• Announcements
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
  • Announcements
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

The State of the States

Anything at all (keep it clean) goes here that does not fit in to any of the other forums.

Moderator: eeuunikkeiexpat

Re: The State of the States

Postby MikieO on Sat May 03, 2008 10:41 pm

Frankly any civilian uprising that engaged govt forces "directly" (I'll read that as massed engagements as opposed to guerilla warfare) would be doomed before the first such engagement. As EE points out, this govt has radically changed the rules regarding posse commitatus etc ensuring that in the event of an uprising, the "leaderless resistance" model will apply. The place will eventually implode but not in my lifetime. I was merely pointing out the registration leading to confiscation logic.
User avatar
MikieO
Rank: Chile Forum Hero
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:41 pm
Location: USA

Re: The State of the States

Postby jalundberg on Sat May 03, 2008 10:53 pm

Okay, I see. I can accept the registration to confiscation point. My only point is that it doesn't seem valid to argue that citizenry need firearms in case of the sudden need to overthrow the government, just doesn't seem like a plausable situation.
User avatar
jalundberg
Rank: Chile Forum Hero
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Viña del Mar

Re: The State of the States

Postby admin on Sat May 03, 2008 10:59 pm

It does not strikes me as it would be the sort of musket and ball type revolution that would be called for, and I don't think the framers of the constitution had in mind the level of sophistication involved in modern day psyops / marketing that are conducted today. Guns and other arms would be irrelevant, and not terribly productive. The form of reform, I don't know.

I think it would be totally different animal than anything we have seen before. I find it telling perhaps that we are starting to see even some of the corporate and political rank and file starting to speak out about what is going on. It is not sustainable.

A complete overhaul of the election system seems a must. Democracy would be a nice start. Likely at a constitutional level (dang, who would of thought of that).
Legal, Relocation, and Investment assistance in Chile. Free Consultation.
For more information visit: http://www.spencerglobal.com
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Temuco, Chile

Re: The State of the States

Postby MikieO on Sat May 03, 2008 11:22 pm

Interesting that you post this; "A complete overhaul of the election system seems a must"
My brother and I were discussing the replacement of the left wing mayor of London by a more conservative guy with upper class roots. The comment I recall most vividly was "given that all elections that matter are bent, the powers that be must have decided he was due for replacement." Sounded a lot like our "elections" here.
User avatar
MikieO
Rank: Chile Forum Hero
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:41 pm
Location: USA

Re: The State of the States

Postby Vicki and Greg Lansen on Sun May 04, 2008 11:51 am

Mike...Saw a picture of your new mayor there in London. No offense, but he looks like Donald Trump on meth! Somebody give the guy a comb and detox him for goodness sake! :mrgreen:

All in jest, of course (but seriously, look up a picture of the guy)!

Vicki
Vicki and Greg Lansen
Rank: Chile Forum Hero
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Formerly in Panama, now in Chile

Re: The State of the States

Postby MikieO on Sun May 04, 2008 12:38 pm

Yup, I've seen him, not pretty. In any event, he could be a raging meth head and still do less damage than Ken. BTW I left there 25 yrs ago, keeping up on the decline of the place is a bit like Spencer having an interest in the US.
User avatar
MikieO
Rank: Chile Forum Hero
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:41 pm
Location: USA

Re: The State of the States

Postby Louis on Mon May 05, 2008 2:21 pm

admin wrote:A complete overhaul of the election system seems a must. Democracy would be a nice start. Likely at a constitutional level (dang, who would of thought of that).


Democracy is the problem, not the solution. That's why the system has become so messed up. We have a tryanny of the majority and the majority do exactly what the media tells them to do. There's always a TV movie of the week to tell people how to vote and if that doesn't work, Oprah is doing the best she can. :mrgreen:

The framers of our constitution supported the idea of a Republican form of government. They were rightly against democracy. Remember, democracy is a system of government where two lions and a lamb get to decide what's for dinner.

