# your thoughts on the direction  government  is  headed



## Belcher

what are your thoughts on the way the government is ran and the path that we are going down. With the current economy falling in to a pit and our rights being trampled on, what do you foresee. 
Is the change for the good or bad.


----------



## jwhoff

We are transforming from the nation state to the corporate state.  We've been told this many times over the past eight-to-ten years.  Several years ago TIME magazine did a cover and devoted most of an edition to the topic.  So it's not freaks talking this one up.

This has been done before.  Fuedalism to nation state.  Monarchy to republic.  

No change was ever made without disruption of the civil and economic norms. Our way of doing things now will no longer exist.  

The nation state appears to have run its course.  Problematic in that it created issues and trouble for international corporations and became a hinderance to global economics.

Big money has us fighting among our selves over petty issues.  We're fighting racial, generation and immigrantion issues while they see only profits from the mayham!  We're tearing ourselves apart daily.  Thus, we're losing our power as a people with one voice.  All the easier to sweep away the nation state.

They'll be there to offer simply answers and the corporate way.  After all, don't we want less government?  Damn the restrictions, let the market bear the costs. 

What a silly concept:  "what price freedom."  

I think I'm going to watch Entertainment Tonight!  There's somethig worth my time.

After all, I'm entitled!


----------



## Bill Lins

jwhoff said:


> I think I'm going to watch Entertainment Tonight!  There's somethig worth my time.
> 
> After all, I'm entitled!



There's always "reality" TV!


----------



## Rick Clifton

[h=1]Why Were Corporations Illegal Before 1819?[/h]	 	 	  	 	While many here believe that Corporations are  part of a healthy Free Market, it should be noted that our founders  fought the British Corporations AS WELL AS the British Government.
 So when you think it's "libertarian" to defend corporations like Monsanto, think again.
 _____________
 When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776,  they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that  extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution  to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear  of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a  business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence  elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
 Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to  enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of  roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to  that end.
 The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
 * Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
 * Corporations were often terminated if they caused public harm.
 * Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
 * Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making. 

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/


  But aren't corporations just part of the free market? Isn't that what  capitalism is all about - corporate interests driving the economy? 
Actually, no. Corporate libertarians would have you believe that  somehow corporate dominance is entirely consistent with the values and  vision of the Founding Fathers, but this is pure myth. The framers  believed in limited government and free markets, but corporations were  almost non-existent in the early days of the Republic. Unlike today, one  could not form a corporation simply by filing a few papers with a  government office; instead, permission from the government was needed  (usually via an act of the Legislature) 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/why-corporations-are-psychotic


----------



## RedTemplar

Our economy is failing and the stock market is at an all time high.  And the Wildcats can't shoot, pass, or dribble. What time does Entertainment Tonight come on?


----------



## JJones

The economy is getting worse? But the mainstream media keeps telling me that it's getting better! :001_cool:

Remember the golden rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.  And since cooperations are people (even though they aren't) and filthy rich, they get to make the rules.

So long as we're somewhat on this subject, here's a neat video for you guys.

[video=youtube_share;QPKKQnijnsM]http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM[/video]


----------



## jwhoff

Now!  For the first time we are having a serious discussion.  

So all this badgering about Republicans, Democrats, Populist, Tea, Green and purple parties is of no value.  All it does is tear us apart at the lower end (apparently plus-80 percent of the population) of the food chain.  We've been losing ground since the late 1970s.  Of course, that's when big money decided they should make money financing daily purchases we made off selling us stuff we didn't always need.  

Be honest, how much of evey dollar you make goes to pay off your financed debts?  

We're being sucked in and taught to like it.  These guys are pretty smart, don'tyahthink?


----------



## Rick Clifton

[h=1]Why Were Corporations Illegal Before 1819?[/h]	 	 	  	 	While many here believe that Corporations are  part of a healthy Free Market, it should be noted that our founders  fought the British Corporations AS WELL AS the British Government.
 So when you think it's "libertarian" to defend corporations like Monsanto, think again.
 _____________
 When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776,  they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that  extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution  to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear  of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a  business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence  elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
 Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to  enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of  roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to  that end.
 The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
 * Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
 * Corporations were often terminated if they caused public harm.
 * Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
 * Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making. 

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/


But aren't corporations just part of the free market? Isn't that what  capitalism is all about - corporate interests driving the economy? 
Actually, no. Corporate libertarians would have you believe that  somehow corporate dominance is entirely consistent with the values and  vision of the Founding Fathers, but this is pure myth. The framers  believed in limited government and free markets, but corporations were  almost non-existent in the early days of the Republic. Unlike today, one  could not form a corporation simply by filing a few papers with a  government office; instead, permission from the government was needed  (usually via an act of the Legislature) 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/why-corporations-are-psychotic


----------



## jwhoff

Nope, RedTemplar, the 'Cats can't even pour it in the ocean this year.

I fear Wild Bill_Lins has a point about reality TV.

Only wish I had thought about that one last night.

:38:


----------



## jvarnell

You all are falling in to the trap that has been set by pregresives (Please read you self on this). They make a monarc with socialist leanings sound good like robin hood sounds good untill you see how many truley evel things have to happen to make it work.

They deminaize so call big busniess.  Corperations are made up of people and if any of them violate the law they should be procuted and will be procuted if they violate a law.  Corps. are not someting to be taxed they have already payed taxes for everything that you want to be taxed for.  and corpate taxes are on profits.  where do the profits go to the employees and investment of new products or equpment.  The reasion management get big buck is they would go someplace else if they are not pay for ideas and leadership that they provide.  Also some have to be paied more because they are called the accountable exective who will be put in jail if any employee of the company does wrong on behalf of the company.  This is even if he did not have knolage of the wrong doing.

Big corporations do a lot they may not make many new jobs but they keep old jobs so somany new ones don't have to be created.  If you are non-union in a right to work state you can ether get a newely created job or keep the one you have.  When you look at jobs you don't just look at pay (most do) but the totle cost of benifits.  A contractor may make $250.00 an hour but he only recive about $25 an hour that he can spend. (all of the thing a big busness pays plus his side of the taxes)


I can go on and on and on.  You see there are two sides to all things and when laws are made to fix a perseption there are unintended consequences and the low information voters only seem to see the perseptions.

If anyone wants me to go on and on  and on just ask.


----------



## jvarnell

The inequlity of anything will always happen when liberty and freedom happens because a person relyes on himself and not others to reconcile the inequlaitys and those who worry more about what others are doing than themself will not have time to reconcile the problems on there own.


----------



## DJGurkins

Wow you bring up a lot of good points jvarnell. I think I need to look at things maybe from a different vantage point.


----------



## jvarnell

DJGurkins said:


> Wow you bring up a lot of good points jvarnell. I think I need to look at things maybe from a different vantage point.



Thank you


----------



## jwhoff

No one lives in this economy alone.  Others MUST participate in one way or another. That participation can be constructive or destructive.  The pendulum seldom finds true center is such turbulence.  That is the potential problem I see. 

The following is my caution to the extreme viewpoints that are held by unapologetic defenders of capitalism in and of itself.  And, carried through logically, to those who oppose it completely.  

