations know B.S.
when we hear it.
-----------------------------------------------
In 2000, we must become politically active in
support of gun rights or we WILL LOSE the right
& the freedom.
-------------------------
NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE!!!
----------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
not to take live but to preserve life,....limb & family
.Gun Control Democrats would prefer that they are all disarmed
and helpless and die victims of felony violence,instead.

Protect your gun rights, go to:
http://home.xnet.com/~gizmonic/TheMarch.html
and sign up as a helper or attendee or state organizer.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"!
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
Republicans wish to restrict your personal liberties but not your economic liberties. Democrats wish to restrict your economic liberties but not your personal liberties.

Either way you're only voting for 50% of your liberties.

I've never liked the Republicans or the Democrats. So, to me, voting for either one is a wasted vote. Please note that I said "to me." Not "you". Vote for the person that best represents you.

Vote Libertarian. Check Out www.lp.org



------------------
Check Your Premise
 
Answers are all pretty ugly.

Probably won't vote for a Republipuke this year unless Keyes somehow comes through.

Libertarians? Probably. I "throw away my vote" whenever I go into that damn booth anyway, I may as well have a clean consience about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top