Another way to look at it is that a democracy is where the entire power rests with the people while a republic is where the power is given to the government by the people. In other words, you can't give or take away power from a democracy because it inherently has all of the power.
Louis
Rank: Chile Forum Full Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:28 am
Location: Asia

Re: The State of the States

Postby admin on Mon May 05, 2008 5:20 pm

There is no constitutional provision for the Republican party and the Democratic party = the Republic. The pay offs to the super delegates and just their very existence no matter how they reach their decision is corruption.
Legal, Relocation, and Investment assistance in Chile. Free Consultation.
For more information visit: http://www.spencerglobal.com
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Temuco, Chile

Re: The State of the States

Postby JHyre on Thu May 08, 2008 6:28 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc is a link that is utterly vulgar, thoroughly rude and completely innappropriate. I laughed so hard, I cried before I peed my pants.

John Hyre
JHyre
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:08 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: The State of the States

Postby Vicki and Greg Lansen on Fri May 09, 2008 12:51 am

John, John, John! Whether or not you found it vulgar, or not, I didn't find it funny. No more funny that lynchings, or Pol Pot!

You know what I think is sad, is that my father thinks Obama is another Hitler, and that Hillary is part of a conspiracy to emasculate men. So, humorous or not, there are alot of people out there that believe exactly what they see on TV, and what they read written by a dismally deficient press. Do you read the Wall Street Journal? My father-in-law prays to it. It had an article about the recent volcanic eruption here and it said some things that weren't correct. Not to mention CNN, NBC, FOX.

Oops, don't know how I got off on that ....but anyway. Tell me why you thought it was humorous. By the way, I - as a democrat - was APPALLED at the black-illigit -child ads against John McCain. I'm an equal opportunity listener!

Vicki
Vicki and Greg Lansen
Rank: Chile Forum Hero
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Formerly in Panama, now in Chile

Re: The State of the States

Postby MikieO on Fri May 09, 2008 2:50 am

Awwwww Vicki, I watched it at least 3 times. Didn't pee myself but did laugh pretty hard and that's a plus. As for the current rotten crop, if they postponed the election and said "sorry 'bout that, we'll bring fresh candidates" and we got to replace the incumbent idiot next May instead, it'd be better for the country IMO. I've never seen a sorrier crop of DC whores. A viable 3rd party candidate would do well this year if the press allowed it.
User avatar
MikieO
Rank: Chile Forum Hero
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:41 pm
Location: USA

Re: The State of the States

Postby JHyre on Fri May 09, 2008 11:05 am

Vicki,

Interesting response. Reminds of the 1970’s joke “How many Feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: THAT’S NOT FUNNY”….the joke of course being that Feminists do not have a sense of humor, especially as regards themselves. Also, Feminism is NO LAUGHING MATTER...or Hilter, or Pol Pot, etc.

Among others, I had passed that link to a Jewish friend who is slightly right of center and to a very liberal friend (Gosh knows I’ve tried with that boy, to no avail). Both found it hilarious. Of course I, and many of my friends, have a rather warped sense of humor. And if I have to explain it, you probably aren’t going to get it, because it’s simply not wired into “this could be funny” part of your brain, which is doubtless linked to the “who I can vote for” part of the brain in each of us.

First, it’s not ideological, it’s personal. I’m not one of those people who immediately calls someone a “Nazi” or a “Fascist” because they disagree with me. That sort of behavior is generally reserved for liberals who are good with put-downs and weak on the arguments. In fact, I recollect seeing exactly some of that with regards to Bush somewhere on this very site…….

