Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

(09-07-2016, 03:52 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(08-30-2016, 10:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-30-2016, 03:14 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(08-26-2016, 10:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I think he's in Maine, but he probably doesn't want to say.

You should learn to cherish anonymity. Did you know that, thanks to the FCC, your home address is quite easy to find with the simple Google search?

I'm not too worried about who might find me. Should I be??

If you value your identity and privacy, yes. Identity theft is a very real thing these days. People who share a bit too much info about themselves online is a personal pet peeve of mine (say that five times fast). But hey, it's your data. Do as you will with it at your own peril.

OK, I'll remember that. I do take some caution with putting my data on-line. I have been a victim of identity theft myself a few times. I don't think what I have put on here has or would cause me any problem. I'm not worried about Taramarie or Odin or kinser or Galen comin' to get me.

[Eric the Green]

(09-07-2016, 03:50 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Bob Butler 54

Warren Dew
That's okay. I perceive reality differently than most people too. He's a blue boomer, I'm a red pill boomer.

Good enough. This might provide you two with long term entertainment possibilities.

I hope you don't mind if I run and hide? I'd been playing the roll you're taking. If this were the WWE, I'd tag my partner and head for the locker room.

----

I can't promise to hold down the fort, I'm afraid. I'm not really here to argue politics for fun; there are other forums I use for that. I'm hoping rather to explore the implications of the Strauss-Howe generational theory for the coming crisis and the subsequent cycle with others who are used to thinking in those terms.

Have at it. I doubt politics can be entirely separated from those implications, alas. But the gun debate in particular is tiresome, so I don't mind if you desert "your post." I would not spend too much time on it either, myself. And contrary to what the thread says, I didn't start it. The moderator split it off as off topic, and attributed it to me. That's not surprising; I doubt there's another topic that insets itself where it doesn't belong more often than the gun debate.

the WWE = world wrestling entertainment?

[Eric the Green]

(09-07-2016, 03:47 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(08-30-2016, 10:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Quote:I could drop you off in wild places where you wouldn't make it back to civilization alive. You don't understand power or nature. You certainly aren't ready for the responsibility that comes with it. You've barely even left home in your lifetime.

Maybe; maybe not. How would you know?

Quote:Your politics have chained you to the to the arrogant notion of wilderness as just another human resource to be controlled rather than understood and embracing your connection to it. That's a big part of the problem. As I've often said, when you folks run out of water don't bother coming east.

My politics has not caused me to have a view about Nature; Nature causes me to have a view about politics. I know that your anarchist, pro-business philosophy is the greatest threat to Nature that exists. It's the corporate world that looks at Nature as another human resource to be controlled; not green, semi-hippies like me.

Frankly it's pretty easy to tell the difference between life-long urban dwellers and their rural opposites.

Semi-hippy? I was raised by total hippies. The family farm was essentially a hippy commune in the 70's. My grandmother was fond of collecting strays (both people and animals). It made for an interesting childhood. It was never a political thing and still isn't. It was a family thing. Politics is just an arbitrary construct used to derive power from the many for the few. The resulting divisiveness is an important part of the bread and circuses you so desperately cling to. Funny that while you grew up during the time of hippies, all these years later you clearly never got it.

Safe to say you're not a hippie now. Hippies are NOT gun-toters, and they don't shoot animals. Or so I claim.

Politics is not necessarily a hippie thing, I do get it, actually. It was dropping out. Some of us boomers did that. I can see that influence in you, clearly. Hippies were utopians who didn't believe in institutions; that it could all just "happen."

I had a different background though; my parents were definitely NOT hippies, but politically-inclined liberal materialist pacifists. You have probably read my essay on my Dad. But my observations make it perfectly clear that it's not true that "Politics is just an arbitrary construct used to derive power from the many for the few." It's quite the reverse. Unless we all become spiritual hippies (and you are not one of those either), there's no hope whatever that just letting things happen will work.

