opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 3, 2012 20:30:31 GMT -5
In defining the patriot community, O often refer to a line that goes from left to right, absent any political affiliation. On the left end, we have those just now beginning to realize that something is amiss with government. As we move to the right, we see that there are many moving toward the right, some slower, same faster. At the extreme right re those who have had enough. I'll not mention any names for a number of reasons, but these are those who are past the point of reconciliation. They have, if you have read Sons of Liberty #14, recognized that government has divested them by failure to abide by the Constitution. On the left, however, there are those that believe that a political party will be the salvation -- boy, do they have ea lot to learn. Now, along this line, there are many people with many capabilities. It was back in 1993, when I was young enough and willing enough to pick up a rifle, that others encouraged me to continue investigating and writing. It seemed that they felt that that was my place -- as far as capabilities, and I have endeavored to serve their wishes, as best I can, since then. So, back to the line. Those towards the right have learned what those towards the left have not. Now, what I have to teach is over the head of those who have just entered the line. But, there are many towards the right that can learn and benefit from what I can teach. They, in turn, can pass on what they have learned to those not to far to the left of them, and so on, down the line. This is not much different from the early school systems in this country where each level up taught the level below it. Now, it is a good system, however the government knows that it is a good system and they have found a means of disruption (read my article, "Vortex", in Campfires, probably on page 2, now, or, here: www.outpost-of-freedom.com/Vortex.htm . They will lead people astray and create confusion and division. This has been going on since, at least, the early eighties, when I began to get involved. If they can get people to chase phantoms, they have taken away from our effectiveness. This is discussed in "Divide and Conquer" www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=102 . So, with that understanding, perhaps the number of years that you mention will be reduced, considerably. Our greatest handicap is the rate of entry into the community is so great that the majority is always well toward the left. If you want a single focus, it is to educate those on that end as rapidly as possible, and, without the mythology.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 4, 2012 4:11:42 GMT -5
Again, obviously you and I are on the same path... and just like a good friend, who although a brain dead liberal, still has the same goals that I have... in a "restoration" of sorts. The problem is how we get there... with her its all government all the time. With me it's Individualism, Duty, Honor that will return what they have taken. All these things you speak of have been all tried so many times before. Yeah sure, every now and then a few eye's pop open, but you know as well as I that its usually a blank stare and "I'll take a look at it". But, most of the time it goes right to the circular file, metaphorically and physically. So, is it not prudent to come to the conclusion that those methods have failed and new tactics are needed? The Art of War by Sun Tzu - Section 8 - Variation in Tactics
VIII. VARIATION IN TACTICS
1. Sun Tzu said: In war, the general receives his commands from the sovereign, collects his army and concentrates his forces
2. When in difficult country, do not encamp. In country where high roads intersect, join hands with your allies. Do not linger in dangerously isolated positions.
In hemmed-in situations, you must resort to stratagem.
In desperate position, you must fight.
3. There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must be not attacked, towns which must be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.
4. The general who thoroughly understands the advantages that accompany variation of tactics knows how to handle his troops.
5. The general who does not understand these, may be well acquainted with the configuration of the country, yet he will not be able to turn his knowledge to practical account.
6. So, the student of war who is unversed in the art of war of varying his plans, even though he be acquainted with the Five Advantages, will fail to make the best use of his men.
7. Hence in the wise leader's plans, considerations of advantage and of disadvantage will be blended together.
8. If our expectation of advantage be tempered in this way, we may succeed in accomplishing the essential part of our schemes.
9. If, on the other hand, in the midst of difficulties we are always ready to seize an advantage, we may extricate ourselves from misfortune.
10. Reduce the hostile chiefs by inflicting damage on them; and make trouble for them, and keep them constantly engaged; hold out specious allurements, and make them rush to any given point.
11. The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.
12. There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general:
(1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction;
(2) cowardice, which leads to capture;
(3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults;
(4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame;
(5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble.