What made the video funny was the exaggeration of some of Hillary’s negative personal traits by reflection of the same flaws in Hitler, albeit in exaggerated and amusingly profane form. Hillary is getting her clock cleaned, as was Hitler in 1945. Hillary has lots of fallbacks that will save her, at least in her mind (the primaries, the super-delegates, etc.), as did Hitler, with his secret weapons, imaginary armies, will to power, etc. Hillary is reputed to be very hard on subordinates & to have an amazing temper, ditto Hitler, as was well displayed in the video. And Hillary is willing to throw the Democratic Party under the bus in a relentless pursuit of power, ditto Hitler for Germany. Did I mention that she will not quit, regardless of the cost? These are all traits Hitler possessed in abundance and demonstrated in the video. In fact, dubbing was easy, because the gist of what Hitler was saying in German was the same as the dubbing attributed to Hillary, even if the German epithets were weaker (Feigling = coward, reference to the German troops dying outside of his bunker by an ever grateful Hitler, etc). To be fair, one could never compare Bush to Hitler on a personal level…..because Hitler could SPEAK!

For the record, I find liberals’ sudden discovery that the Clintons are “power-hungry”, “mean” & “willing to do anything to win” amusing in the extreme. And while I am no special fan of McCain (he’s certainly not a conservative, and barely a Republican), I take immense pleasure and modest solace in watching the Democrats rip into one another, especially since the (very left) positions of the candidates on the issues are nearly identical. I also enjoy watching the divisions that Democrats usually unleash on others (divide by race, gender, etc.) come back to create internecine strife. The irony of the Clinton people whining that blacks are voting for Obama is too much to bear without producing tears.

Mikie,

I tend to agree. I will reluctantly go for McCain based on seven words “Not Obama, Two More Supreme Court Justices”. If Obama (or Hillary, unlikley but not impossible) wins, it will be a repay of 1976-1980, which so many are too young or distracted to remember. Of course, Carter gave us Reagan, and in my book, that was a good thing, I’d just prefer the Decade of Greed without the painful four-year prelude. Some people say “No pain, no gain”. Me, I prefer, “No pain……no pain!”.

John Hyre, insensitive purveyor of filthy parodies
JHyre
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:08 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: The State of the States

Postby JHyre on Fri May 09, 2008 12:06 pm

Vickie,

A few more thoughts came to me. First, after reviewing my email, I have noticed that men, regardless of ideology, found the video quite funny, while women, even those with the correct leanings (i.e. mine!), found it mildly amusing or didn't get it at all. I do not want to begin to think of the implications behind that, probably lots of chemistry & who knows what else going on there. Are we still allowed to say that men & women are different, or is that now classed as rank sexism?

Sounds like I'd get along with your old man. The WSJ is an excellent source of information for me. I do not take any information uncritically, including from the WSJ....but I tend to agree with their world view in most things. I also agree with National Review on many things (shockingly, I know), but not all....they are also much more opinion oriented than news oriented, ala Rush, which one takes into account. For a "mainstream source", I will look at US News & World Report (slightly right of center). I also read quite a bit of literature on history (though probably not to the same level as RWS), economics & politics. I tend to make my reading 70% towards sources I trust/agree with. I also like to see what others are thinking, to check my own assumptions, so I will pick up Time, Newsweek, New York Times, New Republic, Vanity Fair, Mother Jones, something by Al Franken or James Carville, etc to round out it & see what the SOB’s on the other side of the fence are up to. Once in awhile, they even change my mind on something….rarely, because the “contra” sources do not do a great job of documenting and I am generally not impressed with unknown “sources”, especially as a primary source of information. In terms of facts not being correct on CNN, Fox, etc. – for me it depends on which facts were off & why. For what is a minor story in the scheme of things, I accept that it is uneconomic for papers to spend too much time perfecting the story, and they will also take “best available” information to get things out quickly, and take into account when deciding what to believe. Of course, there are standards to what is “too much” of a shortcut on facts. I am far less charitable in believing facts & forgiving errors where an agenda is involved, for example when certain facts are conveniently “missed” on political reporting….and so much is political these days.

Oh well, just more random neurons colliding upstairs. Later.

