PDA

View Full Version : Would *you* sign this statement?


pax
November 18, 2008, 02:54 PM
Some truths are so obvious that they do not require an elaborate proof, and so obvious that it is all but ridiculous to attempt one. Among these is the obvious truth that all human beings are equally responsible for their own consciences, behaviors, and actions. This means that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.

The only real reason people agree to submit themselves to a government is to protect these basic and fundamental human rights.

Thus, government comes from the free, voluntary, and willing consent of ordinary people, and the power of a government comes from the ordinary people who agree to be bound by its laws.

Because the government derives its power in such a way, and because the purpose of government is to protect those basic human rights, it follows that whenever a government no longer protects these rights, or whenever a government begins to destroy these rights, then it is the responsibility of a good citizen to either change that government or to destroy it.

If the government does not or cannot protect basic human rights, the only moral course that a person can take is to participate in changing or abolishing the existing government.

Of course, as a practical matter, a long-standing government can't be changed easily – and shouldn't be changed for minor or temporary problems. Again, that's simple human nature. Most of us are willing to put up with an awful lot of bad stuff before we'll get off our rear ends and do anything about it! Especially if changing things means that ... well, that things have changed. We like the familiar.

But when there's a long and ongoing pattern of human rights abuses, and flagrant abuses of power including some people getting into office who aren't even legally qualified to do so or who cheated to get there, and there's so many repeated offenses of this nature that it almost looks like there's a plan to take away all power from the people and put it in the hands of bureaucrats – well, that's when people have the right and duty to abolish the existing government and found a new one that will be more responsive to their needs and more likely to respect their rights.

Would you sign the above statement? Do you agree with it?

pax

johnwilliamson062
November 18, 2008, 03:28 PM
I would sign it, but not in relation to any current political situation in the US. I do believe we are standing at the edge of a very slippery slope, but we certainly have not stepped onto that edge yet, let alone slid far enough I am close to thinking about doing anything about it, at least not the type of actions that seems to indicate.

grymster2007
November 18, 2008, 03:41 PM
Would you sign the above statement? Do you agree with it?

Yeah... I agree.

The key point is that people will put up with a lot of abuse before taking action. Changing a long established government such as ours, that pretty well buys the votes of the lazy with the wealth of the industrious is a very messy prospect indeed. Can't see radical change in our government coming any time soon.

Tennessee Gentleman
November 18, 2008, 03:55 PM
Kathy,

I will go out on a longer limb and say that I believe that our (USA) system of governance is without equal in the entire world. I'll go farther than JohnWilliamson and say we are nowhere near that point now. I have argued on here before that I do not believe the Well-Regulated Militia or even an armed citizenry is the most important bulwark against tyranny. Our democratic institutions as well as a free press are much more a deterrent to a despot than arms in private hands (I am very pro Heller and 2A). That said, of course our system is not perfect and laws get passed I do not agree with as well as other decisions made by polititicians but I have found no better way to govern than our 200 year "experiment".

Finally, how do we in our system keep our government straight. GET INVOLVED. Recently, my county commission here in Tennessee tried to ban concealed carry in county public buildings. The NRA swung into action and about 100 of us showed up at the meeting (after calling virtually all the commissioners to voice our dissent). The result? The motion was pulled and not one of the commissioners would even admit that they favored it and all claimed ignorance as to how it got on the docket :rolleyes:. THAT IS POWER!

If we ever get to the point that violently overthrowing our government is our only option then we lost the war way before that point was reached. Stay involved in civic affairs and you won't ever need to sign such a statement.

johnwilliamson062
November 18, 2008, 04:12 PM
I agree with Tennessee Gentleman on the First Amendment being more important than the Second Amendment. The amendments were not put in a random order. They are ordered by the importance they had and by the ease with which they passed. The First and Second passed far easier than the rest and needed less revision[everyone agreed].

It is just that I meet very few US citizens who believe the First Amendment needs to be further restricted. Few seem to realize that you not only need to be able to pass ideas, but also have the option of doing something about it, in the worst case scenario.

Glenn E. Meyer
November 18, 2008, 04:15 PM
I agree with most of it. I have some slight quibbles:

1. But when there's a long and ongoing pattern of human rights abuses, and flagrant abuses of power that's when people have the right and duty to abolish the existing government and found a new one that will be more responsive to their needs and more likely to respect their rights.

I prefer this - the examples are not really necessary and don't reach the level of the need for the proposed action as normal politics will take care of them. For example, some might think that Bush cheated to get in. Wasn't worth a civil war over - his paradigm is gone. Some think that Obama isn't legally qualified (I do think he is qualified) - so vote him out. Don't need a civil war.

2. The first statement is excellent but it is contrary to social conservative views - if you meant that - that fine as it is quite liberatarian.

This means that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.

Proscriptions against sexuality, some drug usage, some literary and media expressions are clearly the bread and butter of a section of American politics.

3. Do we think that armed rebellion is justified by those who feel Proposition 8 in California? In theory, that's a violation of their human rights. The gun world hasn't really come up with many examples of what to fight for except for taking guns away. Would opposition to the Iraq War which was based in part on untruths a reason for armed rebellion? Bill Ayers is seen as a terrorist as using force against the Viet Nam war. But Unintended Consequences, the book, proposed violence over gun laws. American Handgunner called it a masturbatory fantasy.

Where is the line that justifies the horror another civil war would bring?

Al Norris
November 18, 2008, 04:40 PM
Kathy,

Nice rendition of the Declaration of Independence in modern language.

johnwilliamson062
November 18, 2008, 04:59 PM
The gun world hasn't really come up with many examples of what to fight for except for taking guns away

This is because what most 2A proponents fear most is losing their ability to make the decision to revolt. As long as I have that option I don't get too worked up about the details of what is going on in Washington. I know things will not get too out of whack.
I do not believe I would ever get worked up over a single politician. The problem is when 200 billion dollars worth of pork has to be added to an 800 billion dollar EMERGENCY bailout to get it passed. This clearly shows no one cares about governing the country. The only concern is for being reelected.
Chairman Mao claimed several times that every generation needed some level of revolution in order to keep the government in check. The Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, 'Time of 100 flowers blooming in 100 colors'(or whatever that nonsense was) didn't work out too well for him, but hey maybe he was on the right track.

Tennessee Gentleman
November 18, 2008, 05:23 PM
This means that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.

After reading Glenn's comments I agree that the above statement is rather libertarian which I am not. For one thing, I do not believe (as I was taught in Criminology in the '70s) in "victimless" crimes. We are almost always effected by things others do and so I find it hard to rationalize legalizing drugs, prostitution, and euthanizia or alternative marriage. Of course I like their view of guns mostly but not any gun, anyone, anywhere.

44 AMP
November 18, 2008, 10:29 PM
That only poster (so far) has recognised your restatement of the Declaration of Independence.

I gree, it is a nice rewording in contemporary language. Congratulations on keeping all the salient points of the original document intact.

I would sign it.

pax
November 18, 2008, 10:42 PM
Al, 44AMP -- I translated it so people wouldn't catch it on first glance, and would be forced to actually think about the (very radical) meaning of that revolutionary document.

Favorite quote in the thread so far? "... I agree that the above statement is rather libertarian ..."

Yup, guys -- the argument I just presented is in actual fact rather startlingly libertarian. :D

(And almost immediately after I posted it, a friend of mine glanced over at my screen, read the post, and said, "Geeze Kathy! You know, the anti-federalist papers were all published anonymously for a reason!")

pax

johnwilliamson062
November 18, 2008, 11:40 PM
Well, I realized it was a restatement of the Declaration Of Independence, but I am a Libertarian, so it seemed natural that someone would discuss things in these terms. If you have read other similar documents for other countries you will find they are all so close it could be a restatement of almost any of them.

Keep in mind that everyone who signed the original document was sure they would all hang before all was said and done. Some of them did not survive the war.
Look further into the following list of US interrnal conflicts and you will quickly realize it is best to wait until things get really bad.

Shays Rebellion
Whiskey Rebellion
John Brown's Raid
innumerable slave rebellions
Civil War
Utah War
Athens, Tennessee uprising
Indian Wars
and dozens of others in US history. In most cases leaders and most others died.

Socrates
November 19, 2008, 12:33 AM
It is really bad, and, it's going to get worse....

raimius
November 19, 2008, 01:20 AM
I agree with most of it. However, your examples of situations requiring reformation or destruction of a government do not generally meet my requirements.

...and yes, the paraphrasing of the Declaration of Independence was noticed.

...and yes, I am generally libertarian, although I can see restrictions when the net benefit to the public outweighs the costs...so, I do take a stand against things like prostitution (as the unintended consequenses are quite severe and negative--sexual slavery being the main one).

pax
November 19, 2008, 02:09 AM
raimius, Glenn:

Those weren't my examples. They were a simple and clear restatement of the foundational principles which started the American experiment.

Here's what I wrote, that you both objected to: "But when there's a long and ongoing pattern of human rights abuses, and flagrant abuses of power including some people getting into office who aren't even legally qualified to do so or who cheated to get there, and there's so many repeated offenses of this nature that it almost looks like there's a plan to take away all power from the people and put it in the hands of bureaucrats -- well, that's when people have the right and duty to abolish the existing government and found a new one that will be more responsive to their needs and more likely to respect their rights."

Here's the original:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing 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.

I took more words to say it, but I said the same thing -- using several dictionaries and the thesaurus as needed.

In context, "a long train of abuses" means human rights abuses (referencing the earlier portion of the document).

"Usurpations" means the government or people within the government grabbing power that does not rightly belong to them, particularly if they break the law to do so and then use that power in a particularly offensive manner. In a representative democracy, that means people in public office who got there in a fundamentally dishonest or illegal way, such as through vote fraud or breaking the election laws.

"Evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" means that it looks like there's a plan to take all power away from the people and concentrate it in the hands of the government.

When those things happen as a long and repeated pattern, said our Founders, people have both the right and the duty to change the government and put in a new one.

pax

johnwilliamson062
November 19, 2008, 10:15 AM
Pax,
How would SCOTUS interpret the differences in wording... just kidding.

I haven't missed a meal because I couldn't afford it or the shelves were bare.
Police intervention is not affecting my daily life in any way I find to be obtrusive Well, owning a full auto kalashnikov for $300 or less might be nice, even if I could only afford to look at it.

The cost in most revolutions is at the beginning when the civilians, almost always having been disarmed, haven't gather arms. The risks involved in gathering a pistol and a few cartridges are enormous in most of the situations. My understanding is the organized French resistance in Paris started out with two firearms. Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were a little better off, but not much(and the Polish Catholic resistance gave them a bit more help). An old pistol and break action shotgun. Getting to the place where there were SMGs and readily available pistols took a lot of brave, dangerous, and morally objectionable acts by young men and women.

As long as I don't expect to pay that price, or convince someone else to, I have food on my table, and I am not passing through checkpoints every five minutes and having papers checked, my butt is voting Libertarian and sitting tight.

I'll show up to work if the taxes don't get raised from where they are by too much, otherwise I'll be sitting on an old couch watching the tube instead of in my office chair.

grymster2007
November 19, 2008, 10:51 AM
I suspect anyone who claims they knew pax re-worded the DOI before Al’s post is fibbin’. I didn’t put it together. I thought she was making a veiled reference to a revolution. Kinda testing the waters. Glad I didn’t publicly offer to sign up as a foot soldier in her army! :)

Some days the two wires protruding from the walnut-on-a-spring that serves as my brain, bump together and some days they don't. :)

buzz_knox
November 19, 2008, 11:02 AM
I suspect anyone who claims they knew pax re-worded the DOI before Al’s post is fibbin’.

I won't say that I knew, but I suspected, based on the "sign" comment. As in, would you put your "John Hancock" there.

The more I think about it, I more firmly believe that the greatest generation of Americans was the first one, the generation who created this nation. Every person who signed that document put far more than their reputation on the line. Many of them lost everything for what they believed in.

I know very few people who would do so today. Most offer lip service to the ideals that document embodies, but concerns over jobs, wealth, or even comforts will sway them to obediance and compliance.

pax
November 19, 2008, 11:47 AM
I know very few people who would do so today. Most offer lip service to the ideals that document embodies, but concerns over jobs, wealth, or even comforts will sway them to obediance and compliance.