13. These are the five besetting sins of a general, ruinous to the conduct of war.
14. When an army is overthrown and its leader slain, the cause will surely be found among these five dangerous faults. Let them be a subject of meditation.www.4hb.com/0850sun-tzu-art-war-08.html
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 4, 2012 9:45:33 GMT -5
Vet, Back in 1776, most people stood on the sidelines -- UNTIL shit happened. I have the Albany (New York) Committee of Safety Minutes from the period. They received notice of the events of Lexington and Concord on the 20th of April. Their first reaction is that it was an overreaction and was Massacusetts' problem.. It was almost two months later that they decided that they, too, were going to bring their militia together and defend against the British. If you ask someone now, "will you fight?" There answer will probably be "Non". However, when the time comes, and reality is that there is a battle one for the Constitution, then they will no longer be able to sit on the fence and will have to decide which side they want to be on. Now, if you look at it realistically, they have chosen a side, though they are way to the left on the line that I discussed on another thread.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 18:39:54 GMT -5
Reading through this, it is failing to mention many important aspects of the "Three boxes". Ballot Box: If one assumes that the ONLY way of influence at the ballot box is pulling the levers on election day, they are missing the bulk of the value of the ballot box. Working backwards from general election day, we have the primaries which the people of a given political party use to select their candidates, for the general election. (the following will have variations for each state, but the ideas are basically the same.) From the primary, back, you have the grassroots efforts of people to get their candidates on the primary ballots, be that through signatures, petitions or simply finding a suitable person to run. From there, back, you have the election of Party leaders. This is done, totally independent of general or primary elections, but rather in conferences on the state level. The Party Leaders are elected by the Precinct Leaders, who are in turn elected by the People of the Precinct. So while some want to rail about how horrible the party system is, it is quite representative. The problem is that the People of this country are too ignorant, lazy and/or apathetic of the processes to have a meaningful impact. All too often, Precinct Leaders are not elected. There is simply no one running, and no one voting....so often the "party" appoints Leaders. This makes the appointee beholden to the appointer. So these Precinct Leaders "vote" for the Party Leader who appointed them. The Party Leaders then don't have to concern themselves too much with the "will of the People", as their position is relatively safe. As for the Primaries, on the state level, many primary elections go unopposed. In Kentucky, for 2008, there were 110 elected representatives "elected" to go to the state capitol to represent the people of Kentucky. Of these 110, 73 ran unopposed in the general election, of these 73, 60 ran unopposed in their primary. (For 2010, it was a little better, 40 some unopposed in the general, 30 some unopposed in the primaries.) So who do these people represent? Not the People back home, but rather their own interests, which means whatever Party leadership desires, as they are the only ones who will put up an opposition candidate. But, just because the party is taking advantage of the ignorance, laziness and apathy of the People in their state, that does not mean that the tools for the People to stop this "advantage" are still not there. The People need to step up and take ownership responsibility, operate the system and take control. In fact, we are seeing this happen more and more, as new members are being elected to state legislatures at a very high rate, enough to make USA Today. Also we are seeing more and more entrenched incumbents being ousted by primary challengers, and there is no way that many of these are "sanctioned" by the Party. If the People were to take control of their state parties, they would have the leverage to "fix" the federal level issues in a hurry. First, the state party is who draws "districts" for the state. So Gerrymandering could be halted. In fact, the states are the ones who control most of the election laws. Many of the issues people rail about, like the bastardization of the Electoral College system, could be fixed by simple legislation on the part of the states. Elimination of "winner takes all" would also go a long ways to correcting much of the election problems we face today, on both the state and federal level. Second, the federal representatives rely upon the state party structure to help them raise funds, gather support and get votes out. Imagine for just a moment, that a federal House representative has about 8-15 state level reps within his district. If those state reps were to notify the federal rep that they expect him to represent the People of their districts in a certain issue, a certain way, or they will withhold their support for their re-election, that would carry a good bit of weight. The state level reps can be much more easily influenced from the People of the state, than a federal rep. A state Rep may have 15,000 - 25,000 people in his district, and he likely attends the same church, kids go to the same schools, attends the same ball games, shops at the same stores, as the voters. The federal rep, is likely not ever seen by most of the 650,000-850,000 people of his federal district. However, a politician who knows he is being watched by other politicians, is likely to feel that pressure more. This is why so many states are passing so many anti-federal usurpation of powers resolutions. They just need to do more and follow through on them....in time they will. Far from the "fatal scenario" purported, there are many tools which are being left in the tool box, which can fix this situation. If one can't fix something, but has tried every tool and every trick in the book, then one can claim hopelessness. However, if they only take the hammer out of the tool box, give a rap or two, they have no leg to stand on by saying there is nothing that can be done. The ballot box is not a once every 4 year trip to the polls, or even once every 2 years. It requires engagement at all levels, utilizing the tools which are readily available. Subjects vote for controllers every 4 years. Citizen owners are engaged in the process from start to finish.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 4, 2012 19:24:57 GMT -5
Dream on, busboy. Apparently, you haven't seen, recently, how well controlled the state party conventions are. you get a choice AFTER the party decides who you get to choose from. Look at it this way: The Democrats dangle a turd on a string. The Republicans dangle a turd on a string. You get a choice. When you are done making your choice, what do you have?
