The Fall of the United States

[plan_D]

Thanks for that les. I was afraid I might had to read his dribble.

[syscom3]

I wonder if the Pentagon can even find the 1920's era war plans for the invasion of Canda. Maybe its in a crate thats in a huge warehouse next to the container holding the ark of the covenant?

[Delusional]

Good one, syscom!

[102first_hussars]

Thats all I bothered to read of what u pasted up there... I will summize it for all the other members here:

Blah blah blah, yadda, yada, yadda....

And Im the ignorant one? screw you

[lesofprimus]

Im ignorant about irrelevant made up ****, u seem to be the freakin Jedi Master of it....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I really dont believe that crap up there, however it would not surprise me if there was a plan of that sort and that plan would not be for the Invasion of Canada but more likely the defense of the N. American continent.

Anyone who has actually served in the Military knows that the higher ups plan for possible things without even having the want or desire to do them. You plan so that if a situation arrises and it is needed, you already have a plan.

[syscom3]

I bet theres a plan for the Mexican govt to invade the US!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am sure they have a plan for it and it is called "Run, Jump, and Swim over the boarder!" And the mexican plan for Secret Ops invasion is:

Pack as many of them into the back of a Truck and sneak through the boarder!

[cls12vg30]

Originally Posted by Delusional

Yeah, well luckily, it's not just Texans that feel that way, which is why the federal government wouldn't ban private ownership of firearms.

I agree with this, and I hope it turns out to be correct.

Every time someone exercises their First Amendment right of free speech by calling someone a racial slur at work, they violate that other person's right of a harassment-free work environment.

But where is it written that a person has a right to a harassment-free work environment? At least a right that the government is responsible for protecting? It isn't written anywhere of course. A company is responsible for providing this environment to their employees, not the government.

Everything you say is vague. You have very few facts to back up the general statements and connections you make. What are these effects? How do they create poverty and misery?

It's necessarily vague because of the complexities of the concepts, and the need to try and make a point without writing a novel. Specifically, let's talk about poverty, or rather government subsidizing of poverty, which most people think of as welfare. The multi-generational effects of welfare are only now being seen. We have people, with all the potential of every other human being, who are living their entire lives in poverty, barely kept alive by government assistance, and convinced by that same government that they cannot succeed, cannot provide for themselves and their families without the government, cannot better their situation, and they better not even try or the federal life preserver that they have become addicted to will be snatched away, and they better vote a certain way as well. This strikes me as a very insidious form of slavery.

Of course, the point of such programs is to decrease poverty. But I maintain that most of that poverty was created by the government in the first place. Add up all taxes, costs of regulatory compliance, and all the other ways that various governments siphon money away from every person, company, and transaction, and greater than 3/4 of the total wealth-producing capacity of this country is being sucked into a black hole. What this means is, if the government had remained restrained as it was supposed to be originally, it's very possible that not only would you, I, and every other American be making 2-4 times what we make now, but every product and service may cost between 1/5 and 1/3 of what it costs us today. Now what's the average standard of living look like?

If you're suggesting that an economic system does not need a government to stabilize it, I will have to strongly disagree with you. Take a look at Reagan's deregulation policies and see how they affected the banking industry in the 1980s.

A banking industry that had become dependent on that regulation, regulation which was never needed in the first place, unfortunately too many of our ancestors listened to Alexander Hamilton, who largely agreed with this emotion:

People are just too stupid to effectively run their own economic lives entirely.

Variations on this idea have been the excuse for every form of tryanny and oppression throughout history. How is this different from fundamentalists of various religions who seek to force their rules and beliefs on other people? If people are so stupid, then does it make sense to put a handful of people in control of the lives of millions? Is this handful somehow less "stupid"? Where do we find these angels of superior intellect and benevolence, so that we may make them our masters?

[Erich]

John Kerry and Howard Dean ?

yikes .................... pussies

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is why I had a hard time voting last time.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I bet theres a plan for the Mexican govt to invade the US!

They already have!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

LOL read my post up there.

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep!!

[Delusional]

We have people, with all the potential of every other human being, who are living their entire lives in poverty, barely kept alive by government assistance, and convinced by that same government that they cannot succeed, cannot provide for themselves and their families without the government, cannot better their situation, and they better not even try or the federal life preserver that they have become addicted to will be snatched away

Why would the government want these people to stay on welfare? That's just taking money that could be used for other things.

Add up all taxes, costs of regulatory compliance, and all the other ways that various governments siphon money away from every person, company, and transaction, and greater than 3/4 of the total wealth-producing capacity of this country is being sucked into a black hole. What this means is, if the government had remained restrained as it was supposed to be originally, it's very possible that not only would you, I, and every other American be making 2-4 times what we make now, but every product and service may cost between 1/5 and 1/3 of what it costs us today. Now what's the average standard of living look like?

Where are you getting these statistics? Last I checked, the government, no matter how you do the math, is not taking 3/4 of anyone's money. And the government is a "black hole?" Even if the government takes too much money (and I can hardly understand how an American, of all nationalities, could think this), spends some of it poorly, and pockets some of it for their own gain, they still use at least some of that money for the better good of the nation and its people. And this restraint in the government that you speak of was tried, and it failed under the Articles of the Confederation. If it is such a good way to run the country, why did it last only 8 years? Inflation is natural in every economic system, no matter what form of government oversees it. Demand is faster than supply, prices of goods rise, and in effect, your money has less value. What does this have to do with government taxation, spending, and policies?

A banking industry that had become dependent on that regulation, regulation which was never needed in the first place

No, the banking industry needs regulation, because otherwise, banks give out risky loans, which is exactly what happened in the 1980s. People were stupid. People were also criminal, leading to much fraudulent activity. If you want another Savings and Loans Crisis, then go on thinking that humans are perfectly capable of running their own economic lives without some supervision. The fact of the matter is that most people don't care to be educated enough to be able to perform this task.

Variations on this idea have been the excuse for every form of tryanny and oppression throughout history. How is this different from fundamentalists of various religions who seek to force their rules and beliefs on other people? If people are so stupid, then does it make sense to put a handful of people in control of the lives of millions? Is this handful somehow less "stupid"? Where do we find these angels of superior intellect and benevolence, so that we may make them our masters?

It's different, because it is for the good of the nation as a whole. Without regulation, you are letting even fewer people run individual parts of the economy, and why do you trust those people any more than you seem to trust the government? Helping people make sound economic choices is far from forcing them to be or act one way or another as a tryanny or relgious push does. It's hardly a "handful" of people in charge. There are many, many people in the government. The government exists at many levels (local, state, federal), and our government has a system of checks and balances to deal with the exact problem that you are presenting. This "handful" (usually) has experience, education, and expertise in their field, so, yes, they are less stupid than the average citizen, at least when it comes to politics and government. That's like asking if a physicist is less stupid at science than a dog-walker. Government is a complex social institution which (usually) requires an above-average intellect to adequately control. That being said, don't even ask me how Bush got elected.... I'm not a Republican, after all.