Buzz ~

And there we are back at the Declaration. Human beings never put everything on the line to change a government when it's only about "light and transient" causes. We just don't like change that much, and most of us fully believe that in order to outweigh a risk that size the potential reward has to be much, much, much larger than the risk.

As for paying lip service to the ideals, I don't see that at all. Few people recognized the argument in the first place, and most people who responded were inclined to strongly disagree with it. Shows how far we've come from the kind of thinking that started our nation.

pax

pax
November 19, 2008, 12:05 PM
I haven't missed a meal because I couldn't afford it or the shelves were bare.

Police intervention is not affecting my daily life in any way I find to be obtrusive. Well, owning a full auto kalashnikov for $300 or less might be nice, even if I could only afford to look at it.

The cost in most revolutions is at the beginning when the civilians, almost always having been disarmed, haven't gather arms. The risks involved in gathering a pistol and a few cartridges are enormous in most of the situations. My understanding is the organized French resistance in Paris started out with two firearms. Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were a little better off, but not much(and the Polish Catholic resistance gave them a bit more help). An old pistol and break action shotgun. Getting to the place where there were SMGs and readily available pistols took a lot of brave, dangerous, and morally objectionable acts by young men and women.

As long as I don't expect to pay that price, or convince someone else to, I have food on my table, and I am not passing through checkpoints every five minutes and having papers checked, my butt is voting Libertarian and sitting tight.

I'll show up to work if the taxes don't get raised from where they are by too much, otherwise I'll be sitting on an old couch watching the tube instead of in my office chair.

The men who signed the Declaration were almost all extremely wealthy men, who had done well under the British rule. Not one of them had missed any meals.

The taxes they objected to -- objected so strenuously that they were willing to start a war over it! -- amounted to a tax rate of approximately three percent. All that fiery rhetoric of the Founders was directed at a "tyrant" who taxed his subjects at a rate of about three percent. (What's your tax bracket? Somewhat higher, I betcha...)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone die on the barricades today. I am suggesting that we, including the self-identified libertarians, have sure moved a long way away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation.

pax

Technosavant
November 19, 2008, 12:17 PM
I did ID it by the third sentence, even before reading the rest of the thread. Very nice work, pax.

I would sign it. I also recognize how far our nation has come from those principles.

The phrase "there oughta be a law" is one of the worst to ever be uttered in a community that values its freedom. All law constrains freedom. There are times when that is necessary (to ensure the right to life, liberty, and property), but all too often we have uttered that phrase to fix nothing more than annoyances.

Liberty is sold out on the installment plan. It remains to be seen if it can be recaptured in the same fashion.

johnwilliamson062
November 19, 2008, 12:54 PM
The quartering act was a big part of it. If you have ever housed someone outside your family you would realize the cost is immense. Much more than the three percent.
There were check points leading into and out of cities to check for weapons stolen from British armories among other things(we had quite a few Brown Bess's before any shots were fired).
The main objection was laws especially taxation without representation and where that was going.

I have a vote, it counts as much as anyone else's. We are putting ourselves into this mess. Everyone except me seems to be content with the two party system. Strickland, a Democrat, is probably the first politician I will ever vote for that I really thought was doing a good job and decently representing my interests. Even where he isn't in line with what I believe, he at least seems to be doing what he actually thinks is right, not what will get him re-elected or money for the next campaign. Can't say that about any elected official I have voted for above the county level.

azredhawk44
November 19, 2008, 02:05 PM
There were check points leading into and out of cities to check for weapons stolen from British armories among other things(we had quite a few Brown Bess's before any shots were fired).


My understanding of this is that the British troops were notorious for selling their weaponry and gear in order to avail themselves of Boston's pubs and... er... industrious women.:D

I've read reports of quite regular public floggings for this offense.

The quartering act was a big part of it. If you have ever housed someone outside your family you would realize the cost is immense. Much more than the three percent.


There were only about 2500 or so troops in New England in 1775. Most of them were stationed in Boston at the barracks there or in the Navy's fleet. Some manned various forts lightly. While the concept of quartering a soldier is certainly onerous, I'd like to read specific accounts of it happening or hear an accounting of the total times it actually happened. Not defending the british by any means... I'm illustrating that the onerous deeds committed by the Crown pale in comparison to some of the things we face today.

I immediately recognized Pax's OP as a modernized translation of the Declaration in the first sentence. You can only say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" so many ways in the English language without saying almost the exact same thing. :)

I'd sign it, and be honored to pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to such a noble pursuit in company of like minded men (or women).

larvatus
November 19, 2008, 02:57 PM
Some truths are so obvious that they do not require an elaborate proof, and so obvious that it is all but ridiculous to attempt one. Among these is the obvious truth that all human beings are equally responsible for their own consciences, behaviors, and actions. This means that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.The problem with this claim arises in every instance of economic exchange with one's peers. You don't have to consider yourself beholden to their society, to get affected by their trades. If everyone were to rest content with bartering goods for services and the like, there would be no cause for alarm. But to the extent that people come to rely on bonds and securities, their transactions and holdings become punitively interdependent. As witness the current state of affairs, socialism is an unavoidable consequence of free credit. Resisting it at the grass roots for the sake of notional libertarianism incompatible with full economic freedom is likely to favor the worst variety of socialism currently foisted upon the taxpayers, whereby the losses of the rich get socialized, even as their gains get exempted from taxation. The sole remaining option for fairness is to concern ourselves with safeguarding liberty in the face of creeping socialization.

bikerbill
November 19, 2008, 03:07 PM
Where do I sign? An artful rendention of the DofI ... would that our elected officials be required to sign -- and faced penalties when the inevitably violated its tenants ...

crashm1
November 19, 2008, 06:07 PM
I recognized it also, mostly because TFL and THR have made me much more politically conscience and forced me to examine my beliefs and how they line up with the founders. I have always tended to be a libertarian (probably from reading too much Heinlein as a kid) but have gotten much more so in the last few years. I would sign it and be proud to do so.

larvatus
November 19, 2008, 06:37 PM
I am suggesting that we, including the self-identified libertarians, have sure moved a long way away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation.Our nation was founded in 1776 by self-identified liberals hewing to the thought of James Harrington, John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu. Political libertarianism was first articulated over a century later. What reasons can you offer for believing that a failure to endorse its doctrines represents a move away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation?

azredhawk44
November 19, 2008, 07:57 PM
What reasons can you offer for believing that a failure to endorse its doctrines represents a move away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation?

I don't think she's talking in abstract political philosophies... she's talking about specific incidents that could be construed as "a long chain of abuses and usurpations," and the dichotomy of our response today to it versus the responses of our forefathers 233 years ago.

She's talking about the Coercive/Intolerable Acts compared against the Patriot Act. The Stamp Act or Tea Tax versus the proposals of certain congresscritters to nationalize 401(k)'s or double the capital gains tax. She's talking about the 1774-75 seizure by Cornwallis of local militia cannon, powder and shot versus the 86 FOPA, the 94 AWB and a potential 2009 AWB-II.

How did the Colonials respond?

Intolerable Acts: They held their meetings in pure spite of the law, passed their own regulations/rules and governed themselves... the Crown be damned.

Tea Tax: They maliciously destroyed the entire shipment of the East India Trading Company as protest.

Arms Seizure: We all know what happened on April 19th, 1775. And folks... it wasn't about individual muskets or the 1/2 pound of powder in each home. It was about large stores equivalent to the guy who has 100K rounds of ammo and a gross of SKS's in his garage. It was about cannon. It was about implements of war. Basically, it was about the equivalent of class 3 weaponry and assault rifles.

How do we respond now? Consider our responses so far.

johnwilliamson062
November 19, 2008, 08:44 PM
There were only about 2500 or so troops in New England in 1775. Most of them were stationed in Boston at the barracks there or in the Navy's fleet
Enlisted men were not quartered. Many officers were with wealthy families.

http://www.usconstitution.net/declarsigndata.html
What was the second most common profession of signers of the DoI?
Merchant, actually wholesalers of imports. Many of the other signers were involved in the trade through stocks. They were getting pinched as domestic supplies, although inferior, became more popular.


Tea Tax: They maliciously destroyed the entire shipment of the East India Trading Company as protest.
Do you propose we destroy a whole shipment of food stamps? Turn over car transports if they bail out "not even trying to be competitive Detroit" AGAIN.
I might be willing to play.

It was about cannon. It was about implements of war.
The only thing US civilians would really need at this point is shoulder fired missiles to attack helicopters. Even that can be gotten around by bump firing an air net. The Vietcong and Al Quaida proved that, at least with full auto rifles. Accuracy is not imperative for an air net, so imagine bump firing would be effective. It just isn't pretty. At a price of about $38,000 I doubt too many would be laying around anyways. If it comes to it enough GIs would be interested in bars and industrious women a few would show up.

larvatus
November 19, 2008, 09:11 PM
How do we respond now? Consider our responses so far.Our real responses tend to go both ways. The security of our mortgages and retirement funds is inextricably intertwined with grossly leveraged financial instruments that precipitate trillion dollar bailouts and catalyze double digit tax increases. Is any of that unconstitutional? I fully expect the Supreme Court to hand down its rulings in the wake of its restaffing by the current crop of redistributionist officials.

Tennessee Gentleman
November 20, 2008, 12:07 AM
I didn't realize that it was the DOI rewritten in modern english usage and I will be honest about it. But it really doesn't matter as I would not sign it today.

The problem with history however is always context when applied to current times.

In 1776 the document had meaning, but to use it in 2008 is out of historical context. We are not suffering under anything remotely the same as we did as a colony of England with zero representation in government in 1776. Today our government is elected by us and it was not in 1776.

johnwilliamson062
November 20, 2008, 12:19 AM
Internationally the American Revolution is often referred to as The Revolution of babies or whiners.
The American Revolution launched long before other revolutions have(condition wise). I still agree that we are currently at a much higher standard of living than in 176, and until that changes there will be no revolution.

Wildalaska
November 20, 2008, 12:29 AM
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.;)

WildonlytheuniverseisetenralandnoteventhatAlaska TM

King Ghidora
November 20, 2008, 01:07 AM
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

That's the most relevant undocumented quotation I've seen in this thread yet. ;) Seriously we have crossed the bridge of self governance long ago and found ourselves lacking in many ways. If you pay attention to one of the regular "who's the vice president" man in the street polls that we are entertained with you'll know that if democracy (or a constitutional republic) is failing it's because ordinary citizens will not do their part if their life is soft enough.

Most of the revolutionaries in 1776 were driven by a daydreamer's politics instead of greed. Yes they were upset with certain things not the least of which was having officers quartered in private homes. It wasn't so much the number of officers so lodged but rather the manner in which they acted in those private homes treating the owners as part of their staff of servants. The tax levels might have been low but so were profit margins. For many a 3% tax meant the difference in Monticello or the ghetto.

But by far the revolution was a romantic endeavor spurred on by Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" which was ubiqutous in the colonies. Very few colonials had read Locke or Hume but almost all of them could quote the romantic writing and thinking of Paine. It was as much about class envy as anything else but in their case they had reason to envy the upper classes. That's the one thing that stands out as the greatest accomplishment of the revolution. We were given the chance to rise above class distinctions. It isn't easy now but it certainly is possible.

It was classical liberalism. It bears little resemblence to modern liberalism. In fact modern conservatism is closer to it. Today the man who wants to "conserve" the values of our past is the one who's trying to hang on to the revolutionary values of days gone by.

What we quickly learned was that the new boss was just as corrupt as the old boss. By the time of Andrew Jackson corruption in Washington was set in stone. From the violation of treaties with the Native Americans to land grabs in the Appalachians and beyond the Washington scene was quickly dominated by lobbyists and politicians. Witness the quote of Davey Crockett after his old friend, Andy Jackson, had stabbed him in the back politically and caused him to lose his seat in Congress. He said, "You all can go to hell, I'm going to Texas." And he took much of the old romantic republican spirit with him and it died with him at the Alamo.

What we should be concerned about is what follows the mess we have now if we should happen to revolt. The great thing about the American Revolution is that there was a well known plan for a new style of government that was extremely popular in the colonies. If we only have the desire to overthrow a corrupt government we'll quickly disintegrate into a banana republic mold where one revolution follows another with the results always being the same. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

It might become necessary to overthrow the government some day but that will be the beginning of a very tough time in America. We just can't guarantee a moral government will be instituted here. In fact we can be sure it won't be. That's just human nature and swapping one set of corrupt politicians for another won't change a thing.

We have about the best government any country can have here in the USA. That might not always be true but sadly it is true now. I wish it weren't so but it is. The land of milk and honey we all dream of is on the other side of the River Jordan where the streets are paved with gold and you enter through a pearlescent gate.

Would I sign it? Probably because it's true. It just isn't practical. Still I wouldn't want to be the one that stood in the way if it did turn out to be possible.

larvatus
November 20, 2008, 01:13 AM
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.That's the most relevant undocumented quotation I've seen in this thread yet.;)Peter Townshend, The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again", 1971

Bartholomew Roberts
November 20, 2008, 06:58 AM
I am suggesting that we, including the self-identified libertarians, have sure moved a long way away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation.

Have we? I think one significant difference is that the citizens of the colonies had no representation in Parliament and no vote in the affairs of the day. Would our Founding Fathers have felt as outraged if most of their fellow citizens had voted for such a tax?

As you already noted, many of the men involved in the Revolution were leaders of their communities. They played an active role in their local governments and were skilled at the logisitics and communications necessary to succeed in politics at that time. Had they been allowed a vote, there is no question they would have represented a significant faction even in a parliamentary system.

I think this is another reason our Revolution was successful when so many others were not. Not only were we given a structure and a stable environment to slowly develop a "shadow" government in the midst of the same government we would later oppose, we also learned the logistics and communications that are necessary to any successful war effort.

This is one reason why I think revolt has been less of a feature in our political system. We essentially have a major revolt every four years and minor revolts every two years. Although these don't have the violent aftermath and destruction of infrastructure as a real civil war, they require mastery of many of the same skills - such as logistics and communication. This one reason why I believe a revolution would be futile as long as this system is accurately reflecting its representative nature - if you had the necessary numbers and skills in logistics and communication to win a war, you could much more easily win a political campaign and without the instability, risk or damage that accompanies a war.

One thing all gun owners should be working on is that logistics and communications aspect. Our founding fathers were leaders and respected men in our communities. We should be as well if we want to be in a position to protect RKBA with either guns or votes - and simply by virtue of taking on those leadership responsibilities, we will learn skills that will serve us well whether we fight with votes or guns.

King Ghidora
November 20, 2008, 01:04 PM
Peter Townshend, The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again", 1971

From Won't Get Fooled Again on the Who's Next album produced by The Who, associate producer Glyn Johns. A complete quotation credit requires all the pertinent info. ;)

Still one of the best ever.

johnwilliamson062
November 21, 2008, 02:29 PM
a revolution would be futile as long as this system is accurately reflecting its representative nature
The problem is the system no longer represents the tax payers. In our present system the kids tell the parents what their allowance will be. I am tired of 35+% of my money going to things that I have no influence over and serve no long term benefit to this country. Tax payers are footing the bill and bums are making the decisions.

Think about how much you really pay in taxes:
Federal, state and local income 25-45%
Sales of 4-10% of what is left over.
Gas tax from .25 to .75 per gallon
Property tax
estate tax
excise taxes on cars, firearms, cigarettes, alcohol, and others.
All the government fees you pay for licenses(driving, hunting, fishing, zoning teaching, firearms transfers and FFLs,etc)

All these other taxes besides income add up to well over 10% of your income. So next time you think about what your income tax is, add 10% to get a true figure.

Just wait until they implement a value added sales tax which drops the sales tax onto goods purchased for resale. How does wild feel about paying sales tax when those guns come in the door and still collecting it when they go out?

The more I think about it the more less I am opposed to a new Boston Tea Party.

larvatus
November 21, 2008, 03:17 PM
The problem is the system no longer represents the tax payers.U.S. tax rates rank among the lowest in the world. Civil society costs money. Low taxes in Somalia go hand in hand with tolls exacted by warlords. All in all, I prefer paying the state to mitigate violence and corruption.

azredhawk44
November 21, 2008, 03:57 PM
All in all, I prefer paying the state to mitigate violence and corruption.

How does social security, medicare, department of housing and urban development, unemployment, and the host of other "suck from the teat" programs mitigate violence or corruption?

Because that stuff accounts for between 30 and 40 percent of your tax load right now.

I see that 700 Billion dollar bailout is mitigating a LOT of corruption.:rolleyes:

The parts of government that mitigate violence and corruption are the first 25% of your current tax load.

Wildalaska
November 21, 2008, 04:05 PM
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

The most intelligent rock and roll song ever written. Folks like Trotsky and Danton would testify to that, if they were still alive.

WildbecarefulofwhatyouwishforitmaycometrueAlaska ™

johnwilliamson062
November 21, 2008, 04:26 PM
U.S. tax rates rank among the lowest in the world.
not representing my interest, or the interests of other taxpayers, has nothing to do with the rates. If all this tax money was going into huge infrastructure projects that would set us up as the world leader for the next 50 years I would be ok with it. Instead it is just going down the drain. Anyone notice highways have more potholes? Our telecom infrastructure is now behind many third world countries as they never invested in copper lines and leapfrogged us. Our electrical grid is plagued with brown outs. Our ports are insufficient for current demand. Many of our airports will be undersized if people ever have the money to fly again. Our railroads are in terrible shape.

But its ok, as long as we buy American from firms who are terribly inefficient and producing inferior goods all our problems will be solved.

larvatus
November 21, 2008, 04:53 PM
How does social security, medicare, department of housing and urban development, unemployment, and the host of other "suck from the teat" programs mitigate violence or corruption?As our Social Security Administration put it (http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html), Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck ... was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."So there you have it. If we must have socialism for the bankers, we damn better have socialism for the bums. The middle class can take it in the shorts.

johnwilliamson062
November 21, 2008, 07:42 PM
social security as originally proposed by Roosevelt and Bismark would not be a problem.

Our Social security is entirely invested in T-bills. All it is is a piggy bank for the government to get cheap loans from. Same goes for FDIC. Member banks pay money into a fund which buy non-liquid t-bills and there is nothing really there to back it. Both just Washington houses of card.

[removed as was off topic and aggressive.]

BTW in the last week I have had three people come to me with questions about firearms for home defense who were quite startled at feeling they needed one..

larvatus
November 21, 2008, 08:42 PM
Our Social security is entirely invested in T-bills. All it is a piggy bank for the government to get cheap loans from. Same goes for FDIC. Member banks pay money into a fund which buy non-liquid t-bills and there is nothing really there to back it. Both just Washington houses of card.Do you really need anyone to explain this? Here is one principle at work:because it’s there! The famous mountaineer George Leigh Mallory (1886-1924), when asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, replied, ‘Because it’s there!’ Mallory failed to reach the top, and vanished in the attempt. Edmund (later Sir Edmund) Hillary became, in 1953, the first man to succeed, and when asked why he had wanted to try, also replied, ‘Because it was there!’ It could be argued that it was Hillary who re-popularised the phrase and promoted it from famous saying to c.p. (It is illuminating to compare the various dictionaries of quotations: and salutary to conclude that to dogmatise is to risk a ‘final verdict’.) But it only really became a c.p. when it was humorously or wryly advanced as ‘a foolish reason for a foolish act’, mostly among those who were conscious of the origin.
—Eric Partridge, Paul Beale, A Dictionary of Catch Phrases, Routledge, 1986, p. 44And here is another, even more pointed, albeit less authentic:Willie SUTTON American bank robber (1901-80)
On being asked why he kept on robbing banks:
Because that’s where the money is.
Attributed remark. Philip French touched on this topic in The Observer (8 October 2000): There is a mysterious kind of movie title that is not explained in the film itself and demands some special knowledge. A Clockwork Orange, Straw Dogs and O Brother, Where Art Thou? are examples. The amiable Where the Money Is… belongs in this category. Nobody uses the phrase in the film and, surprisingly, it is not in any dictionary of quotations that I possess. But it is generally attributed to the legendary American criminal Willie Sutton, who spent most of his life in jail and the rest of it planning heists. Asked in old age why he persisted in robbing banks, Willie replied: ‘Because that’s where the money is’ and it is clear that Henry, the elderly thief played by Paul Newman, is modelled on Willie Sutton. As it happens, Sutton (who has been described as ‘The most publicized bank robber since Jesse James’) told CBS TV’s Sixty Minutes (8 August 1976) that, in fact, a reporter made it up and attributed it to him. His book I, Willie Sutton (1953) apparently does contain the observation: ‘It is a rather pleasant experience to be alone in a bank at night.’
Compare the similar-sounding proverbial sayings, ‘Marry for love, but love where there is money’ and ‘Never marry for money, but marry where money is.’ Tennyson’s dialect poem ‘Northern Farmer, New Style’ contains this dialect version:
But I knaw’d a Quaāker feller as often ‘as towd ma this:
‘Doānt thou marry for munny, but goā wheer munny is!’
According to Quotations for Our Time, ed. Laurence J. Peter (1977), John F. Kennedy, when asked why he wanted to be President, replied: ‘Because that’s where the power is!’
—Nigel Rees, Brewer’s Famous Quotations: 5000 Quotations and the Stories Behind Them, Sterling, 2006, p. 450The determination of whether our government is acting in the capacity of famous mountaineers or infamous bank robbers is left as an exercise for the reader.Now defend the others.I have no intention of defending anything:Cum igitur animum ad Politicam applicuerim, nihil quod novum, vel inauditum est, sed tantum ea, quae cum praxi optime conveniunt, certa, et indubitata ratione demonstrare, aut ex ipsa humanae naturae conditione deducere, intendi; et ut ea, quae ad hanc scientiam spectant, eadem animi libertate, qua res Mathematicas solemus, inquirerem, sedulo curavi, humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere: atque adeo humanos affectus, ut sunt amor, odium, ira, invidia, gloria, misericordia, et reliquae animi commotiones, non ut humanae naturae vitia, sed ut proprietates contemplatus sum, quae ad ipsam ita pertinent, ut ad naturam aeris aestus, frigus, tempestas, tonitru, et alia hujusmodi, quae, tametsi incommoda sunt, necessaria tamen sunt, certasque habent causas, per quas eorum naturam intelligere conamur, et Mens eorum vera contemplatione aeque gaudet, ac earum rerum cognitione, quae sensibus gratae sunt.

Therefore, on applying my mind to politics, I have resolved to demonstrate by a certain and undoubted course of argument, or to deduce from the very condition of human nature, not what is new and unheard of, but only such things as agree best with practice. And that I might investigate the subject-matter of this science with the same freedom of spirit as we generally use in mathematics, I have laboured carefully, not to mock, lament, or execrate, but to understand human actions; and to this end I have looked upon passions, such as love, hatred, anger, envy, ambition, pity, and the other perturbations of the mind, not in the light of vices of human nature, but as properties, just as pertinent to it, as are heat, cold, storm, thunder, and the like to the nature of the atmosphere, which phenomena, though inconvenient, are yet necessary, and have fixed causes, by means of which we endeavour to understand their nature, and the mind has just as much pleasure in viewing them aright, as in knowing such things as flatter the senses.
—Benedict Spinoza, Tractatus Politicus, Caput I, §IV (http://www.fogliospinoziano.it/tractatus14.htm), translated by A.H. Gosset (http://www.constitution.org/bs/poltr_01.htm#004)

Tennessee Gentleman
November 21, 2008, 09:41 PM
What was this thread about originally?:confused:

johnwilliamson062
November 21, 2008, 10:16 PM
Tennessee,
we are starting a revolution, right? I was waiting for you to ship the document to my FFL tucked down the barrel of a rifle for me to sign.

Wildalaska
November 21, 2008, 11:27 PM
Spinoza, in Latin...and The Who...all in one thread.:eek::D

WildgodilovethisplaceAlaska TM

azredhawk44
November 22, 2008, 12:03 AM
Now, if you DID happen to sign Pax's Declaration... and you lived through the revolution(s) that followed, and had influence over the governmental structure to come about afterwards:

How would you feel about this?

We the Citizens of these United States come together to empower a government. Our stated goals are to provide for harmoneous and peaceful coexistence for member states of our Union, create standards of justice, enforce those standards with powers granted to the government, and provide for the common defense. To accomplish these goals, as well as to act as a defender of liberty for all generations to follow, we hereby present this article emobodying the government structure for these United States of America.

Tennessee Gentleman
November 22, 2008, 01:13 PM
John,

Well, if we did start a revolution and then fast forwarded 100 years later I suspect we would be where we are now. I am too complacent to participate in a revolution anyway.;)

Erik
November 22, 2008, 03:02 PM
Would I? Yes, in time of perceived need. As others have noted, now is not that time.

johnwilliamson062
November 22, 2008, 11:21 PM
Tonight I made my decision. If the economy gets bad enough that I can no longer get canned whipped cream I am starting a revolution:) I could not live without the occasional upending of a reddiwhip can for a shot of whipped cream and the ensuing objections of the women in my life. Dear Mr. Obama, keep the Reddiwhip coming.

I am concerned no one noticed my attemt to improve communication as Bart Roberts suggested.

At least Obamas plan is to start massive infrastructure projects similar to TVA. It won't pull us out of the depression, but it might make things jump up even faster after world war three does. Bankrupting the country won't be for naught.

Holding my breath until the Chinese government starts seizing assets of US companies in China to cover our national debt. What the hell are we going to do about it? China has 8-12 solid fuel ICBMs. Start bending boys!!!

johnwilliamson062
December 7, 2008, 12:43 PM
Now everywhere I drive I hear The Who and get depressed. I am on the verge of buying an ipod. Maybe Wild is just hoping Alaska will join Canada.

UGH
December 11, 2008, 05:46 PM
Yes I would sign and yes I agree with it

johnwilliamson062
December 23, 2008, 12:21 AM
I wanted to bring this back up. Anyone ready to sign who wasn't before?

I am still waiting for canned cool whip to be unavailable before i get my panties in a bunch.

WSM MAGNUM
January 3, 2009, 09:51 AM
Pax,
I did`nt even recognize your post as the Declaration of Independence until Antipitas post. I sure would like to sign it. :D
As I was reading the post though, I was thinking that, this is what is happening right now in our government. And we need to to exercise those rights now.

qwik
January 3, 2009, 10:51 AM
Pax for president in 2012 :D

pax
January 6, 2009, 05:45 PM
johnwilliamson ~

If they can take away your incandescent light bulbs and your high-pressure toilet, they can take your Reddiwhip...

;)

pax

pax
July 4, 2014, 08:48 AM
Bumping this old thread to say Happy Independence Day!

pax

Aguila Blanca
July 4, 2014, 09:12 AM
So what's your opinion? Have we reached the tipping point yet? The OP was written before

Snowden and the NSA revelations
The IRS targeting scandal
The administration-created illegal alien flood problem
The President's avowed intention to bypass the will of Congress by executive order


How much is "enough"?

gyvel
July 4, 2014, 09:28 AM
A person will not act until he has been backed into a corner and has nothing to lose.

Once that point is reached, look out.

jtmckinney
July 4, 2014, 09:49 AM
Thanks for bringing this thread back up. I enjoyed reading it. "Happy Independence Day" back at ya!

mehavey
July 4, 2014, 10:08 AM
A person will not act until he has been backed
into a corner and has nothing to lose.
It only took 3%

Never, ever underestimate the power of even a small number of people willing to act...
For good.... or for evil.
History is replete....

Tom Servo
July 4, 2014, 10:17 AM
A person will not act until he has been backed into a corner and has nothing to lose.
But does anybody even have the will and inclination to act anymore? Voter turnout numbers suggest otherwise.

I really want to think we've got something in common with the 56 folks who signed the Declaration of Independence, but I worry.

BobCat45
July 4, 2014, 10:23 AM
Thanks for bumping this thread! A great read and I can't believe I missed it the first time around.

Glockstar .40
July 4, 2014, 10:56 AM
Enjoyed reading this. Thanks Pax. Happy Independence day everyone!
Lets not forget what our freedom cost those who paid for it, and lets not fear if need be to pay that cost for our children's future.

Frank Ettin
July 4, 2014, 12:04 PM
When in the course of human events --

Happy Independence Day.

JimDandy
July 4, 2014, 01:21 PM
So what's your opinion? Have we reached the tipping point yet? The OP was written before

Snowden and the NSA revelations
The IRS targeting scandal
The administration-created illegal alien flood problem
The President's avowed intention to bypass the will of Congress by executive order

How much is "enough"?

Snowden and NSA are about the only thing on that list that is both bi-partisan and headed toward being buried while unresolved.

The IRS targeting scandal looks more and more like it's going to blow up in someone's face. Enough moderates will join the conservatives to make somebody pay for it. The only question I have is how they'll prevent it from happening again with another "fall guy".

The administration created illegal alien flood program, wasn't administration created. At least not by this one. He's not flying down to these countries winking, nodding, and telling them don't come North.

President Bush avowed a lot of things I didn't agree with but didn't worry about either. When President Obama's executive orders go too far, he gets slapped down by the Supreme Court still. so checks and balances are still functioning. And he's losing more and more influence every time, getting closer and closer to the tipping point on his final term.

The four year term, and two term paradigm may be the last greatest gift Washington gave us. It's pretty easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The Civil War didn't happen because they worried Lincoln would be in office for 8+(as it was before the term limit) years, they worried what Lincoln accomplished would be irreversible. Same with the Revolutionary War. King George wasn't going to get voted out. No light at the end of the tunnel.

Very little in President Obama's remaining platform screams irreversible. He's not getting a gun ban for example. Even if he did, he's not getting a forced turn-in/buy-back, allowing those who have them to keep them, then get it reversed in judicial review or electoral action.

Ruger480
July 4, 2014, 03:17 PM
Very little in President Obama's remaining platform screams irreversible. He's not getting a gun ban for example. Even if he did, he's not getting a forced turn-in/buy-back, allowing those who have them to keep them, then get it reversed in judicial review or electoral action

I wish more people understood this.

raimius
July 5, 2014, 12:32 AM
Happy Independence Day!

Gladly (VERY MUCH SO), we still have a roughly functional government. Peaceful ways to address our problems still have a good chance for working. Maybe we don't get exactly what we want all the time, but the chances of getting reasonable compromises in most areas are decent.
I see some people talking on the internet about how we are approaching another Civil War like time, but I just don't see it. Do you really think large numbers of people are willing to kill their neighbors for disagreeing over Citizens United, the ACA, or whatever the topic of the day is? I just don't see that as likely, and that makes me quite happy.

gyvel
July 5, 2014, 02:12 AM
But does anybody even have the will and inclination to act anymore? Voter turnout numbers suggest otherwise.

We live in the land of apathy. As long as people have their 2.3 kids, backyard BBQ, 56" flat screen TV, minivan and house in suburbia, they have no real motivation to act as most of what happens is not perceived by anyone as "affecting" them.

And I guarantee that nobody who has anything to lose (such as a pension, or their prized possessions) is going to "rise up" and take action against something they don't perceive as being that important to them. Case in point: Ask any cop who is "rah rah" for the 2nd Amendment if he would be willing to forego his pension for what he believes; I doubt if one out of 10000 would answer "yes."

And regarding voting: A growing concensus is that ANY politician is little more than a snake in the grass that talks out of both sides of his mouth, hence the "why bother to vote" attitude.

gyvel
July 5, 2014, 02:27 AM
The four year term, and two term paradigm may be the last greatest gift Washington gave us. It's pretty easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Washington had nothing to do with it. He merely voiced an opinion that no man should serve more than two terms. Lincoln could have been reelected as many times as he wanted if he hadn't been shot.

It was the Republicans that proposed and got the 22nd Amendment in 1947 after FDR's 4 terms.

Ironically, it was the Republicans again that wanted to repeal that amendment when Reagan was in office.

gc70
July 5, 2014, 02:59 AM
I see some people talking on the internet about how we are approaching another Civil War like time, but I just don't see it. Do you really think large numbers of people are willing to kill their neighbors for disagreeing over Citizens United, the ACA, or whatever the topic of the day is? I just don't see that as likely, and that makes me quite happy.

It is always difficult to tell whether the passions of the moment create an environment in which a spark will die out or will erupt into a conflagration.

Even in the critical months preceding the beginning of the Civil War, large numbers of people were not willing to kill their neighbors over the issue of slavery, or even the dissolution of the Union. What I have read suggests the general sentiment in Northern states was "good riddance" to the seceding Southern states. However, the hostilities at Fort Sumter provided a different issue -or spark- that ignited the Civil War.

gyvel
July 5, 2014, 03:11 AM
Even in the critical months preceding the beginning of the Civil War, large numbers of people were not willing to kill their neighbors over the issue of slavery, or even the dissolution of the Union. What I have read suggests the general sentiment in Northern states was "good riddance" to the seceding Southern states. However, the hostilities at Fort Sumter provided a different issue -or spark- that ignited the Civil War.

The root causes of the Civil War go all the back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

gc70
July 5, 2014, 03:58 AM
The root causes of the Civil War go all the back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Precisely. And the root causes of the various issues that currently divide our nation's sentiments often go back many decades. But that does not mean anyone can predict whether our national divisions can or cannot be amicably resolved or, if they cannot be resolved, what unforeseen event might produce an untenable situation.

gyvel
July 5, 2014, 05:54 AM
Precisely. And the root causes of the various issues that currently divide our nation's sentiments often go back many decades. But that does not mean anyone can predict whether our national divisions can or cannot be amicably resolved or, if they cannot be resolved, what unforeseen event might produce an untenable situation.

As one of my more pragmatic colleagues has repeatedly pointed out to anyone who will listen, nobody wants to live in a situation where the infrastructure has completely collapsed. In fact, I don't think the vast majority of people could survive without the infrastructure. And that is precisely what would happen in the event of another full scale civil war.

I don't even want to think about it.

Tom Servo
July 5, 2014, 07:17 AM
Let's steer clear of partisan politics, folks.

mehavey
July 5, 2014, 07:46 AM
Very little in President Obama's remaining platform screams irreversible. He's not getting a gun ban for example. Even if he did, he's not getting a forced turn-in/buy-back, allowing those who have them to keep them, then get it reversed in judicial review or electoral action
I wish more people understood this.I'm afraid that like the frog in slowly-boiled water, more people
do not comprehend the degree to which this country and its
people have (been)changed -- and what that inevitably means
toward every aspect of this thread.

This is not partisan, for both major parties are now in full tilt.
But -- short of major cataclysm -- I see little prospect for halting it.
It will interesting to read the history in 50-60 years* or so since
he who controls the present controls the past, (and he who
controls the past controls the future). Eric Arthur Blair



*Not an idly-chosen number, as God had Moses' people wander in the wilderness for 40 years to largely erase the generation who remembered Egypt and its ways... but we live longer now. :D

claymore1500
July 5, 2014, 09:02 AM
Please bear with me for a moment, I know that this post may come acrooed as babble but just think aboout it for a second.

I would compare our government to mans faithful and ever present companion, the dog.

We all know how good a dog can be, and how protective they become to their masters, but let the same dog become infested with fleas, and it becomes less concerned with the master, and more concerned with it's own anguish.

Like wise, the master, starts to separate himself from the dog, as the fleas irritate him as well.

Then it comes to the point when a decision has got to be made, The master has a choice, Kill the dog and get a new one, or do everything in his power to rid the dog of the flea infestation, We can be fairly sure of getting the old dog back and he will be more appreciative of the master, if we rid the dog of the fleas. We cannot be as sure of the result of killing the old dog, and getting a new one.

Likewise with a method of government, We know the original plan has worked for MANY generations, Not so sure it could be duplicated with a new one, just as getting a new dog, one cannot be sure it won't bite you.

I have tried to keep the politics to a minimum in my post, I think I have done rather well, while still getting my ideas out there.



Tom.

mehavey
July 5, 2014, 10:38 AM
Numbers (generally) present hard truth:

http://i58.tinypic.com/dlnbyb.jpg

Read both article sections below -- particularly the demographics involved, the headlines about those demographic trends & influx... and coldly consider their portent.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/02/most-americans-think-the-u-s-is-great-but-fewer-say-its-the-greatest/
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-2-views-of-the-nation-the-constitution-and-government/