You know my point of view by now. Without politics of a liberal progressive kind, the people are left at the mercy of the greedy and powerful. There's no doubt about that, whatever anarchist or libertarian arguments you might try to muster. The facts are clear that we need to state to protect us from outlaws, brigands and big business. They are the ones who derive power from the many for the few. The alternative is always barbarism, unless we all become like Jesus and his early communes. Even then, organization of some kind is needed and inevitable.

Art historian Kenneth Clark famously said, "one doesn't need to be young to dislike institutions" (referring to us boomers in our youth). "But the dreary fact remains that society must be made to work." "A great many of the horrors (of the French Revolution) were simply due to, anarchy. It is a most attractive political doctrine" he said. Reluctantly, I came to agree with him, when he said, "but I'm afraid it's too optimistic. The men of 1793 tried desperately to control anarchy by violence, and were destroyed by the evil means they brought into existence."

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-07-2016, 06:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Point being, you seemed to imply Eric and I, living in the Bay Area, have no concept of nature or dealing with rural settings. Sure we have big cities here in the Western US, but you get into the back country quick here. Want a work out? I've got some timber to clear out at the back part of my place. Or I could put you to work over at the side, where it's a south facing canyon wall dense with chaparral. Need a defensible space restored over there.

Uh, that's too much work.  Brushfires are a better way of clearing out unwanted plants like chaparral. Maybe that hurricane made it moist enough for ya to do it without setting the whole state on fire.

[pbrower2a]

I will say this: if I lived in bear country or cougar country I would definitely pack iron.

[Copperfield]

(09-07-2016, 07:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well yes, I agree. And Jefferson said a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing too. Maybe so. But this was not something that was ever going to be put into the Constitution. A government does not give a people the right to disobey its constitution or its laws. Such a revolution has to be unconstitutional, and the rebels must be ready to pay the price for their rebellion. Dixie paid the price and it wasn't pretty.

Nowadays, unlike in Jefferson's time, the influence of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have entered the picture. In an at-least semi-civilized society like ours, non-violent revolutions work better. In places like Syria, no. The non-violent protesters needed to form an army, and they did.

They didn't need to. It was already stated up front in the declaration of independence. I suspect they felt it might be redundant after they had just finished, you know, removing the previous government with violence.

Still going along with the non-violence mythologies? India's revolution against the British (the one that led to final independence) was actually quite violent, marked by bombings, raids, acts of sabotage, mutiny and even political assassination against British military and political figures. It was quite the opposite of Hollywood's treatment of the story. Gandhi and his particular civil disobedience movement was only a part of Indian Independence. India's overthrow of British rule is actually historically fascinating once you get past the silly American mythologies. It's remarkable for it not only being a giant cluster fuck but also for taking nearly 200 years from start to finish.

(09-06-2016, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'm not so sure you can say the government has declared war on its own citizens. Generation X hyperbole; a common thing you are expressing, although I don't think the majority of Xers feel that way. Yes  it has done some things that I would agree with you are not proper conduct on US citizens. I'm not sure it has ever been any different.

Of course I can. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on terrorism (just to name a few). I mean the government even calls them war by name. And these are just the ones they publically name. Let's play a quick game of War Zone or Missouri!




Look like a war zone to you? That's what our government does when it wants to practice cracking down on free speech. Just wait until they get really serious about it.

(09-06-2016, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Why did it call specifically for setting one up, then?

Article I, Section 8 calls on Congress to provide for a standing Navy (that is full-time) but specifically only allows for a maximum of two years of appropriations for a standing army. Note that there is no such mention of a time limit on either the US navy or militia. When the constitution was written there was a major distrust for standing armies (Bob has already been over this with you in greater detail). Indeed for great periods of time there hasn't been a standing army in the United States, usually being disbanded once a particular war was over. That all changed after the world wars and the United States became a military and economic empire (another reason standing armies are bad mmkay?). Hell Congress doesn't even bother deliberating on appropriations anymore. Nearly the entire process is done through the Pentagon and through the Armed Services committee.

Problem is, once you've more or less conquered the entire world you run out of bad guys to fight with all that army. No surprise that, in addition to record weapon sales to foreign nations and fomenting violence in resource rich nations, our government has started to turn its hostility inward eyeing its own citizens.