John Hyre, especially adept at offending females
JHyre
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:08 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: The State of the States

Postby longjonsilver on Thu May 29, 2008 9:47 am

Tom Cash wrote:News From the Lunatic Fringe

Tom Cash
May 28, 2008

We are close to the half way point of 2008 and the situation reeks of a bad outcome. The spin improves daily whilst the emerging facts become worse and worse and continue to portend a complete disaster.

Bill Buckler, a great newsletter writer (the best out there by a country mile) makes the point that it is a new era of isolationism for America. Not because America has retreated from the world, but because the rest of the world has finally washed its hands and retreated from America.

A declaration was issued in Peru in mid May by representatives of 60 nations including Europe and China promising to act with urgency to address the rising cost of food staples. This was completely unreported in the U.S. press most of whom were unaware that it was happening. The U.S. was not invited. The U.S. is not important enough to be invited anymore.

The world is fracturing into spheres of influence. Russia, France and Germany jig around each other for control of Europe. China, Japan and India vie for control of Asia. Brazil is gradually exerting itself as the strong man of S. America. Huge oil reserves, a world class weapons industry and a fifty years old sophisticated ethanol program ensures that the most populous country in the region is assuming a dominant role. The U.S. still has control of North America.

The predictions made just a few years ago that the U.S. of A. would cease to be the pre-eminent power in the world within our lifetimes seemed almost unbelievable. Now it has happened, and at a speed that even I find a trifle bewildering. I moved here, amongst other reasons, with my family to chronicle the collapse of the Great Empire, and it happened so fast I almost missed it.

Little is understood in America. Not just by the man in the street who is still almost completely unaware that anything is wrong, but the media, politicians, presidential candidates... none have a clue what is happening. The most enlightened believe that we may have a recession, or that we are already in one. They don't really understand the ramifications of even that dull insight, but they are aware that something is not quite right.

But hey, this is America right? Not really, this was America. What presents on a daily basis is a pale shadow of its former self. Flag waving, hand on heart, liquored up bozos have replaced true patriots. Legal interpretations by public servant lawyers have replaced the Constitution. The sanctity of individual freedom and the supremacy of ideas have given way to the anti-intellect of the mass media and the worship of 15 minutes of fame. Brittany Spears rules okay. The free man has abdicated in favour of the free lunch.

Americans remember who they once were in a vague and distant sort of a way. But they only remember the pictures, the ideas that underpinned the pictures are long gone. They see the glory but not the substance, they see the success, but fail to see the striving and courage, both physical and intellectual, that created that success.

The general consensus is that America will rally round once again. America has had problems before... remember the thirties, the seventies? America recovered, America always recovers. America can innovate its way out of any crisis with its free-wheeling, frontier brand of capitalism. It was not the collapse of Bear Stearns that put the lie to that belief, it was the manner of the Fed's role in the collapse that told the real story. The free market capitalism that made the U.S.A. great is officially dead. The Politburo of the U.S.S.A. now calls the shots.

There is a belief that 'the powers that be' (in America) will bring the great ship back on an even keel again. That is stated as though someone is actually in control of all this and that with a quick press of the right switch all can be made well again. It has to be understood that no one is in control of this. The denouement of this situation is the end of the American dream. It is the end of America as a world power. No one gains, well no one in America.

There is more than enough data out there to rebut any possible suggestion that America will be able to recover from her current circumstances. She can't and she won't. America is an enfeebled giant who made, and is still making, the mistake of needlessly annoying a number of major players around the world. America's problems are entirely self-inflicted, but that may not stop her from lashing out in an indulgent frenzy of pointless aggression. Hopefully Bush will depart without making matters any worse than they already are.

President Obama will pull the troops out of Iraq as one of his first actions... just after he sacks Ben Bernanke. He has no choice. It will also be a very easy and politically astute move that will mollify many Americans. More importantly it will mollify many of those foreign gentlemen (particularly Putin) who are keenly awaiting the chance to teach America a lesson at the appropriate moment. Remember how the U.S.A. arrogantly spurned Russia's offer of cooperation in return for assistance after the U.S.S.R. broke up?

