- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Socialist will always claim it was because it was not big enough, and people wouldn't participate as they should. Rand illustrates it very well and I think its an excellent read, you may like it and even learn something from it.
You cannot make something that by its nature is never responsible for anything responsible. To win it, we have to stop focusing on fighting it and have an alternate plan, well thought out and openly discussed.
We do not have an 'alternate reality' against which we can compare our current achievements (or lack thereof). We cannot answer the questions: Better than what? Worse than what?
I suspect that the world we are in is a lot better than if people who cared about freedom had stopped voting for the best person available...but then...I don't have a base line either and that is only my opinion.
Jan
Thanks. In my view it took 100 years of incremental nonsense to get us here, to reverse it we will need to take some years of focused incremental movement back to freedom, and in my view we have someone that will at least move that direction. Grab the opportunity they seem few and far between.
Jan
You look at what the two presidents who had a brain about it did in there times and they prove it wont take so long as that, but it will take more than the 8 years of one good president. It will take 3 good presidents leading towards smaller government over about 20-25 years to set us on the right course, and cement in the ideas of a constitutional self rule for everyone by the rule of law.
A culture shift from a nation of men back to a nation of law will take a generation to make last.
Always a pleasure to chat with you.
Try it for a change.... then tell me how many candidates you have left that meet or go higher than that bar.
One more step to the left ain't gonna hurt you none Billy Bob!
In representative democracies you get Bernies and Obeyme''s and welcome to them.
I think the only way we will get change is by getting person(s) into key leadership positions in a party, and then changing the nature of the party from with.
I can see where you are coming from, but if your right there is no way to correct the course, and someone like Calvin Coolidge or Ronald Reagen would never have been elected. Neither of those changed the party significantly but they were the only two presidents in the last century that moved in the right direction. Both were GOP candidates that were not the political norm.
I think Cruz is one of those again.
Which leaves only Gary Johnson, who is on-track but it all seems that collectivism now clearly rules the roost.
This debate will feature Gary Johnson, Steve Kerbel, Darryl Perry, Shawna Sterling, John McAffee is still a maybe, though his campaign said that it would move heaven and earth to get him there, Marc Allen Feldman is also still a maybe, and I am in contact with Jesse Ventura's Publicist, though he is still on the fence as to whether or not he will actually run... (I would never give anyone a hard time on that particular decision, I know what is involved just for local offices, let alone running all around the nation..)
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
steve@stevefor8.com
P.S. I am co-chairing the convention committee since I am the Immediate Past Chair of the LPPA and SOMEBODY had to do it! LOL
if we are to fix this it will only happen through constant and slow incremental process. Gary would be great, but he has no chance of winning today. He has no chance of winning, likely in his life time.
You have someone running who will move us towards are world where a true small government constitutionalism could be put in, but unless you will fight for the incremental steps you wont win the war, or even get in the fight.
Remember the military does not swear allegiance to the any individual or even the country by name. Only the Constitution is mentioned.
Martial law would mean zippo for the above mentioned and all the lawyers in the world wouldn't help. Except to get them a pair of handcuffs as well.
You really ought to d a bit more research. Combining the Suspicion of arrest powers with Martial Law would be a wonderful thing since the military are not friends of Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Bernie,
Best of all it would be a legal and required counter revolution.
Any time the military chooses to do it. They are the sole judge of when.
Check out how many military contractors work directly for the white house. Also the national and state guard can be called up by the white house and fema is well armed.
It wont be the military. Civil defense is not the preview of the military but the local national guard chapter and fema. They would bring the 150,000+ contractors home and send more military out to deal with things abroad.
Fema's purchased armored vehicles, tons of .223 ammunition and stock piled it over the last few years.
I would agree with you if it would be the military in charge, more than half would refuse to do it, but if you go to california national gaurd and tell them how bad those small government red necks are in Utah, they will go and pin us down.
The military only would get involved if they refuse to follow orders (many would take this route) or if the tyrant in charge knew he had them in his pocket.
Obama said, when first campaigning for office. We need a civil defense force at least as strong as our military. he has gone a long way to make that happen and they answer only to the white house.
They wouldn't be "California National Guard they would be US Army Reservists called to active duty. Same oath of office.
The military can get involved any time they want. Now getting them in his pocket is quite likely...But if the Generals join the dark side it's the duty of the Colonels to remove them ...oath of office. makes no mention of exemption for Commanders-In-Chief or uniformed commissioned or non-commissioned officers. There oat says the same thing.
You don't have enough military time to be making up stuff. stick to what you know. Just as I also must do .... .