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 4, 2012 23:36:05 GMT -5
Nah, what I have seen is good candidates pushing out lousy and corrupt ones, both on the federal and state levels.
Is the work in this area complete? No. But there is definite and measurable progress. This is a direct result of the People engaging in the system, at the lowest, grassroots area.
Again, not sure why these successes have to be so "dismissed" by some, as they are obvious and tangible.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 5, 2012 0:00:35 GMT -5
Read through the Jury Box portion of the "Three Boxes". I was saddened to not see any mention of the Fully Informed Jury Association, as they have done some good work in this area: fija.org/There is little doubt that our court system has been bastardized, ineffective and even corrupted, but not to the point of leaving only a resort to violence to fix the matter. Jury Nullification is a process which most people in American have no clue even exists. People of this country brag how they skirt their duty to sit on juries, and do nothing to inform themselves of their duties, and processes they are expected to engage in at participants. This in one area where FIJA does a pretty good job of educating people. fija.org/document-library/activism-organizing/There have been some advancements in the arena of jury nullification, New Hampshire has recently passed into law, a "Jury Nullification Notification" law. Essentially, this allows the defense attorney to introduce the process of "jury nullification" to a criminal jury. www.policemisconduct.net/jury-nullification-law-signed-new-hampshire-governor/Two reasons why this is very significant (though as the writer of the above article points out, is still shy of what could be done), it gives the juries of New Hampshire some critical instruction which they previously would be missing. But also, consider that there was enough attention brought upon this subject that the state representatives felt compelled to not only consider the issue, but pass the bill and the governor was compelled to sign it. This is a pretty good feat for an issue which was previously keep suppressed. Again, now that New Hampshire has "cracked the seal", the People of other states will start to demand they too get similar laws in place in their states, with perhaps the improvements the article writer suggests, or more. This is a direct result of the People of this country realizing that the court system is not functioning properly, seeking to learn why, and demanding solutions from their representatives. The non-violent process at work and succeeding. So while the "Three Boxes" article is enlightening in this area of juries, the conclusion that there is no resolution is obviously shown to be a bit too jaded. Positive resolutions in this area are happening, and the People are regaining their power in this area of self-government. As such, there are other options than directly resorting to the "third box".
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 5, 2012 0:41:13 GMT -5
The "Cartridge Box" is the most fun and sexy of the three to discuss, as it incorporates many carnal aspects of Americanism. Who doesn't like to talk about guns? However, the glossing over of the first two, stepping over advancements, successes and positive action by the People of this country in those two arenas does not justify a hasty application of the this third box. Little doubt that there have been infringements upon our Second Amendment Rights. However, if one looks at recent history, there have been some significant roll backs on this area, for the betterment of the position of the People of this country, as a whole. Can we own a cannon? No, not really, not the good ones which the government has. However..... We have seen the very wide spread acceptance of conceal carry laws in over 40 states. In nearly every case, these laws have improved, in their respective states, with at least two moving theirs to a "Constitutional Carry", and many other considering such changes. This is not only a positive step for the People, but it is more an indication of the mental attitude of the People. As more and more People get accustomed to, and reacquainted with, the importance of self-armament of a free society, they will further resist encroachments upon this right. We have seen 29 states introduce the "Firearms Freedom Act", with 8 of them passing this into law in their state: tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/firearms-freedom-act/ Essentially, from a Second Amendment point of view, this law says that the People within a state can manufacture, sell, possess firearms within their state, for the sole use within their state, with no regard to federal firearms laws. Basically, the People of the state will determine what is legal or not, not the federal government. Several of these states have lifted the federal restrictions on full-auto firearms, and other federal restrictions on gun devices. They are also fostering an environment which is sympathetic to firearm manufacture within their state, so as to have a manufacturing base within their borders, of firearms and related items. As we can see with the legislative tracking information, just a few years ago, this effort was isolated to just a couple of Western states, but as the movement increases in success and awareness, it is becoming contagious, to now encompass at least 29 states, likely more by the time 2012 is done. We have seen states step up to directly address abuses of the People's 2nd Amendment Rights. 29 states have enacted "Emergency Powers Firearms Owners Protection Acts", as a result of the gun confiscations associated with Katrina in New Orleans. These acts make it abundantly clear that the People of their states can not be disarmed during an emergency situation. This is a further example of the People leveraging their authority over their state governments, to address problems they have seen on the horizon, or in other areas of the country. It is interesting to note that during Katrina, gun confiscation only took place in one location. Also, that during other similar emergencies, such gun confiscation did not take place. It took one such occurrence to rally enough political support by the People of 29 states to enact such laws as to prevent such occurrence from happening in their state. This is a very good indication of the mindset of the American People. So far from our Second Amendment protections being on the precipice of destruction, we are seeing advancements in strengthening the position of the People over the government. More and more the People are leveraging their states, against the obviously hostile federal government, in this area and others, as intended by the Founders vision of checks and balance of powers under a Constitutionally limited federal government. The very rapid growth of gun ownership in this country, the relatively aggressive passage of pro-firearm legislation, pro-self protection legislation, on the state level, is a very good indication of where the hearts and minds of the American People are on this issue. While we have to always remain vigilant to encroachments upon our Rights, in this arena, there have been positive actions taken by the People, with good success. Given the positive actions happening in the area of the "Ballot Box", and also in the area of the "Jury Box", as well as the "Cartridge Box", we are seeing the power of the Citizen Owners of this country improve, and the necessity of physical defense of the country from enemies within, diminish significantly. Again, always vigilant, but building upon the successes of the past and recent past, is the way to preserve the Republic. Passing on to the next generations the lessons we have learned, so they too can build upon our successes.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 5, 2012 4:28:53 GMT -5
Well so far, in my humble opinion, busboy is pulling ahead. Reading between the lines, will get you far, it is clear that people are waking up, sensing the danger, shaking off the grogginess and starting to take action.
But is it enough of a fight?
Sure we have been doing major damage to the Leftist/Right system, but only through constant pressure on MANY fronts. Even though they have shown they will violate the constitution and the law at the drop of a hat, we have hammered the crap out of 'em, stripped back their disguises and shown them as they truly are, Leftists of all ilk... and we also laid bare their nefarious purpose.
Here we have Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, New World Order, Black Separatists, and even Anarchists all banded together with one goal in mind... Our destruction.
But their bullet train to victory was run off the tracks at the last moment by... Us... Moms, Dads, Grand-parents, Old and Young, Right AND Left of the "political" spectrum, we joined hands and stopped them in their tracks.
Patriots, Threepers, Second Amendment Activists, Militia's, the TEA Party, the 9/12 Project... we took to the street in many ways and many forms, they saw it coming and it scared the crap out of 'em.