I know the alter of PURE CAPITALISM many ascribe to.  It's all to alluring to those who want more and, somehow, believe they can achieve their goals no matter the odds or who is harmed in the end.

The problem is, you can't leave everyone else in the trash heap. Eventually the bill will become due.  Unrest will lead to your eventual downfall.  Not only do you have to answer for your greed, you will fall victim to the bigger fish in the limited pond.

Look at the teachings of masonry closer.  Somewhere you will find the moral of fair play.  Pay the man what he deserves, don't shortchange him from his fair portion. Your reward will be peace and harmony if not a sense of fair play.  Look further to the holy scriptures of world religions and find that the sense of sharing and lending a helping hand abound. Did not the Hebrews leave a tenth if the fields for the poor to reap? (Find it when studying Boaz).  What say ye is practiced during the season of Ramadan?  We all know of the Golden Rule.

Now I know, the first defense one feels compelled to throw against such a question is: Why should those who are lazy (worthless) reap the rewards of those who work.  But just think further about this defense.  Really, can anyone say that one percent of the population is carrying the other ninty-nine percent of lazy, shiftless, no ambition population in this country?  

Even the most ardent defender of the gods of Pure Capitalism will have a hard time with that question.  One would logically presume.

*Capitalism is not the issue.  The issue is that there are those who are abusing it!*  They do not want economic principles to work.  They continually search for ways to perverse and redefine them.  Greed, my dear friend, is a terrible vice to waste.

Now I know this post will not set well on the alter before the gods of Pure Capitalism, but here is a look at an opposing view.  A more tempered view of things.  Though I fully expect to be painted into the corner of socialist, if not Karl Marx himself, for daring to oppose Pure Capitalism.

No one economic system is perfect.  No one economic system is pure evil in and of itself.  Rather the abuses thereof can destroy the primary concept.  Look not to the evils of particular economic systems.  Rather look to the abuses of each.


----------



## jvarnell

Bro. jwhoff Pure Capitalism dosen't preclude someone from being genrous and giving.  To go along with the words Geed we should also look at the word envy and who decides what is fair. (I deaming them worthey)  Not some burocrat deming them worthy of someone else's hard work.  Abuses happen when someone makes a rule/law to fix a simptom like fairness of outcome.  We as Masons and all religens are called to help the poor (and that is in our harts).  When the government makes a rule/law that makes me do something they are telling me how they want the poor helped which may not be how they need to be helped.

economic principles do not equel equlity of outcome it is a ballance.  If you look at the economic bell curve you will notic that econimic rules made by government don't take money form the right hand side of the curve and give to the left side it flattens the curve.  The curve is population on the Y and Income is X.

Socialism really is a government making econmic rules to cause an outcome by fource and the indivual has no free will to decide who is worthy.  Who better than you can be genrous to others with your money. 

A quick note look up what percentage of income ploititions gave to charities in 2010 (I think that 2011 and 2012 are not published)

I had no problem with your post an am trying to work with you to show you that words like greed, fairness and income equlity happen to brake down personal genorisity.


----------



## RedTemplar

When we have pure socialism or pure fascism we will live under tyranny. In all things, moderation. Let us not pervert the purpose of refreshment into intemperance or excess.


----------



## jvarnell

RedTemplar said:


> When we have pure socialism or pure fascism we will live under tyranny. In all things, moderation. Let us not pervert the purpose of refreshment into intemperance or excess.



Yes but Captilisam fixes both of those.


----------



## RedTemplar

jvarnell said:


> Yes but Captilisam fixes both of those.




True, but it concerns you a great deal more if you are on the side that needs 
to be fixed.


----------



## jvarnell

Yep that is why captlisam is the way in my view because it is a person making his own decision at what price to sell a product.  Food and water alone execpeted as a need that needs to be watched for gouging.  This also makes freemasonery a necessity for society because this is the guiding principals in stead of laws that regulate actions.  Every time you put a law in to regulate actions it takes away from tenniants of masonary.

What I have said above is how I really feel and I am having a hard time understanding how a mason can have socilist tendencies because they are forced by laws and not by freedom ofwill to help others.


----------



## Belcher

jvarnell said:


> Yep that is why captlisam is the way in my view because it is a person making his own decision at what price to sell a product.  Food and water alone execpeted as a need that needs to be watched for gouging.  This also makes freemasonery a necessity for society because this is the guiding principals in stead of laws that regulate actions.  Every time you put a law in to regulate actions it takes away from tenniants of masonary.
> 
> What I have said above is how I really feel and I am having a hard time understanding how a mason can have socilist tendencies because they are forced by laws and not by freedom ofwill to help others.



Well said my brother. The  foundation of this great  country is based on our many freedoms. If we continue to allow the government the 
Take them we will all be puppets on strings. Why is it that with the economy and the stock market at an all time high. We as a country can not come out of this economic slump. I for one can not make since of how someone will give up there rights. 

I will not stand hoodwinked in front of a wall......


----------



## jwhoff

Capitialism fixes nothing if it precludes anyone from getting their fair share of the produced wealth. Witness the wealth distribution of Venezuela.  Woe the pattern of wealth distribution developing in this nation.

Capitialism works when each man is paid his fair share of production of wealth.  

That has ONLY to do with the percentage of that wealth he produces. 

It has nothing to do with one percent of the population stacking the cards in its favor until the eventual meltdown begins.


When the wealth is not distributed in this manner, inequities ensue and the system begins to unravel.  History verifies this statement.  

Ones' fears of the evils of socialism and communism will not erase the issues we now face.  No one is looking to move to either as a substitute.

But, as RedTemplar says, temperance is in order.  Tempering the excesses of Capitalism does, in no way, reject Capitalism.  

This wealth distribution issue will destablize this country if it continues.  Teddy Roosevelt fought off the Robber Barons and the Tea Pot Dome scandel with success.  It can be done again.  It must be done again.


----------



## KO2134

The great inequalities that jwoff is speaking of is only possible when the rich lobby the federal government for loopholes in the tax code. Now don't assume that i'm saying we should raise taxes to make the inequality curve shift I'm most definitely not but the best way for this great disparity to be solved is through a complete capitalistic system. Throw out the current tax code for a flat tax of 17% or 15% and close all loopholes so all Americans pay that rate. Get rid of FICA and phase out Social Security and Medicare by guaranteeing all individuals who have paid into to these programs to receive what their owed and for those who have are still working stop them immediately from paying in and when they hit the retirement age give them their money under this plan current seniors will not be affected at all and everyone is paid. No more capital gains tax or death tax because we shouldn't punish individuals for success. Legalize marijuana and tax it for more revenue. Cut government spending in all areas and eliminate the department of education, energy, and HUD. Audit the Fed PLEASE!!! Repeal obamacare and let the marketplace decide prices. Everything mentioned on here can be solved if we simply remove government from the economy and reduce it to it's constitutional bounds.