What I was getting at is this: If you call up guard from California or some other liberal place, and you call them up under a divisive guise people will follow it.
If you call up the California guard to go put down the rebellion against the empire in Utah they are likely to go do it. It wont matter if the rebellion is legit, it will only mater that the progressive culture of California does not much care for the conservative culture of Utah. You can use racial lines, or religious lines as well, anything that separates people into groups can an will be used to get one group to suppress the other.
They all ready do that socially and its naive to think they wont take the same approach physically if military law were put in place.
the strongest force DOHS has is Border Patrol, Secret Service and FBI.. the politicians are smart enough to see it coming.....until it's too late....all war gamed out in the sixties and seventies..we were preparing for a Carter removal back then. thought it was a n exercise in planning.
Didn't need to do so.
can't argue with it. i'm still for keeping the pressure on so he and he RNC know we aren't taking any more shit from then anymore......
We all must work hard to get out the votes of older people. I live in Jacksonville, FL and am working with a team that concentrates on actually calling and going to retirement centers, nursing homes and places where people may need help to request an absent ballot and reminding and/or visiting them to mail their absentee ballot. This is the Most Important Presidential Election in the history of the the Greatest Nation on Earth. Work smart and hard to make sure everyone votes to get the USA back on track before it is too late.
There is no room for bigotry against anything in a rational world. Can you push past your disdain for "HIS version of god" and can you accept that not everyone agrees with "YOUR version of god."
Term2, you likely are atheist based of your comments and have a real problem with a belief in god. If I am wrong I apologize, but if I am right get over it.
I personally think Atheists are irrational as much so as Scientologist are on the wacky religion spectrum. Someone who god is that there is no god, or there god is an alien race from some other world can be just fine by me. If they want freedom, do not wish to tell me to live my life for them and deny the initiation of any kind of force in society, I can get along with you.
I personally do not know any scientoligest, but know a few athiests. I have met some that I consider friend, even brother. I have met some that wish to force their godlessness on me, and those I lump in the Muslims who think it OK to force me to be Muslim. I see no difference between the two religions if they believe they have the right to force there belief's on me.
I again may be wrong, but your posts show you to be one that believes that athiesm, or at lest some form of godlessness should be forced on everyone. I hope I am wrong, I would rather call you friend.
Now, I'm currently intrigued by rolling the dice with Trump because I'm not actually sure that anyone else can change the socialist trend. Of course I'm not all that sure which way he would really go, only that he seems to be able to rally the "troops".
He has said:
we will have universal health care, only it will be good.
I will use executive order to get things done, but I will do good things.
Eminent domain is OK, when some single house is stopping a project that would create thousands of jobs, its OK. We have to think of the thousands of jobs.
If you want to give that a chance, something is not right with your thinking. He would be worse for the course of America than any one else on either side of the isle. he pretends to be for small government and conservative but has those kinds of beliefs. What happens when the economy takes a hard crash and we get another fool who says basically "I had to take more power it was the only way to save capitalism" liek Bush did. What will that reinforce again?
No Trump would be the worst possible outcome for freedom.
We need to allow new ways of caring for people's health that don't funnel through a doctor. Software could certainly help if laws controlling practicing medicine without a license were changed.
Will Cruz be true to his roots? Not if his Got any dice?
Who is next only one that is doing anything but talking.....the rest range from socialist corporatist fascist Trump to ....Johnson?
With respect to Cruz, Rand and Ron are not in the running. We are here, and I want to be there. Cruz is the next best, period. Although as FFA has noted I could throw away my general election vote without consequence here in MA on an even stronger message.
I agree that we should vote against the big government types. however in this election the worst person to get it will be trump. Why do I say that? If the shit hits the fan in the next term and I think it will. Whomever is in is going to get blamed for it. Those three will all make matters worse because they will all attempt to control the situation and fail. If Trump is there, his claim to be for small government will mark a failure on capitalism and small government and we will not see it again in 5 generations at least.
That being said if the choice is either of those two and trump, I will write in Cruz or Gary anyway. I cannot vote for or support those who would destroy what freedom still exists.
Why are we denying these people their national birth right???? AND compounding the problem.
Point is they were handed a second chance what they did with it is their business.
Insofar as the chants of stop the genocide from the left one only has to look at the stained purple standard of Kosovo to remember what a crock of crap that left wing, temporary, stance was.
It's certainly something that sounds good but you have to take into account what will happen as a result of that decision. As a result, we had the Iranian Revolution. If we had not withdrawn support, it's possible that it would not have been overthrown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...