Yeah absolutely they have still been able to ram items of their agenda through, but at great cost, every time they do something like "backdoor" legislation, their veneer is stripped even more bare.
Look how drastic their measures have become, haphazardly violating their oaths and just ramming stuff through to secure votes and EVERYONE can see it now... pathetic.
Yeah people are awakening, but is it enough to turn the tide without descending into conflict? The country is split hard, I've never witnessed anything like it, the polarization is extreme.
Sure we are still kicking the crap out of 'em in every argument. The TEA Party is doing major damage to both parties, although they are still capitulating to the GOP out of fear of another Obama term.
But is it going to be enough?
I watch the numbers on Gun and Ammo sales rise EVERY year and it warms my heart, those are many new and old gun owners who have just made a very expensive purchase in a very bad economy... they will not be giving those weapons up easily to .gov, especially under these political conditions.
Saying all that. IMHO, I believe that even the "awakened" people are still not "all in" yet, as the pain is still not great enough... that coupled with timidity, will be the death of us all.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 5, 2012 10:31:14 GMT -5
Yeah people are awakening, but is it enough to turn the tide without descending into conflict? The country is split hard, I've never witnessed anything like it, the polarization is extreme...... Let me say, I don't see the country as "split", so much as the media and politicians (especially the leftists in government) would like to lead us to believe. If you look at polls (and I am FAR from a fan of polls), the ones which look at people's attitudes on various issues, you are not seeing much change at all. The people of today, hold essentially the save views they did 10 or 20 years ago (some minor fluctuations, of course). What has changed, is People Participation. The reason the media tells us we are "divided", is precisely because they (and those they support) have not been able to accomplish what they wish to, without opposition. The real Americans are waking up, and are starting to conduct themselves as "owners", vs. subjects, of the government. This of course is seen as a "divide", or a split, because it is obvious opposition to the course they had set for this country. The People of this country could be distracted by prosperity to overlook the ill conceived course our "progressives" (those of both parties) had set us on over the last few decades. This is no longer possible, and the People are reclaiming their rightful position of power.....and that is "bad" according to the leftist media. Saying all that. IMHO, I believe that even the "awakened" people are still not "all in" yet, as the pain is still not great enough... that coupled with timidity, will be the death of us all. To be honest, I have had the opportunity to speak with many good people around the country, and there are very many who have a very deep passion to fix this country. What they most often lack is an understanding of what is possible. Most folks simply do not know enough about the issues, the processes, the Foundations of our country, and government system, to be effective. This is an area which the Tea Party is doing a fair job at addressing. I am surprised when I meet passionate Patriots, who only look at D.C. for solutions. They feel they have to get the "right guy" in the White House to have any hope. They feel they have to get the "right party" in control of the House and Senate, and barring that, all is lost. They have no idea what State Nullification is, what Jury Nullification is, or how their state election system works. Do you realize that many state level representative seats, in many states, go unopposed. So a person can become a representative simply by filling out a form, paying a registration fee. I feel this ignorance (term used in the descriptive sense, not in an insulting way) of what they can do, of the "tools of ownership", leads to inaction. We have all seen people who are in a position or situation which they are ill prepared to handle. Often it paralyses them, and this paralysis can look like laziness. But the inactivity is really simply a result of them not having a clue what to do. When they seek advice, when folks look to find answers to their "how to" or "what to do" questions, one of the last things they really need at that point is to be advised to prepare for violence and war with the government. Even if that were a prudent preparation idea, it is not a "solution", and it only fosters their paralysis, by introducing a sense of hopelessness and preordained defeat. If, on the other hand, people can see that there are successes happening around them, that "average people" are having a positive impact upon the current and future events of this country, then they have a place to start learning. They can find an issue or two which truly interests them, perhaps they have some expertise in, and then they can lend a hand. Or maybe they can duplicate the successful efforts of others, in their area of operation, or state. One of my favorite Founders quote is:"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818 I am of the very firm belief that the American People can accomplish anything! First they have to have the HEART to do so, then they need the MIND to do so. People can "want" all sorts of things, but if they don't have a clue what is possible, and how it is possible, they, too often, remain in a state of "want". There are plenty of things to be negative and defeatist about in our country, especially if one compares today to our Founder's vision for us. But there are many positive things happening in this country, and these are the items which will "spirit up", and motivate people to do what must be done to preserve our Republic. Empowered Americans are unstoppable....this is what has many in the government, and the media concerned....and many Patriotic Americans excited.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 5, 2012 12:11:23 GMT -5
Vet, Interesting that you think that theory "pull ahead" of fact. However, since I have no intention of writing, again, what I have already written, and very few have followed the links I have provided, for example, I gave, in "The Three Boxes", the numerical improbability of seeing effective change in our lifetime. However, the philosopher seems to think that he can defy history (which was what we had agreed to discuss), and prophesize a victory where victory has never been achieved, before. Notwithstanding the fact that I said that I wasn't going to chase a rabbit down a hole. You, however, have, by your judgment, moved this from a discussion (exchange of ideas) into a debate (where a winner may be declared). My time is more valuable than to squander it upon so few readers in this discussion, so I will not. That aside, here is another stickler in the elective process -- that cannot be disputed: What happens when you turn Congress over to market forces? Gary Hunt Outpost of Freedom February 11, 2012 This is not intended to be a book or video review, at least in the normal sense. However, both a book and a video will be mentioned. The each cover opposite sides of recent events, though you will see the common ground -- that both sides agree on. It begins with Congress (and, yes, let's include presidential candidates, as well) and their desire to seek or retain their office. This is often referred to as "The Campaign Trail". Of course, that sounds nice, but when we think of a trail, we think of a dirt path with minimal effort in its constructions. The Campaign Trail, however, is paved with gold. It entails hundreds of millions of dollars, each year, to move the candidate into the public eye and, hopefully, get him elected. When you consider that nearly half of Congress are multi-millionaires, you begin to understand that they are a part of an "economic aristocracy" to begin with. They move and shake with the wealthy, and rely upon those wealthy to assist them in securing their election. These wealthy, however, have already learned that the fastest way to wealth is to have the law on your side; and, whenever possible, that their competition have the law against them. So, the question arises, how can they possibly grow and retain their wealth with the best assurance of their success? Quite simply, the answer is to manipulate the Congress to enact laws to their benefit and to enact laws that would hurt the competition. It is the legislation that provides "economic favor" to one and the legislation that denies "economic favor" to the other that is the motivating factor for what has become the mainstay of politics in Washington, D.C. That end is achieved by assuring that under the right conditions, those who are seeking to enter or retain office need a source, beyond mom & pop, to contribute to their campaign -- for a job that pays about $200,000 a years plus benefits. The goal is to raise tens or hundreds of millions for "The Campaign Trail". Now, if mom & pop were to pitch in say $200, to the campaign, it would take half a million such contributions to make the campaign fund come to the $100 million mark. It would be a lot easier if contributions in the tens or hundreds of thousands were made available, so, let's put ethics aside and go for the easiest way to achieve the funds necessary for election or retention. Now, to really understand how this works, I would suggest that you read Jack Abramoff's book, "Capital Punishment" (available at Amazon). It is a self serving story of what led him to serve a prison sentence. He, of course, didn't really realize that what he was doing was illegal, though he did manage to create a number of organizations so that there was, often, no direct trail from his lobby client to the Congress critter. All the Congress critter knew was that if he supported certain legislation, substantial contributions ended up in his campaign fund. Of course, he wasn't smart enough to understand the causal relationship between the two, though he is smart enough to enact laws that have, to say the least, begun to destroy this country (more about that, later). The other side, however, is a bit more enlightening. There is concurrence with much of what Abramoff says in his book, but the divisiveness of his activities comes out, clear as a bell, in Alex Gibney's documentary, "Casino Jack" (available through Netflix and other on line sources). Abramoff's downfall came when he received over $40 million from an Indian tribe to aid them in securing the right to reopen their casino, which, ironically, earlier activity by Abramoff caused to be closed. The bill was attached as a rider to an Election Bill. When a Senator refused to go along, Abramoff's house of cards began to crumble, as did the leadership of the Indian tribe who had spent so much money on "a sure thing". As you review the events described in the book and video, you will read, or hear, names of many well known people (including a President). You will, in many cases, understand their gratitude for the "contributions" they received, just for being good Congressmen. When you are finished, you will wonder why only two Congressmen served time, and why their sentences were so short. Finally, you will see that hundreds of millions of dollars began flowing from the Financial industry through lobbyists, just a few years ago, resulting in deregulation of the Banking industry and the subsequent failure of our economy. If you have never before thought that something was too broken to fix, I'm sure that when you read and watch, you will then begin to understand that Congress has set up a creature that serves only them and their campaigns – and it is too broken to fix…or, if you prefer…”too big to fail.”
This article can be found on line at: What happens when you turn Congress over to market forces? www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=625
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 5, 2012 15:16:50 GMT -5
Yeah I stopped reading your post right here, You, however, have, by your judgment, moved this from a discussion (exchange of ideas) into a debate (where a winner may be declared). My time is more valuable than to squander it upon so few readers in this discussion, so I will not. I made no such statement, and as far as I know made no such inference... I could care less about "winning", so if you can't handle the debate, then this is where it ends. I'm no groupie to your "works". So, if you give a compelling argument then, as everyone here will tell you, I am more than open to listening and making my own evaluation... which I just gave you in detail, mainly by asking questions and posing arguments that have been around for years. But to come here thinking that everyone one will agree with everything you say... well, it ain't gonna happen. But this is the sentence that is really telling... and I'll let it stand on it's own. My time is more valuable than to squander it upon so few readers in this discussion, so I will not.
|
|
opf
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by opf on Jul 5, 2012 16:18:46 GMT -5
"Well so far, in my humble opinion, busboy is pulling ahead. Reading between the lines, will get you far, it is clear that people are waking up, sensing the danger, shaking off the grogginess and starting to take action."
And, with that, I take my leave.
|
|
|
Post by busboy on Jul 5, 2012 16:26:58 GMT -5
Vet, Back in 1776, most people stood on the sidelines -- UNTIL shit happened. I have the Albany (New York) Committee of Safety Minutes from the period. They received notice of the events of Lexington and Concord on the 20th of April. Their first reaction is that it was an overreaction and was Massacusetts' problem.. It was almost two months later that they decided that they, too, were going to bring their militia together and defend against the British. If you ask someone now, "will you fight?" There answer will probably be "Non". However, when the time comes, and reality is that there is a battle one for the Constitution, then they will no longer be able to sit on the fence and will have to decide which side they want to be on. Now, if you look at it realistically, they have chosen a side, though they are way to the left on the line that I discussed on another thread. Of course the Albany Committee of Safety would think that the events of Lexington/Concord were an over reaction and a Massachusetts problem. First, there were ample stories coming out of New England about clashes between the British troops and the Colonials, but these sorts of events were not that uncommon in the British empire. In fact, there were seemingly always a rebellion going on in the British empire, even in Britain herself, between the Crown and the subjects. Also, after Lexington/Concord, the follow up news would have been an "end" of violence and fight, and merely a siege of Boston. The fighting had ceased after the one day events of April 19th, 1775. So it would be very natural to think that some negotiated settlement or agreement would occur. In fact, that was the common outcome of any such clash, in the history of the British empire. Two months after April 19th, we have the Battle of Bunker Hill (actually Breed's hill), on June 17th. This was the next event of hostilities between the two forces, those of the British garrison in Boston, and those of the Colonial militias who were surrounding Boston in siege. Also you have the meeting of the Second Continental Congress, in May of 1775, which was mostly called to consider options as a result of Lexington/Concord. www.ushistory.org/us/10e.aspIt was at this point that a "Colonial Army" was called for. This action by the delegates of the several Colonies, would have surely moved many colonies to mobilize their militia to construct Colonial Army units. It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that the many Colonials who were not engaged in action on April 19th, 1775, were "fence sitters" until the seal of violence was broken. The majority of the people of that time were very supportive of "rebellion" against the Crown and Parliament. Up to this point, the form of rebellion had been in the form of boycotts, civil disobedience, and simply not adhering to the King's demands (with very high levels of participation Colonies wide, and very good success). These non-violent actions had been taking place for nearly a decade in the Colonies. Likewise, there had been several physical clashes between the Colonials and British military, all of which were single events, often with ample blame for both sides, and a no continuation of violence from those singular events. The action by the Colonials to engage in "war" with the British was as a result of their selected/elected delegates meeting and collectively deciding, then announcing the decision to prepare to oppose British troops with force. This was one of the main purposes of the Continental Congress. This is a far cry from the notion that a band of rebels instigated violence against the British Troops, and that this "ice breaker" brought down swarms of Colonials who were itching for a fight, but just wanted someone else to start it. Indeed, the events of Lexington and Concord demonstrate the very strong reluctance on the part of the Colonials to engage the British in a physical confrontation. Capt Parker had ordered his men to disperse from the green in Lexington, when the "shot" was fired (likely an accidental discharge from one of the British officers). This was taken as a command to fire, by the British troops and they fired on the Colonials. In Concord, the local militias (there were several from surrounding towns) had actually retreated out of the town, and allowed the British troops to enter the town, and send away teams to search nearby homes of militia leaders. In fact, these troop movements were unimpeded by the Colonials. Only when the Concord militia mistakenly thought the British were setting fire to the town, did they advance on the North Bridge. But even after the clash at the North Bridge, which resulted in both British and Colonial deaths, the Colonials allowed the British troops to march through their ranks, unmolested. There was no "itch" for a fight on the part of the Colonials, it took many "strikes of the match" to light the fire of a Revolutionary War. Likewise, there is not "itch" for a fight on the part of the modern American People. Any suggestion that if only there were an "ice breaking" event of violence, that the People of this peaceful nation would grab up their muskets and run to the sound of the cannon fire, is a fantasy and rooted in a reality which simply does not exist, and for which there is no support for. Aggressive acts of violence, on the part of "patriots" in today's America would rightfully be seen as acts of crime, and there would be little support for such by the American people. The results of which can be fairly accurately projected, if one simply thinks it through. However, a "rush to arms" would not be the result.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jul 6, 2012 6:04:55 GMT -5
"Well so far, in my humble opinion, busboy is pulling ahead. Reading between the lines, will get you far, it is clear that people are waking up, sensing the danger, shaking off the grogginess and starting to take action." And, with that, I take my leave. This may help with your next "Debate" de·bate [dih-beyt] noun, verb, de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing. 1.a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints.2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. 3. deliberation; consideration. 4. Archaic . strife; contention.
|
|
|
Post by safetalker on Jul 6, 2012 10:08:00 GMT -5
However you again have missed the important part. The problem in Massachusetts was of little importance to any of the states except Massachusetts. The people of that era had a conscious distance barrier of about 27 miles (the distance you could walk in a 24 hour period). Today that distance is greater due to the availability of rapid transportation. However the concept is the same. If Fayetteville NC put up a local martial law I doubt if Raleigh (the city) would give a hoot. The same is present in Detroit where the peoples taxes have been taken by DHS and FEMA is actually running the City provided services. Speaking for myself here. I am not greatly concerned about areas I don't live in. I consider those areas as the other guys job." If he calls me for assistance I will pack and stack and go help. If not I will read about it on the Media papers. If everyone reading here made it a habit to slip a cold beer in our back pocket and walk down to that new neighbours place while sipping on ours we would get a chance to speak to them. Then if they lick their lips we offer them our pocket bottle and sit and talk a spell. Soon we would have everyone doing that. Then we could find out what each is doing to prepare. From this info we can determine who will help and who will visit us in the night. This worrying about the Romney's, the Bush's, the Obama's is dumb. They have their plan and we have ours.
|
|