(09-06-2016, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, and the Kurds get US backing. And the Kurds are not anarchist fanatics who hate their autonomous regional state, and merely want to protect their right to bear arms. They are real freedom fighters and deserve our support.

Uhhh yeah... You really should start reading about some of the dogs in the fight over there. You might start learning from the experiences and experiments of others.

[Eric the Green]

(09-07-2016, 10:36 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 07:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well yes, I agree. And Jefferson said a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing too. Maybe so. But this was not something that was ever going to be put into the Constitution. A government does not give a people the right to disobey its constitution or its laws. Such a revolution has to be unconstitutional, and the rebels must be ready to pay the price for their rebellion. Dixie paid the price and it wasn't pretty.

Nowadays, unlike in Jefferson's time, the influence of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have entered the picture. In an at-least semi-civilized society like ours, non-violent revolutions work better. In places like Syria, no. The non-violent protesters needed to form an army, and they did.

They didn't need to. It was already stated up front in the declaration of independence. I suspect they felt it might be redundant after they had just finished, you know, removing the previous government with violence.

Still going along with the non-violence mythologies? India's revolution against the British (the one that led to final independence) was actually quite violent, marked by bombings, raids, acts of sabotage, mutiny and even political assassination against British military and political figures. It was quite the opposite of Hollywood's treatment of the story. Gandhi and his particular civil disobedience movement was only a part of Indian Independence. India's overthrow of British rule is actually historically fascinating once you get past the silly American mythologies. It's remarkable for it not only being a giant cluster fuck but also for taking nearly 200 years from start to finish.

Gandhi was quite influential on the way revolutions have been conducted since Martin Luther King Jr. and the sixties. It's the way to do it now, and has been copied all over the world. It depends on how ruthless the tyrant is, however.

Gandhi was clearly the leader of his movement; that's why he was elected India's first president, and succeeded by his chief deputy.

Quote:

(09-06-2016, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'm not so sure you can say the government has declared war on its own citizens. Generation X hyperbole; a common thing you are expressing, although I don't think the majority of Xers feel that way. Yes  it has done some things that I would agree with you are not proper conduct on US citizens. I'm not sure it has ever been any different.

Of course I can. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on terrorism (just to name a few). I mean the government even calls them war by name. And these are just the ones they publically name.

No, the war on poverty was great; the only thing wrong with it was that it was stopped in order to focus on the war on the Vietnamese, and then Reaganomics. The war on drugs is unnecessary and counter-productive, but the main casualties are poor people shooting each other because the war on drugs has made the business so profitable. The war on crime? Criminals have to be stopped. The gangsters have been largely put out of business in this long "war," and crime is down. However, many innocent people have been convicted because they are presumed guilty even if proved innocent. The police are left as the only social workers available because of Reaganomic approaches to poverty and alienation. The "war on terrorism" is problematic. The terrorists have to be stopped, but preemptive wars should also be stopped. But if a "citizen" is a criminal, or a terrorist, then the "war" on that citizen is justified. Unjustified attacks happen when civil rights are violated. But I understand about calling all these projects "wars." They are just law enforcement, or reforms (the war on poverty). "War" is a metaphor Americans are used to, but better ones are needed. I don't agree that we should just let crime and terrorism happen. A Laissez faire approach to crime and terror is just the state not doing the job it's supposed to do, and empowered to do under the Constitution.

Quote:

(09-06-2016, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Why did it call specifically for setting one up, then?

Article I, Section 8 calls on Congress to provide for a standing Navy (that is full-time) but specifically only allows for a maximum of two years of appropriations for a standing army. Note that there is no such mention of a time limit on either the US navy or militia. When the constitution was written there was a major distrust for standing armies (Bob has already been over this with you in greater detail). Indeed for great periods of time there hasn't been a standing army in the United States, usually being disbanded once a particular war was over. That all changed after the world wars and the United States became a military and economic empire (another reason standing armies are bad mmkay?). Hell Congress doesn't even bother deliberating on appropriations anymore. Nearly the entire process is done through the Pentagon and through the Armed Services committee.

Problem is, once you've more or less conquered the entire world you run out of bad guys to fight with all that army. No surprise that, in addition to record weapon sales to foreign nations and fomenting violence in resource rich nations, our government has started to turn its hostility inward eyeing its own citizens.

My point stands though, that the constitution provides for an army, and appropriations every 2 years is not a problem, as you point out. It's routine. So they hardly did anything, given their "distrust." And the Navy is a standing "army" too. But the militia is also a standing army, and the gun nut army is not even "well-regulated." Those who go out and shoot police are no substitute for regulated forces.

Generation X hyperbole says that the shooting of citizens by police is "our government" in action, part of a deliberate attempt to wage war on Americans. It is not; it is mis-behavior not dealt with. There are still real threats to the USA. Many of them exist because of the fact that the US has become so aggressive and powerful since World War Two; that's true. Military spending took us out of the Depression, and I wrote long ago in my book that the cure was probably worse than the disease. The Democrats, unlike Trump and Republicans, understand the need to spend less on the military and intervene less unless our interests are directly threatened. We still need armed forces, but international security should now be a multi-lateral concern and not the actions of one sole superpower. The Democratic adminstrations have been moving us in that direction, if not all the way, while Republican administrations have kept the imperialist approach going and developed projects for a new American Century.

Quote:

(09-06-2016, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, and the Kurds get US backing. And the Kurds are not anarchist fanatics who hate their autonomous regional state, and merely want to protect their right to bear arms. They are real freedom fighters and deserve our support.

Uhhh yeah... You really should start reading about some of the dogs in the fight over there. You might start learning from the experiences and experiments of others.

"Abdullah Öcalan, a Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) leader imprisoned in İmralı, Turkey, is an iconic and popular figure in Rojava whose ideas shaped the region's society and politics.[64] In prison, Öcalan corresponded with (and was influenced by the ideas of) Murray Bookchin, who favored social ecology, direct democracy, and libertarian municipalism (i.e., a confederation of local citizens' assemblies).[64] In March 2005, Öcalan issued his "Declaration of Democratic Confederalism in Kurdistan" based on Bookchin's ideas, calling upon citizens to "to stop attacking the government and instead create municipal assemblies, which he called 'democracy without the state.'" Öcalan envisioned these assemblies as forming a pan-Kurdistan confederation, united for purposes of self-defense and with shared values of environmentalism, gender equality, and ethnic, cultural, and religious pluralism.[64] The ideas of Bookchin and Öcalan became established in Rojava, where hundreds of neighborhood-based communes have established across the three Rojava cantons.[64] Rojava has a "co-governance" policy in which each position at each level of government in Rojava includes a "female equivalent of equal authority" to a male."

Sounds cool. I've known about Bookchin since the 1970s.

"In March 2016, Hediya Yousef and Mansur Selum were elected co-chairpersons for the executive committee to organise a constitution for the region, to replace the 2014 constitution.[10] Yousef said the decision to set up a federal government was in large part driven by the expansion of territories captured from Islamic State: "Now, after the liberation of many areas, it requires us to go to a wider and more comprehensive system that can embrace all the developments in the area, that will also give rights to all the groups to represent themselves and to form their own administrations."[69] In July 2016, a draft for the new constitution was presented, taking up the general progressive and democratic confereralist principles of the 2014 constitution, mentioning all ethnic groups living in Rojava, addressing their cultural, political and linguistic rights"

Not exactly unorganized, stateless anarchism consisting of mere individuals at war with their own state.

[Copperfield]

(09-07-2016, 07:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Safe to say you're not a hippie now.

I'm an Xer. I'm a pragmatist, so I take bits and pieces of things that work and put them together with other things that also work to come up with new things that work. In some ways I am a hippy, in others I'm not. It was not my time or my movement.

Now one of my aunts on the other hand was the grand champion arch-hippy (at least until her death). She was a professional thief, flower-child, fierce feminist, militant lesbian, hunter/gatherer, mechanic, DIYer and world adventurer, all wrapped up in a genius-level IQ. Among her life achievements were (and these are just a few samples) never paying her taxes or college loans (while collecting SSI benefits - always cracks me up thinking about it), caring for abused women, sneaking into the Soviet Union and having her finger ripped off by a wild horse. When 5 year old me was fascinated with the Mt. Saint Helens eruption, she went out to the fucking still-active volcano and brought me back a vial full of ash (I still have it somewhere). To this day I still don't really know if she was crazy or just that much smarter than everyone else (or both). She was however more hippy than most of the rest of the hippy movement combined. There are few people that have lived a life as free as she did.

(09-07-2016, 07:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Hippies are NOT gun-toters, and they don't shoot animals. Or so I claim.

They do when they are hungry. But then my dad grew up poor and learned to live off the land.

(09-07-2016, 07:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You know my point of view by now. Without politics of a liberal progressive kind, the people are left at the mercy of the greedy and powerful. There's no doubt about that, whatever anarchist or libertarian arguments you might try to muster. The facts are clear that we need to state to protect us from outlaws, brigands and big business. They are the ones who derive power from the many for the few. The alternative is always barbarism, unless we all become like Jesus and his early communes. Even then, organization of some kind is needed and inevitable.

It's your mantra. Keep repeating it and maybe Beetlejuice will appear. For my part, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate any knowledge of your bullet points or even a basic ability to define the croutons in your salad. Until then by all means, please continue to try to terrify the children with those scary bedtime stories.

[Eric the Green]

Wow, you talk about me needing to get out more. You really should acquaint yourself with American history Copperfield; the strike-breaking thugs at Ford and Carnegie, the child labor, the low wages, the fight for unions at the auto plants by the CIO, the deaths in sweatshops from New York in 1911 to Bangladesh today, the pollution of our rivers and lakes by business, the impact of coal on climate change, the robber barons who gouge customers and force competitors out of business, the discrimination against women, the unsafe cars and other products, the lobbyists who take over our government; my goodness I'm sure I could go on all day about what unregulated business does. These guys are not hippies or angels who can be trusted to just be let alone and not pay taxes. Climb out of your wilderness and find out what goes on in the rest of the country. Read People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and then get back to me on this.

[Eric the Green]

It's off the subject, but I can't resist dealing with the can of worms that Copperfield opened up here. He honestly believes we don't need the government to regulate business, because the facts of what happens when we don't are "scary bedtime stories." Well, how about it; do you want no regulation of the internet, and instead just let business do what it wants? The people said No!

(quoting the email I just got)

Dear Avaaz movement,

For 7 years we've fought corporate giants to save the internet, and it's looking like WE'VE WON!!!!!

First in the US, then Brazil, India and now here's what the top French official (and key swing vote) told us last week before he announced the EU law safeguarding the internet for half a billion people:

Sebastien Soriano
"I must confess that some of these tweets and messages that I received made me emotional... people asking me to "Save the Internet" and "Stop corporate capture..." I really wanted to respond to them."
-- Sebastien Soriano, Head of French Internet Regulator ARCEP
Officials announcing the law showed charts of unprecedented numbers of public comments - up to 640 per minute, the overwhelming majority from Avaaz!

Corporations wanted a fast internet for the mega-rich, and a slow one for the rest of us. We fought for the principle of "net neutrality" - equal internet for all!

It was a global fight that ranged across 7 years and 4 continents:

Net Neutrality US
United States - 2.5 million of us join a US Senator who threatened to block discussion by reading our signatures out from the Senate floor! The legislation dies. WIN!

Net Neutrality India
India - Avaaz partners with national campaign groups, with tens of thousands of our Indian members joining a call to the Telecoms minister. WIN!

Net Neutrality Brazil
Brazil - Large numbers of parliamentarians actually join our campaign, helping to pass "the Marco Civil - the most advanced law to protect the internet in the world." WIN!

Net Neutrality EU
Europe - Telecoms giants launch a massive push to get loopholes in our hard won net neutrality law. We stop them. The press doesn't normally tell happy stories, but this is one they're raving about. Read about the latest victory for people power in Reuters, Tagesspiegel, Politico, EFE, Euractiv and the Wall Street Journal. WIN!

The internet is more than just another issue. It's a profound empowerment of human beings to connect us to each other. Net inequality would have channeled that power to the rich few - their websites would have loaded much faster and worked better than small businesses, bloggers, or nonprofits like Avaaz.

But we used the power of our connection to defend connection itself, and net neutrality is now the standard for the internet everywhere.

And that's a sign of hope for every challenge the world faces. Because as long as we stick together, and stay connected, we CAN build the world we all dream of.

With joy and gratitude,

Ricken, Alice, Ben, Luca, Pascal, Emma, Fatima, Wissam and the whole Avaaz team

[Odin]

(09-07-2016, 10:36 PM)Copperfield Wrote: Article I, Section 8 calls on Congress to provide for a standing Navy (that is full-time) but specifically only allows for a maximum of two years of appropriations for a standing army. Note that there is no such mention of a time limit on either the US navy or militia. When the constitution was written there was a major distrust for standing armies (Bob has already been over this with you in greater detail). Indeed for great periods of time there hasn't been a standing army in the United States, usually being disbanded once a particular war was over. That all changed after the world wars and the United States became a military and economic empire (another reason standing armies are bad mmkay?). Hell Congress doesn't even bother deliberating on appropriations anymore. Nearly the entire process is done through the Pentagon and through the Armed Services committee.

Problem is, once you've more or less conquered the entire world you run out of bad guys to fight with all that army. No surprise that, in addition to record weapon sales to foreign nations and fomenting violence in resource rich nations, our government has started to turn its hostility inward eyeing its own citizens.

There is a parallel to the late Roman Republic, here. Rome did not have a standing army until it's increasingly large empire forced it to.

[Eric the Green]

(09-07-2016, 09:06 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 06:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Point being, you seemed to imply Eric and I, living in the Bay Area, have no concept of nature or dealing with rural settings. Sure we have big cities here in the Western US, but you get into the back country quick here. Want a work out? I've got some timber to clear out at the back part of my place. Or I could put you to work over at the side, where it's a south facing canyon wall dense with chaparral. Need a defensible space restored over there.

Uh, that's too much work.  Brushfires are a better way of clearing out unwanted plants like chaparral. Maybe that hurricane made it moist enough for ya to do it without setting the whole state on fire.

As Hank Williams said, "settin' the woods on fire!"

[Copperfield]

(09-08-2016, 02:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Wow, you talk about me needing to get out more. You really should acquaint yourself with American history Copperfield; the strike-breaking thugs at Ford and Carnegie, the child labor, the low wages, the fight for unions at the auto plants by the CIO, the deaths in sweatshops from New York in 1911 to Bangladesh today, the pollution of our rivers and lakes by business, the impact of coal on climate change, the robber barons who gouge customers and force competitors out of business, the discrimination against women, the unsafe cars and other products, the lobbyists who take over our government; my goodness I'm sure I could go on all day about what unregulated business does. These guys are not hippies or angels who can be trusted to just be let alone and not pay taxes. Climb out of your wilderness and find out what goes on in the rest of the country. Read People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and then get back to me on this.

Honestly Eric, we've covered this ground before. When we did I recommended that you research what business charters are, who grants them, the rights granted by those charters and who protects and encourages those rights granted in those charters (long story short - learn what LLC means and get back to me once you understand the concept). The most amusing thing is that you still purchase things made in sweatshops by major polluters (you just don't know it) having long supported the outsourcing of those naughty things to foreign nations in an attempt ease your own conscience. These sort of things go on because of regulation. It's one of the primary features of government regulation.

Keep at it though. I'm sure one day you will be able to name an actual "unregulated" business. At that point we can discuss it. I'm sure it will be fun.

[Copperfield]

(09-08-2016, 07:22 AM)Odin Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 10:36 PM)Copperfield Wrote: Article I, Section 8 calls on Congress to provide for a standing Navy (that is full-time) but specifically only allows for a maximum of two years of appropriations for a standing army. Note that there is no such mention of a time limit on either the US navy or militia. When the constitution was written there was a major distrust for standing armies (Bob has already been over this with you in greater detail). Indeed for great periods of time there hasn't been a standing army in the United States, usually being disbanded once a particular war was over. That all changed after the world wars and the United States became a military and economic empire (another reason standing armies are bad mmkay?). Hell Congress doesn't even bother deliberating on appropriations anymore. Nearly the entire process is done through the Pentagon and through the Armed Services committee.

Problem is, once you've more or less conquered the entire world you run out of bad guys to fight with all that army. No surprise that, in addition to record weapon sales to foreign nations and fomenting violence in resource rich nations, our government has started to turn its hostility inward eyeing its own citizens.

There is a parallel to the late Roman Republic, here. Rome did not have a standing army until it's increasingly large empire forced it to.

I suspect the evolution of our country (meaning the general people and land mass) ultimately will resemble a little bit Rome and a little bit China. Reason being: we have the multi-ethnic melting pot of Rome and the nationalistic tendencies of China. Not a bad thing really. A good mix of east and west. We will see where it takes us. It will almost certainly be something new.

[Eric the Green]

I suspect we face a choice; to advance, or go into the trash can. That choice is spelled D for drive or R for reverse.

[Eric the Green]

(09-13-2016, 05:06 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(09-08-2016, 02:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Wow, you talk about me needing to get out more. You really should acquaint yourself with American history Copperfield; the strike-breaking thugs at Ford and Carnegie, the child labor, the low wages, the fight for unions at the auto plants by the CIO, the deaths in sweatshops from New York in 1911 to Bangladesh today, the pollution of our rivers and lakes by business, the impact of coal on climate change, the robber barons who gouge customers and force competitors out of business, the discrimination against women, the unsafe cars and other products, the lobbyists who take over our government; my goodness I'm sure I could go on all day about what unregulated business does. These guys are not hippies or angels who can be trusted to just be let alone and not pay taxes. Climb out of your wilderness and find out what goes on in the rest of the country. Read People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and then get back to me on this.

Honestly Eric, we've covered this ground before. When we did I recommended that you research what business charters are, who grants them, the rights granted by those charters and who protects and encourages those rights granted in those charters (long story short - learn what LLC means and get back to me once you understand the concept). The most amusing thing is that you still purchase things made in sweatshops by major polluters (you just don't know it) having long supported the outsourcing of those naughty things to foreign nations in an attempt ease your own conscience. These sort of things go on because of regulation. It's one of the primary features of government regulation.

Keep at it though. I'm sure one day you will be able to name an actual "unregulated" business. At that point we can discuss it. I'm sure it will be fun.

The old saw of "business charters" and who gives them is really tiring. You cling to that like a Magna Charta of libertarianism. No, giving someone a charter does not make someone a greedy monopolist or oligarch who drives other businesses out of business and commits fraud and abuse of customers, workers and the environment, and outsources work in order to hire cheap labor. You have to be a greedy, unregulated businessman to do that. And they do that without any help from the government. But to further enable these greedy businessmen, you have to have Republicans and libertarians in office to repeal regulations and taxes on them, accomplish "tort reform" so they can't be sued, and institute "free trade" to facilitate outsourcing. Read up on it; it's about time you did. It's pretty simple, once you get past the deliberate obfuscation practiced by libertarians and greedy anarchists like the Koch Brothers (who were actual Libertarian Party candidates; why do you think that was???).

You won't read up on it, though, because you are ideologically locked. And they say prophets and boomers are locked and righteous; Gen Xers need to look in the mirror at their own stubborn foolishness, and stop pointing fingers at boomers and start pointing the finger back at themselves.

An "anarchist" like you Copperfield says that all businesses are "regulated." Sure, a proprietor must file a Schedule C tax return, and if (s)he is very law-abiding, may even go get a local business license. A corporation must have articles of incorporation registered by the state. But that is not what anyone else but maybe libertarians and anarchists mean by "regulation." Such a license or incorporation does not give it a license to pollute a river, employ an illegal, pay below minimum wage, defy working conditions standards, emit a huge carbon footprint, defy consumer standards or fuel mileage standards, gamble in secret with other peoples' money, or any of those good things that you anarchists want business to be free to do if it wants. Those actual "regulations" depend on whether Republicans or Democrats are elected to office. If the former, business gets off scot free and can do all those good things like pollute rivers and pay workers a pittance, etc. AND IF REPUBLICANS ARE ELECTED, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THESE CREEPS DO! If Democrats are elected, then these creeps must follow the regulations and treat their fellow beings with respect. It's that simple!

[Anthony '58]

But don't be so down on tort reform.  It is actually the Fourth Turning solution to the Third Turning problem being highlighted by Black Lives Matter: The reason cops almost never "knee-cap" non-gun-wielding black suspects is because they fear that there would be lawsuits against both the individual police officer and the department as a whole if they did.  

Tort reform would solve this problem - and just a couple of nights ago in the Bronx, a white police officer actually did "knee-cap" a knife-wielding, mentally-ill Hispanic subject; and a couple of weeks ago I saw a re-run of the '90s TV series Real Stories of the Highway Patrol in which a white Florida state trooper "knee-capped" a knife-wielding white suspect.

So Colin Kaepernick et al should be going to their state capitols to lobby for said tort reform, instead of engaging in behavior that scores of millions of older conservatives and national liberals conflate with advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

[Eric the Green]

(09-16-2016, 10:20 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: But don't be so down on tort reform.  It is actually the Fourth Turning solution to the Third Turning problem being highlighted by Black Lives Matter: The reason cops almost never "knee-cap" non-gun-wielding black suspects is because they fear that there would be lawsuits against both the individual police officer and the department as a whole if they did.  

Tort reform would solve this problem - and just a couple of nights ago in the Bronx, a white police officer actually did "knee-cap" a knife-wielding, mentally-ill Hispanic subject; and a couple of weeks ago I saw a re-run of the '90s TV series Real Stories of the Highway Patrol in which a white Florida state trooper "knee-capped" a knife-wielding white suspect.

So Colin Kaepernick et al should be going to their state capitols to lobby for said tort reform, instead of engaging in behavior that scores of millions of older conservatives and national liberals conflate with advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

No, tort reform usually means making it harder for citizens to sue businesses that misbehave. I don't know of a movement to make it EASIER for citizens to sue cops, but I'm sure it's something black lives matter would agree with. But not standing during the national anthem is the right of a citizen in a free country. If everyone must stand and salute, that's Nazi Germany. And why must the anthem be played at every ballgame? What a bore! America has nothing to do with ball games, beyond the obvious similarity of "rooting" for the home teams, whether your country or your town. Real Americans demand that the government treat its citizens with respect and care. Standing when an anthem is played doesn't accomplish this at all. Again, I refer you to Martin Luther King Jr. I guess you didn't watch the first time I posted it. It takes you a long time to get something.

So, listen up pal!

[Eric the Green]

[pbrower2a]

Whoever it was who asked about when the National Anthem started being played at sporting events -- it was 1918, during World War I.

http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/6957...n-magazine

An interesting side:

Goshen College, associated with the Mennonites (a Peace Church), has chosen to substitute America the Beautiful  for the Star-Spangled Banner at college sporting events because America the Beautiful  has no references to war .

Now here's a really bloodthirsty national anthem, one dropped after the country was defeated in World War II:


Maritsa rushes,
stained with blood,
A widow wails,
fiercely wounded.

Chorus:
March, march,
with our general,
Let's fly into battle
and crush the enemy!
Forward!

Bulgarians,
the whole world is watching.
Into a winning battle,
let's gloriously go.

Chorus

The Balkan lion
into a titanic battle
with enemy's hordes
leads us, flying.

Chorus

Young and strong,
in the rattle of battle
We're destined to gain
laurels to claim.

Chorus

We're the nation,
for pride, freedom,
for dear fatherland
who knows how to die.

[i]Chorus

[/i]It well fits a culture of exaggerated nationalism