----------



## jvarnell

KO2134 said:


> The great inequalities that jwoff is speaking of is only possible when the rich lobby the federal government for loopholes in the tax code. Now don't assume that i'm saying we should raise taxes to make the inequality curve shift I'm most definitely not but the best way for this great disparity to be solved is through a complete capitalistic system. Throw out the current tax code for a flat tax of 17% or 15% and close all loopholes so all Americans pay that rate. Get rid of FICA and phase out Social Security and Medicare by guaranteeing all individuals who have paid into to these programs to receive what their owed and for those who have are still working stop them immediately from paying in and when they hit the retirement age give them their money under this plan current seniors will not be affected at all and everyone is paid. No more capital gains tax or death tax because we shouldn't punish individuals for success. Legalize marijuana and tax it for more revenue. Cut government spending in all areas and eliminate the department of education, energy, and HUD. Audit the Fed PLEASE!!! Repeal obamacare and let the marketplace decide prices. Everything mentioned on here can be solved if we simply remove government from the economy and reduce it to it's constitutional bounds.



So you are saying that someone who is call rich can only use those socalled loopholes.  I think everyone can take their charitable controubutions off there taxes,  I think everyone can take intrest paid for a home off there taxes.  These are the socalled loopholes the Dems. want to remove.  I agree a flat tax is right it is not the Captlist that want the tax system the way it is now it is in the communist manifesto that discribes a prgressive tax system.  Before 1929 taxes only paied for what the constitution allowed the Fed. to do. 

I was going to answer each thing you have said but after rereading it you mostley have it right execept for the words "rich lobist"  If a pregressive tax had not ever been put in there would have been taxes the way you say.  Government is using taxes to modifiy your behaviour not do good for others.  and that is not what I read into what jwhuff said.  Again it is not the rich it is the progressive's.


Look at tax history from the founding to 1929 and then 1929 to now and you will see what and how this has happened.


----------



## KO2134

When i talked about tax loopholes i didn't mean that only rich people can take advantage of them i am well aware that we all can take advantage of them. All i'm saying is is that there should be a minimum tax everyone should have to pay no one or corporation should pay no taxes


----------



## jvarnell

jwhoff said:


> This wealth distribution issue will destablize this country if it continues. Teddy Roosevelt fought off the Robber Barons and the Tea Pot Dome scandel with success. It can be done again. It must be done again.



Wealth distribution issue is a envy issue.  Some one seeing that someone else has something they don't have with out seeing where they were and what hardwork they did to get there.  The socalled robber bairons are names progressives gave to some others to use as a tool to get what they had without the work just like the progressives are doing now with the socalled 1%er of wealth.


----------



## Brent Heilman

As far as jealousy of rich people go Jim Carrey said it best: "I hope everybody could get rich and famous and will have everything they ever dreamed of, so they will know that its not the answer"


----------



## jvarnell

KO2134 said:


> When i talked about tax loopholes i didn't mean that only rich people can take advantage of them i am well aware that we all can take advantage of them. All i'm saying is is that there should be a minimum tax everyone should have to pay no one or corporation should pay no taxes




Yes but it wasn't the rich lobby that had those things put in the tax code it was the socalled progressives that wanted home ownership for people that could not aford it.  When you buy a home you can aford about 25% of your take home monthly income for housing. If you add the taxdeduction of intrest you can afford about 29.89% for housing.  If you reduce tax rate so someone can have more of there own money for housing you would have to reduce taxes for everybody by 4.89%.  The Dems. said we just want to get more lower income people into houses so they did the loophole which only helps a small % of people.  Also in this way the Dems. could by the vote of everybody that is using this deduction.  But there is another problem if you are using a monthly income to figure out what kind of house you are going to buy you will use right at the max 29.89%.  If someone has a problem just one moth they will lose it and be behind and won't catch up till there income goes up 4.89%. 

 There is a lot to think about on all these isues if the government was not trying to influance the way we do thing through taxes none of this would happen.


----------



## jvarnell

Brent Heilman said:


> As far as jealousy of rich people go Jim Carrey said it best: "I hope everybody could get rich and famous and will have everything they ever dreamed of, so they will know that its not the answer"



Yes that is right.


----------



## KO2134

jvarnell can you provide a link to the information you speak of because i believe it's completely wrong because tax reform was implemented by Bush during the whole housing fiasco


----------



## jvarnell

Yes Give me a day to pull it together it will be more than one link.


----------



## jvarnell

KO2134 said:


> jvarnell can you provide a link to the information you speak of because i believe it's completely wrong because tax reform was implemented by Bush during the whole housing fiasco



I thought it take longer but these links have other stuff that the point to so I thought this was enough to start. You said the name Bush in your response and I don’t point a one person’s policies to say my policy are right, I point out what in my policies is right. I do point out what is wrong in progressivism no matter who does it.

Liberal views but talks about where the beginnings were.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/business/07view.html?_r=0

A view that is closer to my own.
http://www.freedomworks.org/crisis

This one has a whole lot of foot notes and will take you days to fallow them all.

The percent of income it takes on a monthly basis for a bank to feel that the note will be paid off is done in a normal income risk calculation that has been historical vetted and that is where the word subprime loan came from the senate banking committee when the government made it a bad word to say someone could not qualify for a loan because they did not have enough income.

Just on taxes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_history_of_the_United_States


----------



## KO2134

great links i love the freedomworks link that is on par with my constitutional conservative aka Goldwater Republican Aka Ron Paul Conservative AKA Libertarian viewpoints


----------



## jvarnell

KO2134 said:


> great links i love the freedomworks link that is on par with my constitutional conservative aka Goldwater Republican Aka Ron Paul Conservative AKA Libertarian viewpoints



There is nothing 100% and I am glad I help you understand.  I do wish you would look at some of the people you have in your list because Ron Paul is no constitutionalist he happens to pick and choose which parts he likes.  One is he would cut all military and that is one of the things in the constatution for the Fedral Goverment to do.  You can not protect US citisions just at the bodards of the US but have to stop it before it gets here.


----------



## KO2134

Ron Paul doesn't advocate getting rid of the military all together he actually believes in a strong defense http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOKAdFzioZc i personally being a conservative libertarian wouldn't cut as much as he would


----------



## jvarnell

KO2134 said:


> Ron Paul doesn't advocate getting rid of the military all together he actually believes in a strong defense http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOKAdFzioZc i personally being a conservative libertarian wouldn't cut as much as he would




This is what I was talking about haveing bases overseas is natinal defence not just our borders.  I don't want the bad guys to ever get to our borders because if they do it is to late.  That is why we need military all over stoping them before they get here.  Ron did say one thing right is the defence is not the milary but but the military can and should us where ever we are as citisions of the USA.


----------



## JJones

We can cut a lot from our defense budget and still be just fine.  Look at how much we spend on defense as opposed to China, which has the biggest standing army in the world.






> This is what I was talking about haveing bases overseas is natinal defence not just our borders. I don't want the bad guys to ever get to our borders because if they do it is to late.



Respectfully, I have to disagree.  Policing the world isn't national defense in my opinion.


----------



## Brent Heilman

We didn't police the world until WWII. Before we were drawn into that war we had a policy of isolationism. As a former member of the armed services I have seen some of the other side that a lot of people don't see and it is my feelings that we need to get completely out of some of the places we are. They don't want us there so we should leave them to their own ways and watch the demise from afar. Trying to be the guy that always looks out for the little man has not done us much good as a country and has created a lot of resentment from others. The Middle East has been fighting with each other for centuries and nothing we do is going to change that. We try to change the way some of these countries operate and in the end it bites us in the butt. We empowered Bin Laden. It was us that provided him weapons and training to fight the Soviets and that worked out really well for us didn't it? We have put Karzhai into power in Afghanistan and look at the rhetoric that comes from him towards us. We need to draw down our troops world wide. Once we step out of some of these places and their own self-destruction starts and things start falling apart across the globe those that have taken us for granted all these years will change their tune about us. 

While I may not have agreed with Ron Paul on some things (drugs) I am with him on foreign policy. At first I wasn't real keen on him but the more I listened to him the more sense he made. Of course at this point anything is better than what we have right now. Clinton did us no favors as Secretary of State and Kerry is going to pay the price for it. Watch and see he will start getting blamed for things that he had no control over. It has already started with the Russians. She ticked them off but I saw a report the other day where Kerry got the blame for it.


----------



## jvarnell

JJones said:


> We can cut a lot from our defense budget and still be just fine. Look at how much we spend on defense as opposed to China, which has the biggest standing army in the world.
> 
> View attachment 2981
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I have to disagree. Policing the world isn't national defense in my opinion.




Yes we can cut defence and yes China spendes less on there defence. Do you want to have a policy where every person at age 17 is a part of the army and only given the food the gov. wants you to have? We pay for collage, off base food and housing and medical. In china if you get hurt in the army they send you home untill you are well enough to come back and finish your time. I know the pure number look good for china but but we have a deferent life style for all our people. Even if we are in the army we are free to decide alot of thing that makes it cost more money they are not. They call it Policing but I would rather take a fight the evel of the world that would be here if we did not take it to them.

the best defense is a good offense


----------



## JJones

> While I may not have agreed with Ron Paul on some things (drugs) I am with him on foreign policy.



That's the thing.  I may not have agreed with him 100% on everything but at least with Ron Paul I knew what I was going to get if he won because he's a true statesman IMO.  With these other guys, the politicians, they'll tell everyone in the room whatever they want to hear to get their vote.

I have high hopes for Rand Paul.



> Do you want to have a policy where every person at age 17 is a part of the army and only given the food the gov. wants you to have?



If we weren't policing the world?  I'd have no problem with it.  I know lots of peaceful countries have programs like this and I think it would do a lot of these kids some good.  It straightened me out.  I'm sure many would disagree with me though.



> They call it Policing but I would rather take a fight the evel of the world that would be here if we did not take it to them.



What's good and evil are relative to one's point of view.  In some countries we are viewed as the evil ones and our presence there usually only makes the sentiments stronger.

It's really kind of a big (and costly) assumption that they would be here causing us trouble if we weren't there causing them trouble.  In fact, some of the countries that dislike us might be a little more indifferent if we hadn't been meddling in their affairs to start with.

Keep in mind that I'm just here because I enjoy a good debate with intelligent people, so please don't feel my differing opinions personally or anything.  I don't think anyone has yet but I'm just adding this as a disclaimer.


----------



## KO2134

Why do y'all disagree with ron paul on drugs? JJones i have to say i disagree with you i don't believe we should force individuals to join the military i personally believe being that i am 18 and under your policy i would be forced to join the military (Side Note: i'm joining the air force right now) that this would be a violation of my rights to force me to do something to me that's the same thing in principle as obamacare. Jvarnell i believe your defense policy is a little off because i believe evil only exist when citizens refuse to do anything so allow those people to fight their own battles and let us mind our own business.


----------



## Rick Clifton

[h=1]Prohibition[/h] An intelligent person learns from the Mistakes of Others.

 An Idiot does Not.


----------



## jwhoff

Hey guys.  Relax!  The 'anglish and the French fought 100 years and waisted many roses before thinking better of it.

We've only been at this last was 12 years now.  Of course, we'll be dead broke before 100 years rolls around, roses or not.

Of course, we've improvised a system where we don't pay for the wars we're fighting, the roads we're waring out, the debt we have ...

But ... after all, we are entitled!


----------



## jwhoff

KO2134 said:


> The great inequalities that jwoff is speaking of is only possible when the rich lobby the federal government for loopholes in the tax code. Now don't assume that i'm saying we should raise taxes to make the inequality curve shift I'm most definitely not but the best way for this great disparity to be solved is through a complete capitalistic system. Throw out the current tax code for a flat tax of 17% or 15% and close all loopholes so all Americans pay that rate. Get rid of FICA and phase out Social Security and Medicare by guaranteeing all individuals who have paid into to these programs to receive what their owed and for those who have are still working stop them immediately from paying in and when they hit the retirement age give them their money under this plan current seniors will not be affected at all and everyone is paid. No more capital gains tax or death tax because we shouldn't punish individuals for success. Legalize marijuana and tax it for more revenue. Cut government spending in all areas and eliminate the department of education, energy, and HUD. Audit the Fed PLEASE!!! Repeal obamacare and let the marketplace decide prices. Everything mentioned on here can be solved if we simply remove government from the economy and reduce it to it's constitutional bounds.



Radical and unsustainable in a world of seven billion souls rushing to 22 or so billion within three generations.  Which, without some form of population control is unsustainable in and of itself.  Oh my!  Ultimately, did we have a right to judge the Chinese birth control measures of the last fifty years?

KO2134's suggestion would work beautifully in a world of less than one billion, well dispersed individuals but no longer.  Agreed, it is the perfect utopia we'd all like to see.  I, myself, could ask for no more!  Hell, I remember the satisfaction of playing with others and being THE LONE RANGER.  Somehow I felt ENTITLED. .  

Utopic; in that the only way one's true worth can be decided is when each person starts life on an equal status.  With nothing and no strings to inherit from those who came before.  Only then can they be judged on their own merits.  Otherwise they are advantaged or disadvantaged by THE SYSTEM, any pure or _static_, devised economic system. 

_There are no easy or clear cut answers to man's relationship with his fellow man.  There is no utopic economic form. There is only anarchy or measured agreement.  We must now learn to live in harmony within this very real physical and economic environment. 
_
For the learned mason, this measured agreement, or harmony, is known as *equilibrium*.  Dig deeper and deeper into masonry and you will find that all is the magnificent natural progression and order of things set in motion by the GAOTU.  It is the universal clock that demands change as we move down the timeline together to that "undiscovered country from who's bourne no traveler returns."

Fight as we might, we will ultimately bow to this universal force.


----------



## jvarnell

KO2134 said:


> Jvarnell i believe your defense policy is a little off because i believe evil only exist when citizens refuse to do anything so allow those people to fight their own battles and let us mind our own business.



We as US citizens would not be here if the French had not helped us.  We asked and they responded.  That is what happen with us around the world.  Germany and Japan excepted they are required by there treaties not to have army's of certian types and the we will have bases there because of that.

Right now I am going back and forth trying to explane the other side of each detail for local and foreign policy.  I think when we start blaming anything on anyone but our selfs we become victims.  When we start looking at our selfs as non-victoms we will stop blaming others for where we are in life.  

Oh and drugs are not all bad if used corectly.  This is where Ron Paul's ideas are lost on me alcohol slows cognitive reasioning but it will catch up.  Pot stops cognitive reasioning and will never happen, and then there are the other health efects of low sperm count, bad lung problems and memory problems like onset of altimers.  And on  and on  for other drugs.  Alcohol kills the germs and parisites in drinking warter, beer is bread that will never spoil.  Alcahol is the grain that will never spoil but give you calories needed for man to live on.  I am not an advocate of alcohol but when we look at it to sustain life you can drink beer everyday and live you can not smoke anything and live without adding food of something else.

On beer alone scurvy is the only thing that may plage you then just need a small amount of citric acid to fix that.


----------



## KO2134

good points Rick Clifton your statement is true and i will have to use it jwhoff my policies are only focused on a narrow area called america and not on the planet. jvarnell i am not necessarily saying don't help anyone but i believe we should be more selective of who we help. My point on drug use is the fact that if i am not hurting anyone else or infringing on anyone else's rights then by all means smoke away and i really dont care about alchol because it's already legal.


----------



## Rick Clifton

Interesting letter.
*Iraq War vet pens ‘last letter’ to Bush and Cheney*


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/iraq-war-vet-letter-bush-cheney-tomas-young-154541674.html


----------



## jvarnell

Rick Clifton said:


> Interesting letter.
> *Iraq War vet pens ‘last letter’ to Bush and Cheney*
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/iraq-war-vet-letter-bush-cheney-tomas-young-154541674.html



What I have to say to this. The human tragedy of war is just that a tragedy of war.  But the word lie's he uses is decribing that he thinks they purpusly misslead congress of reasions for going into Iraq.  He dosen't know intent and I don't beleive there was an intent to misslead.  Most of the data that was used to make the dessions to go into Iraq would have stoped feather intell and got opertives kill if the source was knowen.  By being as public as the build up was it alowed Sadum to transfer any thing that made him look bad to other places.  If they did not go into Iraq the legistics of afganastan would not have worked at all.  Splitting Afganastan and Iraq is like saying it was it was alcida and not the taliban.  who was paying a lot of amercan dollors to alcida and Taliban for what they were doing.  Saddam hussein


----------



## Michael Hatley

I am less concerned with where government is headed and more concerned with where people's views of government are headed.

I see more and more people that I meet coming from a similar place as the occupy "movement".  Folks who like the idea of wikileaks, who distrust the government from all angles, and are, for all practical purposes idealistically anarchists.

Not practically, because they like things like police, defense, roads, national parks and so forth.  But idealistically in that their inclination on matters from education to taxes and a whole range of things comes down to "government bad" where "socialism" gets used quickly, and where they believe, in their hearts, that politicians from one or both sides are evil.  Where they assume, without evidence, that every arm of government is rife with waste and abuse.

It is this "government as a cancer" worldview that has a real chance of exacerbating the ennui our youth for two generations have had with participatory government.  So few people from Gen X and the Boomers are at town hall meetings and other municipal governance venues I attend that most granular decisions are made by septuagenarians.  

I wish people didn't see "government" as a synonym for "socialism", which is clearly not the case - and could come to grips with the fact that the government is us.  Made up of us, representing us, and for us.  And I fear the current anti-government trend (which Gen Y is eating up, identifying with the wikileaks and other groups ) will turn off Gen Y from participating in government in a meaningful way for many years to come.

And directly I think this anti-government zeitgeist is fueled, underneath it all, by pessimism.  A belief that we are in decline, a belief that government is inherently anti-liberty, and so forth.  I don't think either has to be the case.  But if our youth believe it, then it will be a self fulfilling sort of thing.

Just my take fellas.


----------



## jvarnell

Michael Hatley said:


> I am less concerned with where government is headed and more concerned with where people's views of government are headed.
> 
> I see more and more people that I meet coming from a similar place as the occupy "movement".  Folks who like the idea of wikileaks, who distrust the government from all angles, and are, for all practical purposes idealistically anarchists.
> 
> Not practically, because they like things like police, defense, roads, national parks and so forth.  But idealistically in that their inclination on matters from education to taxes and a whole range of things comes down to "government bad" where "socialism" gets used quickly, and where they believe, in their hearts, that politicians from one or both sides are evil.  Where they assume, without evidence, that every arm of government is rife with waste and abuse.
> 
> It is this "government as a cancer" worldview that has a real chance of exacerbating the ennui our youth for two generations have had with participatory government.  So few people from Gen X and the Boomers are at town hall meetings and other municipal governance venues I attend that most granular decisions are made by septuagenarians.
> 
> I wish people didn't see "government" as a synonym for "socialism", which is clearly not the case - and could come to grips with the fact that the government is us.  Made up of us, representing us, and for us.  And I fear the current anti-government trend (which Gen Y is eating up, identifying with the wikileaks and other groups ) will turn off Gen Y from participating in government in a meaningful way for many years to come.
> 
> And directly I think this anti-government zeitgeist is fueled, underneath it all, by pessimism.  A belief that we are in decline, a belief that government is inherently anti-liberty, and so forth.  I don't think either has to be the case.  But if our youth believe it, then it will be a self fulfilling sort of thing.
> 
> Just my take fellas.



You said a mouth full and point out what is in the bucket called government is a lot of deferent thing to deferent people.  I am older than the Xes and Ys so I see the federal government only good for what was directly enumerated to it.  And the state and local the real power.  A lot of people think that lobbyist run things and this is only true to a point and its not really the money but the words they help put into law.  This is because the congressmen don't know everything about every industry and sometime thing sound to good to a congressman that is bad for us and vise a versa.  The government is only what we make it.  When I was young I felt the same way they do but when I saw first hand behind the scenes what actually happens.  You have to know the business or industry to know if what they are doing in the law is right or wrong.  The dod-frank act sounds good but what they did is cost more money by causing more reports that will cost the US about 20 billion each year which the consumers will pay.  it is also why you cannot get free checking in the manner you did 2 years ago.  and on and on... Barny frank has never been in business and doesn't know how it works so he wrote without help for a lobbiest that bill.   There are many other examples I can give you.   But this is why I don't like government and not the same reasons the Xers and Yers do. they think that the 20 billion we have to spend to meet the law comes from a bad old corperations pocket, but no it is tacked onto products that we all buy.  If the mean old corps. would just not make all that profit they could eat that 20 billion and not do new product development, medicine development, and pay there employees more money to retain them.       All in all it is very complex but the founding fathers had it right I think.


----------



## Michael Hatley

jvarnell said:


> And the state and local the real power.



Brother, do you, in your heart of hearts, keep up with state and local politics with the same veracity you do national issues?  

In Texas, if you do that for a couple of years - meet the politicians, take on a few issues, stand for some elected positions, and work legislation in a serious way, then it becomes tough to hold onto that viewpoint and that is a fact.  It is a great idea, on paper - the fed isn't helpful, states rights, etc. 

Then you see the sorts of people who participate in local and state politics.  And God help you if you have to deal with them on issues.  On television, where most of it is hyperbolic coverage of a handful of polarizing national issues, it is easy to feel like you are smarter than the politicians.  Often though thats just hamming for the camera though, they are bright folks usually.

Not so with state and local politics, man.  Not just low IQs, but religious fundamentalists in Texas politics are a dime a dozen, good ol boy contractors/commissioners are in every county, and little old senile ladies gadfly city council meetings and make hour long meetings take three so often it just isn't funny.  Shift power to the states and that won't change much if any at all - just those folks get empowered.

I hear a lot about state/local rights in Texas, but brass tacks almost none of those people participating in state/local politics with that view.  And those very same people who talk about state/local rights are often condescending about their views and assume you would have to be ignorant to not understand the states rights idear.  Sad, kinda.


----------



## jvarnell

Michael Hatley said:


> Brother, do you, in your heart of hearts, keep up with state and local politics with the same veracity you do national issues?


   Yes



Michael Hatley said:


> In Texas, if you do that for a couple of years - meet the politicians, take on a few issues, stand for some elected positions, and work legislation in a serious way, then it becomes tough to hold onto that viewpoint and that is a fact.  It is a great idea, on paper - the fed isn't helpful, states rights, etc.


  I have the Texas legislature RSS feeds so I see thing as they are being worked on.  The news doesn't cover anything really that is being done.



Michael Hatley said:


> Then you see the sorts of people who participate in local and state politics.  And God help you if you have to deal with them on issues.  On television, where most of it is hyperbolic coverage of a handful of polarizing national issues, it is easy to feel like you are smarter than the politicians.  Often though thats just hamming for the camera though, they are bright folks usually.


 I am not in front but behind the scenes for some of it as a SME (subject mater expert) at a local level.  It is very hard to keep my sanity because there are more people that say they are SMEs pushing agenda.




Michael Hatley said:


> Not so with state and local politics, man.  Not just low IQs, but religious fundamentalists in Texas politics are a dime a dozen, good ol boy contractors/commissioners are in every county, and little old senile ladies gadfly city council meetings and make hour long meetings take three so often it just isn't funny.  Shift power to the states and that won't change much if any at all - just those folks get empowered.


 The low IQ thing is what the media wants you to thing about the slow talking Texans so they can marginalize them and make the not effective.  Just because some one talks slow and messes up the vocabulary doesn't mean they are dumb, but the media wants you to think that.  Please read "rules for radicals" not as what to do but as what the media is doing to the low information voters.  Think about the words "good ol boys" those are envious words used by the media to marginalize someone.  The constitution was written with the power in the states not the fed. It was the progressive movement of the late 1800's that started the shift to the fed.



Michael Hatley said:


> I hear a lot about state/local rights in Texas, but brass tacks almost none of those people participating in state/local politics with that view.  And those very same people who talk about state/local rights are often condescending about their views and assume you would have to be ignorant to not understand the states rights idear.  Sad, kinda.


I am not talker or writer and I even through up before I turned my masonic work I was so nervous.  But I know what the constitution says.  I know what Masonary teaches us and I am positive if we limit government control and enforce local laws and  have the god given liberty we enjoyed in the past it will all work.  I just wish I could be the front man instead of the SME.  The front man doesn't always listen to the SME he should.


----------



## Michael Hatley

jvarnell said:


> The low IQ thing is what the media wants you to thing about the slow talking Texans so they can marginalize them and make the not effective.  Just because some one talks slow and messes up the vocabulary doesn't mean they are dumb, but the media wants you to think that.  Please read "rules for radicals" not as what to do but as what the media is doing to the low information voters.  Think about the words "good ol boys" those are envious words used by the media to marginalize someone.  The constitution was written with the power in the states not the fed. It was the progressive movement of the late 1800's that started the shift to the fed.



Oh, I was speaking about my experiences :001_smile:

I'm plenty slow talking Texas drawl myself, and a good ol boy if ever there was one....that wasn't what I was getting at.  But no biggie.  You've got a thing about the media and whatnot, thats cool.  Not like I care for it either.   *shrug*

Have a good day Bro, gotta run!


----------



## cog41

We are headed toward financial ruin. 

Are we headed to war with North Korea? Personally I think it is loud saber rattling by the little chubby guy in North Korea. His people and his army are hungry.
Although it is pretty loud and one "mistake" by one side or the other could cause a bad situation to get worse.
War is the last thing we need.


----------



## dfreybur

cog41 said:


> We are headed toward financial ruin.



Early in the thread was a post that the world is moving from national to corporate.  To the extent this is true it breaks so many previous models many mistakes will be made.  To the extent this is true discussion of issues using a national model are fruitless in the international arena.

That said go through history and name a country that did deficit spending that didn't result in a disaster.  Since about 1948 the only years with a balanced budget have not been years of decreased spending.  They have been years of such huge economic booms spending could increase and the budget still balance.  But countries that go through currency collapses do recover from the disaster.

Should we as Masons discuss strategies to be proactive about these projected events in non-political ways?  Be active as a citizen to try to stop disasters but also be proactive in some sort of investment strategy trying to stay ahead of the curve figuring they will happen ...



> Are we headed to war with North Korea? Personally I think it is loud saber rattling by the little chubby guy in North Korea.



Unfortunately that's up to him not us.  It only takes one to start a fight.  When it happens either you're prepared or not but the choice to start fighting is made by the side that attacks not by the side that defends.  Pray for sanity my brothers.



> His people and his army are hungry.



This has never been a good combination across history.



> War is the last thing we need.



http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/war/

War  is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and  degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing  is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is  willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal  safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless  made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. 








*John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)*


----------



## jwhoff

Beat the drum slowly. Glorification of war is a very common thing.  It takes a stronger willed man to use logic and reason.  In the end, this man of strength wins.  

Don't be so quick to shed the blood of the youth of the world.  It will come back to haunt you in the person of those who somehow survive the mental and flesh wounds.  Awful things are learned in war.  The participants become bitter when they realize the actual fruits of war. Look into the eyes of those who actually went through "the shit" verses those who only paint themselves as heroes.  

Masonry hates war!  Read the wise who led us through the past.  What leg does this stand on?  Try the steps of the Good Shepard. 

Hold the lessons we learned from the Easter season next to your heart.  Forget those worthless testosterone commercials and talking heads you see on television.  They should remind the good mason more of the followers of Barabbas than those of the redeemer.  Then look at the objectives of the zealots verses that of the redeemer.  

Never look for the next war. The world is already weary.  Soon they will know you to be Rome itself.  Be quiet, speak softly and carry a big stick. Learn to share a little of the wealth ye men of entitlement.  Then, maybe, the world will look upon you as a friend once more.


----------



## jvarnell

cog41 said:


> We are headed toward financial ruin.
> 
> Are we headed to war with North Korea? Personally I think it is loud saber rattling by the little chubby guy in North Korea. His people and his army are hungry.
> Although it is pretty loud and one "mistake" by one side or the other could cause a bad situation to get worse.
> War is the last thing we need.


The ruin is from penalizing those who want to invest and just give it with out return to those who don't want to pursue a full days labor?
On the Korean thing should we have done something about it when the chubby guy dad started down this road? (my self I do)


----------



## jvarnell

dfreybur said:


> Early in the thread was a post that the world is moving from national to corporate. To the extent this is true it breaks so many previous models many mistakes will be made. To the extent this is true discussion of issues using a national model are fruitless in the international arena.
> 
> That said go through history and name a country that did deficit spending that didn't result in a disaster. Since about 1948 the only years with a balanced budget have not been years of decreased spending. They have been years of such huge economic booms spending could increase and the budget still balance. But countries that go through currency collapses do recover from the disaster.
> 
> Should we as Masons discuss strategies to be proactive about these projected events in non-political ways? Be active as a citizen to try to stop disasters but also be proactive in some sort of investment strategy trying to stay ahead of the curve figuring they will happen ...
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately that's up to him not us. It only takes one to start a fight. When it happens either you're prepared or not but the choice to start fighting is made by the side that attacks not by the side that defends. Pray for sanity my brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> This has never been a good combination across history.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/war/
> 
> War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)*



Yep.....


----------



## jvarnell

jwhoff said:


> Beat the drum slowly. Glorification of war is a very common thing. It takes a stronger willed man to use logic and reason. In the end, this man of strength wins.
> 
> Don't be so quick to shed the blood of the youth of the world. It will come back to haunt you in the person of those who somehow survive the mental and flesh wounds. Awful things are learned in war. The participants become bitter when they realize the actual fruits of war. Look into the eyes of those who actually went through "the shit" verses those who only paint themselves as heroes.
> 
> Masonry hates war! Read the wise who led us through the past. What leg does this stand on? Try the steps of the Good Shepard.
> 
> Hold the lessons we learned from the Easter season next to your heart. Forget those worthless testosterone commercials and talking heads you see on television. They should remind the good mason more of the followers of Barabbas than those of the redeemer. Then look at the objectives of the zealots verses that of the redeemer.
> 
> Never look for the next war. The world is already weary. Soon they will know you to be Rome itself. Be quiet, speak softly and carry a big stick. Learn to share a little of the wealth ye men of entitlement. Then, maybe, the world will look upon you as a friend once more.



The way that you use the word war is powerful but it can also be use in many other way that are wise also in Ecclesiastes 1.8 you will see there is a time for war.  I have looked into the eyes of some that have returned from war and I ask if he thought it was worth it, (he lost a leg) and he said if we are not will to help those oppressed people we will be oppressed by our own selfishness.  This brought tears to my eyes because I feel I am here to help and not hide and keep myself safe.


----------



## JJones

> We are headed toward financial ruin.



Yep, I believe this is inevitable.  We are repeating many of Rome's mistakes.



> Are we headed to war with North Korea? Personally I think it is loud saber rattling by the little chubby guy in North Korea. His people and his army are hungry.
> Although it is pretty loud and one "mistake" by one side or the other could cause a bad situation to get worse.
> War is the last thing we need.



I think Kim Sr. knew his people needed an enemy to blame for their suffering but he also knew better than to act on any threats.  I don't think Kim Jr. knows any better and I don't think he grasps the political situation or extent of the outcome that may result from the war he's pushing.



> Don't be so quick to shed the blood of the youth of the world. It will come back to haunt you in the person of those who somehow survive the mental and flesh wounds. Awful things are learned in war. The participants become bitter when they realize the actual fruits of war. Look into the eyes of those who actually went through "the shit" verses those who only paint themselves as heroes.



I agree.  War ruins a man.  The longer he's involved in it the more broken he will be when he gets home.  I don't think I've ever met a guy that was a better or more stable guy than he was before he deployed.



> Masonry hates war! Read the wise who led us through the past. What leg does this stand on? Try the steps of the Good Shepard.
> 
> Hold the lessons we learned from the Easter season next to your heart. Forget those worthless testosterone commercials and talking heads you see on television. They should remind the good mason more of the followers of Barabbas than those of the redeemer. Then look at the objectives of the zealots verses that of the redeemer.
> 
> Never look for the next war. The world is already weary. Soon they will know you to be Rome itself. Be quiet, speak softly and carry a big stick. Learn to share a little of the wealth ye men of entitlement. Then, maybe, the world will look upon you as a friend once more.



True words of wisdom my brother.


----------



## jwhoff

jvarnell said:


> The way that you use the word war is powerful but it can also be use in many other way that are wise also in Ecclesiastes 1.8 you will see there is a time for war. [/QUOT
> 
> Agreed brother.
> 
> That is precisely why we should always carry a big stick.  Just not always be so willing to wield it.


----------



## jvarnell

jwhoff said:


> jvarnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way that you use the word war is powerful but it can also be use in many other way that are wise also in Ecclesiastes 1.8 you will see there is a time for war. [/QUOT
> 
> Agreed brother.
> 
> That is precisely why we should always carry a big stick. Just not always be so willing to wield it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A big stick is not scary if never used.
> 
> You also have to look at the big picture each spot of contention in the world is not separate they may look like individual trees to use but they are a forest that needs to be managed.  If a limb of a tree gets rotten and falls on your head your knee jerk reaction maybe to cut down that tree because it is rotten.  But if you look at the trees around it and find the one that has the "tree borer" and is completely dead cut it down and then treat the first tree you will have more live trees.
> 
> This analogy is the same as in the mid east.  The unstablizing force of one will effect the others. If we would not have put up the big stick in Iraq, Afghanistan could have been more easly fixed and the others would have say mostly dormant.  But we pulled most of the collision out of Iraq and trying to treat the infection in Afghanistan.  The diseased keeps reinfecting from other sides now because they say you are not going to use that big stick we know.
> 
> I also see USA as a forest which can be infected from other forest thousands of miles away by the winds, birds or other methods.  We have a pandemic of terrorist.  To keep from being infected we have to help the others that are infected to get well.
Click to expand...


----------



## dfreybur

jwhoff said:


> jvarnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is precisely why we should always carry a big stick.  Just not always be so willing to wield it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll vary that a bit - That is precisely why we should always carry a big stick.  We should readily wield it but keep in mind "peace through strength" is its primary goal.  We should be very careful about swinging the big stick, especially to avoid being the first to do so.
Click to expand...


----------



## Michael Hatley

I think it is possible shark jumped the trees somewhere along the way :laugh:

But if we are talking about North Korea now (which I'm not entirely sure of, sorry), I'll chime in.  I'm taking the last political science class of my degree this semester, Intelligence Analysis.  The professor is a brother mason, retired CIA (30 years), and his father in law used to be secretary of state for South Korea.  Though cyber warfare is the area of intelligence I've focused on this semester, we discuss NK daily.

The prof is slow to give his views, so as not to stifle discussion - but when pressed on what we should do and what will happen comes down to "who knows".  And I think that is the only honest position - we are going to have to wait and see, and adjust daily.

Kim Jong Un appears to be a leader with about as much natural ability as Rick Perry, and a young Rick Perry at that.  It just is what it is.  He is trying to build cred with the military, who are of course the real leaders of NK - and he is painting himself into a corner with all his saber rattling to the point that if he doesn't take some sort of action now he will lose a tremendous amount of face with the junta.  

The logical thing for him to do would be to take the first opportunity that presents himself to say "AHA! There! I have made the West concede!" over event he smallest thing that he can successfully sell to his junta, and defuse the situation.

But the logical thing for Saddam Hussein to do back in 2002 would have been to say he didn't have WMDs and come clean, defuse the situation - if he didn't have them.  It was an insane idea to sell it to his own junta and the world that he had them if he did not, and so both our intelligence community and policymakers never really embraced it.  

That viewing the mindset of the enemy through what you yourself would do in their situation is what has caused catastrophic intelligence failures for us for a century - from completely missing that the Russians were as close as they were to a nuclear weapon back in the late 40s (at the time our estimates were for a decade or more out, at least, and then BAM, we had a nuclear rival overnight), to the Bay of Pigs, to a whole laundry list of out and out failures to read the enemy.

So it really is important to recognize that Kim Jong Un is not a brilliant statesman.  He just isn't.  It is entirely possible that some of us right here really are more capable men than he is.  And so he very well may not do what makes sense.

And Brethren, he could make a very vital mistake - just as Saddam did.  And this could very easily spiral out of control.  

What can we do?  Prepare for war.  Talk to China daily so that if we have to fight that we can hopefully cripple NK before China enters the fray in earnest.

NK has very little in the way of military logistics chains, and so they stand little chance of fighting a protracted war.  But if we have to go to war with them, we have to beat them very quickly and with very little civilian casualties and pray to God we can get the job done while China debates internally about what to do.

--edit, and btw - I agree wholeheartedly that we should avoid war at almost all costs.  A confrontation between us and China would be beyond catastrophic.  But the negotiating partner here is China, it isn't NK.  The only real thing we can do about NK is prepare to win if we have to fight.  And to engage the Chinese, put any shred of daylight between them and NK that can be found.  Even the smallest bit.  Reassert every day with the Chinese our desire for peace.

Just my views Brethren!


----------



## Brent Heilman

Also, I would think that if this situation does escalate to the point of conflict then I foresee another problem popping up trying to take advantage of the situation. That problem would be Iran. I can see them using this as an opportunity to get back at the "Zionists".


----------



## Michael Hatley

God help Iran if we get so embroiled in a war in NK that our only option is to turn Israel loose on them.


----------



## jvarnell

dfreybur said:


> jwhoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll vary that a bit - That is precisely why we should always carry a big stick. We should readily wield it but keep in mind "peace through strength" is its primary goal. We should be very careful about swinging the big stick, especially to avoid being the first to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the message from Bro. jwhuff you will see that is what he said. I think it needs to be used every so often so it is usefull.  It should not be sabor ratling.
Click to expand...


----------



## JJones

I thought some of you might enjoy this, seems pretty relevant.

[video=youtube;2K4pfiYK2IQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K4pfiYK2IQ&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## BryanMaloney

The Monsanto protection act is no different from all the other forms of legislative end-run that lots of large corporations get. Texas figures out all kinds of end-runs and exemptions for oil companies, after all. Where's the outrage for that?


----------



## Michael Neumann

We have a bunch of career politicians in the government that are out of touch with reality. Bill Clinton stated that the United States was founded to give freedom to the individual but we abused it so they have to take it away. Look, you were not elected to chastise us what a holier than thou attitude when you cannot even keep your pants up.  Here is something I recently emailed to another gentleman I was in a debate with in regards to my second amendment rights. I am but a simple Army brat from an enlisted family that attended the lowest performing schools the military and states had to offer. It wasn't until later in life that I understood the importance of education, thus most of my counterpoints will be made by others. 
Since our current leadership spent 2 years and had to form a special committee in order to figure out a way to save 600,000,000, or .015% from an at the time 4,000,000,000,000 budget, I will not pull any of their remarks. They are obviously the dumber than I am... and that says a lot.

Instead I am going to draw heavily from our founding fathers and the Federalist Papers which were issued during the time our constitution was first in effect with the intent of clarifying the meaning of various sections within our documents. In addition I am going to draw from major world events and what transpired shortly before the action began.

I will lead off with a statement from one of my favorite founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson "On every question of the construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning might be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (The Complete Jefferson, p.322)

In the 2008 Maryland case removed the requirement for participation in a standing militia but the founding fathers seem to think that is a mistake "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the   establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever   Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people,   they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an   army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,   spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I   Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

This early statement by Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts rings true is you consider the US Army Military Police training manual for â€œCivil Disturbance Operationsâ€ and there is already legislation that sees the National Guard taken from Governors. You stated above that the National Guard was our militia right? So if the Military AND our Militia are under federal control who might I ask protects us? 

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is   that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist   Papers at 184-8)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing   degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?   Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and   under our direction, and having them under the management of   Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms,   in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal   safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot,   Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,   1836)

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
 - St. George Tucker


Fall of countries - 

History has seen a number of countries fall from grace and become a dictatorship. Marxism sounds great on paper but due to human nature is proven invalid in practice. First we visit Hitler's Germany who see the Weimar Republic disarm them and Hitler pass more stringent laws in 1938.  If you look at Stalin, who actually killed more people than Hitler, you will see his government instituted Art. 182 of the Penal Code. 

Janet Reno stated "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." 



Chimpanzees & the Frontier- 

In your first email you mention Chimpanzees displaying the same aggression as humans. This is great because it goes along with the speakers very point, humans are capable of greater evil and any animal could imagine, even a chimp. There have been a number of daylight rapes of women and children in areas where guns have been taken from the hands of citizens, "Muslim Gang *Rapes* a Coptic Christian Girl in Broad *Daylight* While Chanting..."  . A quick search pulls "brutal March 2004 attack that left the woman in a coma for about five days." and a 73 year old woman raped in broad daylight in "safe" New York. Would it not have been nice if these people were armed?


Cannons, Jets, and Tanks - 

 "...the ancient Carthaginians had consented to â€œdeliver up all their  Arms to the Romansâ€ and were decimated by the Romans soon after. "..." The  Massachusetts Provincial Congress offered to purchase as many arms and bayonets  as could be delivered to the next session of the Congress. Massachusetts also  urged American gunsmiths â€œdiligently to apply themselvesâ€ to making guns for  everyone who did not already have a gun. A  few weeks earlier, the Congress had resolved: â€œThat it be strongly recommended,  to all the inhabitants of this colony, to be diligently attentive to learning  the use of arms . . . .â€ 

You and I both know that when our founding fathers said "firearms" they meant just that so this was a silly remark. What is not silly though is first understanding that American Revolutionary Troops were initially armed with the same weaponry as the British.  Shortly before war began we began using rifles, a comparison of Revolutionary Hunting Rifles compared to British Muskets of war.


Revolutionary rifle -  .45 caliber and a range of up to 500 Yards
British smooth bore Brown - .75 caliber and a range of 50-100 Yards

The soon to be BANNED JR Arms 9mm Carbine that converts to a .40 and .45 is a beautiful weapon - gives you about 230fps more velocity than a hand gun and is useless after 150 Yards.
The NOT BANNED Winchester .308 is a great hunting and sniping rifles - gives you 2860fps, almost double the carbine, and has a range of 800 Yards with the USMC preaching 1000+ Yards

The ban is not about the weapons, it is not about the kids, it is about the first step.

Michael


----------