It is fortunate that America will have a new president who is personable and who will clearly symbolise the end of an era. Obama will not be able to do a damn thing to help America out of its problems, America is beyond help. He can though, hopefully, diminish the strong desire by the rest of the world to put the boot in.

President George W. Bush is on psychiatric drugs. Nothing else could explain the disintegration of the basically decent, intelligent and articulate man that he was prior to 9/11, to the unpredictable, incoherent dribbler that he has become since. The sooner he is out of the picture the safer America will be... safer from external aggression that is, not from internal circumstances; they are set in stone.

Today comes news of a move to ban speculation in commodities including oil! This is madness and would exacerbate the long term increasing price trend as well as cause shortages. As it is also coming right on the point where, barring an unlikely drop in supply, oil is overdue for a large correction back to the $100- area it may be construed by some that the fall in price was caused by talk of a ban on speculation. That will only encourage further government meddling.

When will they ever learn? It's okay, that was a purely rhetorical question! Speculators keep the price of a product lower than it would normally be by smoothing out the up and down vagaries of the market. Ban speculation and you really will start to see some price fireworks. Watch the price of food take off.

The military will still be active of course, though I think it highly unlikely that Iran will be the target. Where will the troops, oil or money come from, not to mention the morale? The next likely target of the U.S. military will be Mexico. Mexico is close, Mexico has oil which is woefully under-explored and developed, and Mexico also provides an almost legitimate casus belli. Mexico is on its way to being the first major country, failed state in the twenty-first century.

With a standing military of only around 130,000 plus reservists Mexico still holds the edge over the drug cartels in terms of number of men under arms, but they are not as well armed, nor are they as disciplined. The cartels operate with impunity throughout the country and are quickly expanding their influence south of the border into Guatemala and Honduras.

Many 'illegal immigrants' from Mexico into the U.S. are, in reality, refugees from a fast disintegrating political and social situation. If that situation deteriorates further then U.S. military intervention is not only possible but highly likely. Any sudden deterioration of the situation would see millions more Mexicans crossing the border in a matter of weeks. That would overwhelm the U.S. economy which is already on its knees. And don't forget the oil. America's new isolation ensures that the oil situation is about to get a lot worse. The U.S. military is powerless without oil. The whole war edifice has been constructed on the need for vast quantities of oil.

An occupation of Mexico would have great appeal for the military. R&R could be held back home and it would quickly take the focus off the disaster of having to withdraw from a humbling experience in Iraq. It would also more accord with the real capabilities of the war weary soldiers and the worn down machines of war.

U.S. dollars are losing appeal. China is now owed one hundred billion dollars by U.S. companies who have failed to pay. That is on top of the fact that those who do pay are paying with a currency that is falling in value rapidly. America is no longer a desirable customer. Who will be there to continue to sell America oil? Best to take advantage of a failing state right across the border and absorb a new supplier, albeit an unwilling one. The uproar can be cloaked in the cause of saving Mexico's democracy. This time it will be almost believable.

May 26, 2008
Tom Cash
email: tomcashgold@yahoo.com

lunatic fringe? :shock:
longjonsilver
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:45 am

Re: The State of the States

Postby RWS on Thu May 29, 2008 10:07 am

Not quite lunatic, but probably quite fringe -- well, if not fringe, then lunatic!

I don't see an invasion of Mexico in the offing. The reverse has been happening, though with government-issued arms, for a third of a century. Think of the Roman Empire in the West during the early fifth century. We're now at about 435 or 450 A.D. in comparable terms, I think -- though some prescient fellow might with cause say that I'm a decade or two behind the mark.
RWS
Rank: Chile Forum Hero
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Lobby

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests