A New American Civil War - West Vs. East?


PDA






shooterx10
July 18, 2003, 01:21 PM
A New American Civil War - West Vs. East?
By Sheriff Mike Cook

I'm starting to get worried. It seems to me that everything I read in the news anymore is slanted to the liberal side of things. They are really starting to work hard to turn the tide in the 2004 election. I believe the liberals know that if they don't gain ground on this election the movements they have championed will be set back for a long time. For conservative people like me this is good, however I believe we are about to see all stops pulled out and some of the dirtiest campaigning you have ever witnessed coming down the pike.

The liberal main stream media will be putting out about as much false and misleading information as they can. You see the truth doesn't matter to them if they can get the emotional response they want. An example would be the attack on so called assault weapons by CNN. There was nothing in that report that was even remotely close to the truth. The whole thing was set up to make the people on the line panic for no good reason at all. How many times will they shoot movies or documentaries about the school shooting at Columbine. We have lived through that crime and most everyone understands that two young males took it upon themselves to shoot up their school. That's right, they did it, and no weapon they used had any responsibility for doing it. The fact was they broke the law to get the weapons and no laws would have prevented them from this act. So demonizing the gun and saying that it could be controlled and would have stopped this attack is like saying that we as humans don't need food to live because some are obese.

So stand by to read through the news and media attacks that are about to fall around us. None of it will help you make good and informed decisions this coming election.

Now, I'm just as worried when I read the more conservative news papers and web sites. I think if things go bad in 2004 we will see another civil war in America. This time it may be West Vs East. The reason is the damage that can be done to the West because of so much government controlled land. The enviros have forced the government to make many poor choices in over seeing this land. The people who live in the West have been damaged to the point that it is even affecting private property. That was one reason we started this nation of ours was for private property rights. Those rights and the fight for private property have been going on from the very beginning. This is especially true in the West.

In my many years in law enforcement I have witnessed untold fights over property lines and other property issues. It spans the gamut from homicide to fist fights. People take this as serious as they do anything that affects them. I have also helped friends who were harassed by a bad neighbor called the government. All because of the government's attempt to take property that cannot legally or constitutionally be under their control. The government is considered the worst neighbor you can have in the West, with good cause. I do know that with all the land use laws that have been put in place over the last few years, we the people are no longer in control of our property. These laws also allow others to harass property owners and they can do it legally through the government and courts. This can only lead to frustration, which leads to violence.

Now we have two issues that affect many people all at once. One is the use of "government land" for grazing and other things like logging and recreational uses. Then the topper to it all is the battle over something that is very precious to all humanity, water. This may be the straw that broke the camels back in this pending war between the states. The government wants to control it, and the enviro types want to force the government not let anyone use it. They are using every un-Constitutional law they have shoved down our throat to stop this use. When that fails they go to the court system until they find a judge who agrees with them.

Now you see why I'm worried. I believe we are headed for one big blood bath in this nation. One that may divide this nation and cause harm that will never be repaired just like the last civil war. I do know that our enemies are sitting back licking their chops, just waiting for this to happen. Our only chance is to elect people to office who will return our rights and freedoms to us and down size government. If this doesn't happen and we go the other way it will be war like we have never seen before. I pray to God that doesn't happen.

God Bless America.
God Bless our troops, still in harms way.

Michael E. Cook, Coos County Sheriff, Retired.

Here is the link. (http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/16/sheriff.htm)

If you enjoyed reading about "A New American Civil War - West Vs. East?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mike Irwin
July 18, 2003, 01:29 PM
Hey, California wants to break off from the Union, more power to it.

Get the hell out of here.

4v50 Gary
July 18, 2003, 01:45 PM
Mike! I'm a Californian and if that's the way you feel, well, O.K., to **** with California. I'm fed up. :mad: I can't wait to retire and move out of here. This state sucks and the only good thing is the weather (very mild winters and summers aren't like the East Coast).

On the issue of succession, I hate to see another Civil War. The first one was bad enough. If anything tears the West apart, it'll be the fight for water. Salmon v. growing population or the needs of farmers.

What the good sheriff says is right. We need to scale back gubmint and make people more responsible for themselves and their own actions. Want government off your back? Don't ask for help.

SodaPop
July 18, 2003, 01:53 PM
All hell will break loose in this country when the next Democrat or Republican picks a Supreme court justice.

.45Ruger
July 18, 2003, 02:44 PM
An East vs. West civil war? I don't know. The water question is a very serious one indeed. I live in Phoenix which is the fastest growing metro area in the nation. Right now we are also into the worst drought in over a century with no relief in sight. The question becomes, where do we get water for all of these people. Part of the problem lies with inefficient uses of water. It would amaze you how many yahoos move to Arizona from back East and have to have their lush grass lawn here. There are also golf courses galore that suck up untold amounts of water. I don't think a civil war will result from all of this but I do think that when people start having to face water rationing and $200 a month for water instead of the $20 we pay now it may discourage some from moving here.

priv8ter
July 18, 2003, 02:59 PM
.45ruger, you made a great point about golf courses. Now it's easy for me to slam them, because I'm, not a golfer, but it makes me kind of angry!.

There is this one in South Eastern Washington in a resort called Desert Aire. While like the name says, it is located in a desert. Nothing but sage and scrub brush and dirt for a hunder miles...but, then, you have this one oasis of lush green grass...just for the golfers.

I'm not an environmental engineer but I would love to see some numbers on how many acres of wheat could be grown, or how many showers could be taken with all the water it takes to keep that course looking green in the middle of August in the desert.

GinSlinger
July 18, 2003, 03:06 PM
Just a quick question, some golf coasts use "grey" water for irrigation, do any of these courses in question use such?

I don't think it will be EvsW, rather, rural vs urban. It would be interesting if a state could vote out major metropolatin areas. Without seeing the numbers I would surmise that population centers are a huge drain on rural areas in terms of taxes paid to returns from government.

GinSlinger

bogie
July 18, 2003, 03:21 PM
IMHO a civil war isn't likely to be east v. west...

More likely we'll see a "rural areas" v. "urban areas."

And how long are Chicago, St. Louis, etc., much less NYC and LA, going to last if the farmers quit sending 'em food?

Baba Louie
July 18, 2003, 03:56 PM
GinSlinger and Bogie are right.

Look at the last Presidential Map for the borders (Red vs. Blue). The old city mouse vs. country mouse paradigm.

Key control elements are water, electricity and tax base. Its far easier to control populace within defined city boundaries and electrical grids.

Pretty soon, everyone will realize they're on the gov't dole and only a very few individuals left to shout out "Give me liberty or give me"... will be that much easier to identify, isolate and re-educate... unless they become a real PITA to those in power.

Oh, I forgot money. The more you have, the easier life will be, as long as you don't create and control a multi-billion dollar industry without giving some concessions to the elected and appointed controllers.

Probably need some form of regional control as well and I'm sure that Uncle Sam and the various Governors have those things decided already with plans drawn up and implementation only a phone call or two away.

???What tin-foil hat???

Adios

Waitone
July 18, 2003, 04:00 PM
SodaPop has it right. The Third Civil war will start with the nomination of the next supreme court justice. Too much is riding for both political ideologies on the next selection. It will most decidedly be a vigorous political debate and nothing more.

The west is certainly primed for a revolt of some kind. Water as an issue has historically been a bone of contention. Mix water up with environmentalism and UN initiative on sustainable growth and you have trouble. Radical environmentalists are intent on returning areas of the US (mostly in the west) to pre-Christopher Columbus pristine condition. That means voluntary and involuntary migration of humans to human game preserves. Water is the perfect means of causing migration. Klamuth Basin is the prototype environmental initiative. Withhold water, destroy farming, destroy land value, offer to purchase at greatly reduced price, move inhabitants off land, set land aside. . . . .

Yea, it'll start in the west most likely over water.

2dogs
July 18, 2003, 04:18 PM
however I believe we are about to see all stops pulled out and some of the dirtiest campaigning you have ever witnessed coming down the pike.

This has already started, the "liberals" are getting the propaganda machine running on assault weapons, Iraq, WMD etc.

If you've been following the news this week concerning Bush's "16 words" it's been like freakin' feeding time in the pirhanna tank- and the media is working OT to push the line.

After 8 years of Clinton, it is amazing to watch the out right lies and underhandedness Democrats will use to keep/regain power.

I agree with you other folks re urban vs rural- and due to the numbers of urban voters eventually the country will be lost (except for people holed up on their own). It only takes one large city in each state to sink it.

"Golf- a good walk ruined."
:neener:

Felonious Monk
July 18, 2003, 04:24 PM
All of you have a piece of the puzzle right.

I believe what you are seeing is best represented by the map after the 2000 elections. Two coastal stripes of liberalism, primarily from DC up the East Coast, and the People's Republic of **********.

East AND West coast Urban/suburban, upwardly mobile politically correct Liberals, seeking not (as they claim) to celebrate diversity, but to grind us all into one gray mass of uniformity...all of us living like the Euro-trash, with cradle-to-grave Nanny-state support.

vs.

Heartland America with their "antiquated, colloquial values" of God, Family, and Country. Freedom, individualism, equality of opportunity, honor, duty, and LIMITED government.

That, to me, is where the lines are being drawn.

JDSlack
July 18, 2003, 04:55 PM
Saw this somewhere else...might work.

Mike Irwin
July 18, 2003, 05:30 PM
Back in the 1930s, when the Colorado River was being dammed, IIRC Arizona called up the state's National Guard units over the water issue.

Sam Adams
July 18, 2003, 05:44 PM
I agree with those who think that the real fight is between rural and urban areas. Rural folks tend to have more traditional values and actually believe that the Constitution means something, whereas city folk (esp. on the coasts) tend to be much more liberal (which is to say, in favor of big government handouts) and to think that the limitations in the Constitution are more a challenge to be gotten around than a thing that protects all of us from those who want to exercise power.

I personally think that the water issue isn't going to be the spark. It will be guns, because it will be easier for a Democrapic administration to assert control that way than over water or any other issue. The Patriot Act has already given any would-be tyrant the tools necessary to assert control. A simple Executive Order by President Hitlery will make any of us that have ever expressed an anti-government viewpoint with regard to guns into "terrorists." This will occur after another Columbine type of event, and will be the excuse for AG Schumer to send BATFE goon squads around to collect guns and kill anyone who insists on resisting ("resisting" being defined as looking the BATF'ker ransacking your house in the eye).

Once they get the guns, they can do what they want regarding water or anything else.

Moparmike
July 18, 2003, 08:25 PM
If it were to happen like that, what role would the US military play?
Where would YOU go if a situation like we are describing (W vs E, Rural vs Urbanite) were to happen and then SHTF?
Is this something we should actually prepare for, or just wait to be drafted?

I live in the city (a small one) but I could easily find a farm or something as the city is surrounded by small farm towns in multiple states for 800 miles in all directions.

amprecon
July 18, 2003, 10:43 PM
I'm not so sure the lines will be so vividly divided, rural vs urban. I think the lines will be drawn at the ideological level. I have personally divided ideologies into a couple of groups.

1) Those which are conservative which have strong moral values, believe in God and believe that a persons' rights are merely defined in the Constitution not granted. They believe in hard work and individualism and usually don't expect much as far as what is supposedly owed them by others or hand-outs or welfare from any person. Lastly they have a conscience to deal with.

2) Those which are liberal usually believe in evolution, that the Constitution is an outdated document which doesn't apply to today's modern society. They believe that because they are Americans and that there's so many rich people in this country, that the rich are indebted to them for their prosperity. They believe that the rich have trampled over the common person to attain it and some of it is owed back. The Democrats/liberals feed this ideology by promising more welfare at the expense of the rich as long as they are voted for.
They also believe that they should not be held accountable for their actions and that doing "wrong" is a relative term not a moral one. They believe there are reasons for why they acted wrongly and that it is societies fault that they are who they are.
They believe in freedom to do what they want to do but to limit or ban freedoms they don't believe in. These people are the reason we have laws because they have no Christian beliefs and think laws were made by angry men that don't know how to have fun and whose only purpose in life is to harass them. They have little conscience to deal with and cannot define nor recognize morality.

I am an observant person, I have spent 10 years in the Navy and have been around the world. I have seen and interacted with many people and from my observations, they can be decisively divided into these two groups.

The second group wishes to impose their idea of society upon the rest of the country, they have found that their ideology is not as popular as they thought but if they can only impose it upon everyone, they will eventually "see the light" and comply willingly. They pride themselves on being the center of attention and for taking credit for their idea for new world order. However they are unwilling to make personal sacrifices to attain their goals. When they don't get their way or when their idea goes bad they are quick to point out that the cause for the failure is the old order (conservativism) and why everyone should embrace their way of thinking to change it. They appear to have realized that they can circumvent the Constitutional boundaries and the legislative branch via the judicial avenue since those that can make judicial law are appointed by the few not elected by the many.

Apparently the judgeships of this country have taken it upon themselves to ignore existing law and create their own laws which they believe would better benefit society as they see fit.

The first group is happy to live within the bounds of their beliefs and if others are interested or envy their success will, upon request, offer their recipes for their success. They spend their time achieving their personal goals with the belief that things will remain the same because that is what the Constitution says, so they don't pay the proper amount of attention to the political scene as they should. It is when they discover a need in their pursuit of their goal, such as a new tractor or new gun or new airplane and find that things aren't the same, that the tax rate has now made the acquisition unattainable, that they realize that things haven't remained the same. There are now people who are out to destroy their societal security blanket (the Constitution) and, as it is almost too late, have to put their goals aside to stem the tide of Consitutional erosion to restore the law which they felt so previously secure in. It is an uphill battle at this point.

These two groups of people are interdispursed throughout the country, rural, urban, isolated, there are no definitive physical lines, just ideals. It is when one group combines to create an identifiable force to oppose the other, where the lines will be drawn.

longeyes
July 19, 2003, 02:23 AM
It will start in California and it won't be about water.

It will be about the Productive Class finally getting the picture
that their rights, treasure, property, and present and future
freedoms are being traded off, without representation, for
votes, and for power, and for control. Traded off to the Welfare Class.
Right now half the taxpayers pay 96 per cent of the taxes in this
fair Republic; ten per cent pay 70 per cent. Is that "progressive"
enough for ya? There will be a Take Back America movement--and, yes,
illegal immigration will start to become a major divisive issue
as people realize that legal citizenship and sovereignty are rapidly
becoming obsolete concepts. What will be the flashpoint? Maybe
the pols stepping over the line and integrating our Social Security
system with Mexico, handing U.S. taxpayers a yearly bill of a couple
hundred billion dollares a year? Maybe a high court effectively abolishing
the last privileges of citizenship? Maybe it will just be that one
day enough people will have had it with an oligarchy of blackrobes
after another ruling that drives a harpoon into primal values, telling
Joe Q. Citizen that he has no real right to parent his own children or
that he is obligated to pay for sex-change operations for convicted
murderers?

The Big Question will be, as always, Which Side will the Military
Come Down On?

PATH
July 19, 2003, 02:32 AM
Let us hope that civil war never happens. If it does I am with the rurals against the city folks. I am with the consevatives as opposed to the liberals. The Constitution as opposed to the U.N. Charter and the communist manifesto.

We shall see!

Zundfolge
July 19, 2003, 02:35 AM
Nope ... no civil war.


Americans are sheep ... those that loose politicaly won't take up arms, they'll just shut up and fade away.

There will be no SHTF, no rebellion, no "Second Revolution", at best there will be a couple of riots and maybe another Waco or two ... we'll all just wake up some day in a Gulag called the United States of America and there won't be a damn thing we can do about it (guns or not).


we're f***ed ... sorry to be a wet blanket

:banghead:

only1asterisk
July 19, 2003, 03:28 AM
As much as I hate it, Zundfolge has it right. Most of us will go without a fight; the rest will die alone. There will be no war or resistance, just an end to a way of life. No one will care; the media will proclaim us racist, sexist, anarchist or worse, religious and enemies of order, social justice, NAMBLA, the enviroment, children, elderly and puppies. Our neighbors will be on TV, telling the world that never would have guessed that about us, and then everyone will forget.

But don't worry friends; after they rid themselves of us, they will not last long. It is not we that need them, but they that need us.


David

Hal
July 19, 2003, 05:22 AM
Pssst! I think the last 2 guys have it right,,,but don't let on just yet

AZLibertarian
July 19, 2003, 12:27 PM
4v50 Gary...On the issue of succession, I hate to see another Civil War. The first one was bad enough....

Gary, I've got to disagree. Our "First Civil War" ended quite nicely with the American Colonial rebels expelling the British Red Coats. IMO, our "Second Civil War" never needed to be fought, but that's another thread entirely.

However, as to the general thrust of this thread, I've said for a number of years that I won't be surprized that another civil war is on the horizon. As many of you have recognized, it may begin over land or water rights. Many in the east do not recognize the level of frustration that today exists in the west over the restrictions on how we live.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the spark comes from gun rights, tax policy, the size and impact of our big government, or some moral question such as what to do about abortion, or euthanizing the elderly or sick.

But as to "sheeple", I have to say that I believe that irresponsible government actions (Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc), create as many citizens willing to take action to oppose future infringements, as convincing sheeple to 'go along to get along'.

longeyes
July 19, 2003, 12:38 PM
I refuse to have my weekend ruined by naysayers.:)

The Right in America has so far been anything but an activist force.
They are out there on talk radio and on the Internet. But not in
the streets. Yet. Granted, people want to be left alone, go about
their own business. But it's become pretty clear that these same
people are NOT going to be able to get through the remainder of their
lives Being Left Alone. When they recognize, and I still believe
Something Big will open their eyes, that the America they thought their
kids would have is crumbling away at an ever more rapid rate every year
we are going to see things we thought we would never see. That's my
belief, anyway. I think the current crop of pols are not only capable
of igniting mass protest but probably unconsciously needful of doing so.
As one pundit has observed, a lot of what we are seeing these days isn't
so much the expression of a political philosophy but rather of a "mental
disorder." The buttons are going to get pushed. What happens will be
"interesting," in the Chinese sense, to watch. And participate in.

Don't worry, you'll all get a chance.

Byron Quick
July 19, 2003, 01:38 PM
I don't think a civil war will result from all of this but I do think that when people start having to face water rationing and $200 a month for water instead of the $20 we pay now it may discourage some from moving here.

You live in a desert and pay $20 a month for water? I pay more than that in eastern central Georgia.


The fight over water in the Southwest will be between the states there...it's not a east vs. west issue unless you're defining east as the federal government.

By the same token, I doubt many westerners are concerned with the dispute over water between Alabama, Georgia, and Florida...did you even know there was such a dispute? Do you care? Ready to fight about it?

By the same token, the dispute over water in the Colorado River doesn't get me all het up. Whichever way it goes will not affect my water supply by one drop. For that matter it won't affect anyone within over a thousand miles from here. Unless, of course, the western states try to get the federal government to pay the bill for them deciding to try to build cities in deserts...might be willing to fight about that.

4v50 Gary
July 19, 2003, 01:44 PM
AZLiberterian - I stand corrected. Yes, our first Civil War resulted in the break from the mother country and the results were wonderful.

The second civil war was seen by some of the participants as a continuation of the first. That was a rebellion but not a revolution (the former indicating a failure and the latter a success). The "inviolate right" of a state to succeed from a voluntary union was tried before in the 1840s but when South Carolina tried it, no other state stood by her and President Jackson (Old Hickory) threatened to send in the military (what was it, 10-15k strong(?) in the 1840s?).

Wanna start another rebellion? Shut down the telly and make the sheeple think. Ohmigawd! They did what to us? :eek:

twoblink
July 19, 2003, 02:16 PM
Gary..

When you have Davis at the helm.. he's like King Anti-Midus.. Everything he touches turns into mildew..

People who voted for him the second time around; need to get neutered so they don't have any more kids!

It's amazing to me that one of one hand; liberals yap about saving the whales, rights for monkeys and dolphins, and then usurp human rights at gestapo rates..

4v50 Gary
July 19, 2003, 02:56 PM
twoblink: Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha! :D Everything turns to mildew. Bwahahahahahaha! People who voted for him need to be neutred. Bwahahahahaha! :D :D

spartacus2002
July 20, 2003, 07:12 PM
2d American Revolution, or 3d Civil War, or whatever you call it, will come much sooner than any of us think, and I can tell you why in 2 questions?

1. When are the baby boomers due to start retiring in their first HUGE WAVES, and start drawing massive amounts of Social Security (not per person, but altogether)?

2. When is Hillary Clinton, socialist extraordinaire and subject of a whispering campaign regarding her Presidential aspirations, rumored to be the Democratic nominee for President?

Folks, when the boomers start retiring, it will be a drain on our financial system unheralded in our history. One of several things must happen then:
(a) our 7% (or however small it is) SS tax jumps to, say, 20%?
(b) we inflate our money supply even more than it is, rendering the $ virtually worthless (go read your history of Germany between the wars and the inflation of the mark)
(c) politicians tell the largest voting bloc in our country to go pound sand (yeah, like that will happen)

And Hillary will campaign on how she will make sure the boomers get their checks off of our hardworking backs -- all 2 of us for each boomer.

I got nuthin' against the boomers, but I'm not going into slavery for anyone.

brownie0486
July 20, 2003, 08:59 PM
Oh Yes you are.

The boomers rock

Brownie

longeyes
July 20, 2003, 09:39 PM
Hey, Spartacus, not to worry, that's why the pols want those open
borders. They figure eventually there'll be a net gain instead of
a net drain. Some of us question the abacus they're working with
but what the hell, right?

Waitone
July 20, 2003, 10:49 PM
The population of the US is declining. Our reproduction rate is less than replacement.

Growth in the US population is because of immigration, legal and illegal.

The baby boom spike will savage the wagon pullers. No country will be able to sustain the real tax rate necessary to keep SS system from collapsing.

In any Ponzi Scheme the base must expand or it will collapse. In SS the base is money, not people.

There is one solution not discussed in public but I guarantee you the power elites have talked it up. That is keep boomers on the job well past the mythical 65. If boomers retired as everyone expects, far too many people will be taken out of the work force at one time. Economic dislocation will be too high. Solution is to keep 'em workin' and paying that tax. . . . . The alternative is to outsource huge percentages of labor (not likely because of the servere deflationary consequences) or bring in immigrants and tax the snot out of them (in process).

How do you keep the geezers on the job?????? Get 'em to invest heavily in deferred tax savings, keep savings in equities, collapse the equities market, presto chango, geezers no longer have the nest egg everyone is hoping for.

. . . . and , no, my cynicism does not keep me awake at night.

SodaPop
July 20, 2003, 11:12 PM
Its going to be over issues like abortion that are going to set things off. If there is even the hint of the Supreme Court turning to the Right, the Left is going to get out of hand.

I realize there are plenty of Pro-choice 2nd Ammendment types on this Board but they are in the minority. How many Surpeme Court Justices are going to be Pro-2nd and Pro-Choice? NONE!!


What issue does the Democratic party keep its base with? Pro-Choice, Gay Rights, pulling 'the race card' ect. ect. ect..

What issue does the Conservative Party keeps its base with? Second Ammendment, traditional Judeo-Christian social beliefs ect. ect. ect...



There is all too much hate on both sides of the aisle 9/11 only held it off for awhile.

St. Gunner
July 20, 2003, 11:54 PM
Nobody so far is really wrong...

Every reason listed for a civil war to errupt, is an issue someone is willing to die for to make right. They vary from water, to guns, to the constitution, to social security checks, to people unwilling to support others with SS. But the thing we all must realize to keep from being splintered is that we know where the problems stem from, it is a government bent on legislating every aspect of our lives. We in turn must take responsibility for our own actions which led to that legislation which is going to kill our land. We all will come to that realization at some point, it is human nature to realize, even if to late, that we failed. Who was it that said, "We gave you a republic, if you can keep it." As we slide more towards a socialist democracy...

Some won't, they will just follow, but they will in turn perish in the crash that follows the demise of those with morals and values.

I have a host of issues I will no longer compromise on, one I discussed at length with a deputy last evening about the liberal lethal force laws in Texas, defense of property, and the average response time, it was only 45minutes last night after a call of tresspassers in my carport at 2:30am. I was explaining to him he could look out for the welfare of the neighborhood scum by explaining they would be greeted by two shots to the chest the next time they came, as he explained how it isn't right to kill someone over property, even if the law says it is legal. I will not go peacefully for protecting my property, so you can add that to the mix...

:fire: :cuss: :fire:

seeker_two
July 21, 2003, 11:03 AM
The next civil war won't be another grand spectacle like the last one...

It will be a series of McVeigh-style attacks...

And Rudolph-style assasinations...

That will be conveniently "covered" by exisitng anti-terrorist legislation...

And the Patriot Acts One through Five (just wait)...

Resulting in urban & rural warfare similar to Northern Ireland...

And SWAT-type teams (possibly w/ military assistance) "investigating" homes in every community...

And even more anti-"terrorist" legislation that will co-opt the Constitution.

It's not going to be pretty...:(

Travis McGee
July 21, 2003, 11:27 AM
ShooterX10: I don't think that a American civil war would break down along geographical lines. Sure, big chunks of the west would probably go "our way," but only because they would fall more on the rural side of a rural vs urban war. But I even think a "civil war" is less likely than a South American style "dirty war." One way such a war could break out would be over the issue of firearms, which is the subject of my novel.

http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/bookcover.jpg

Travis McGee
July 21, 2003, 11:29 AM
Seeker: I think you are exactly correct. I agree 100% with your take.

TheEgg
July 21, 2003, 01:06 PM
I think that when large scale violence breaks out it will come from the left, not the right. Look at the current vitriolic attacks coming from the left, including most of the leftist candidates for President. Look at how the left on campuses react to speech from the right. Look at how the left supports terrorists such as the extreme enviromentalists and animal rights nut-cases. Look at how the left in this country really admire Castro and his ilk. Look at how much the left really hate America.

If the left sees elections continuing to swing against them and more conservative's in power (I also like the above points about the Supreme Court), I think they are fully capable of ignoring law (see NJ and Florida supreme courts for reference) and going to extra-legal and violent means.

People on the right in my opinion are generally too fragmented in their views and too willing to rely on "law" and "the system" to be the instigators of conflict, certain well know exceptions such as Rudolph and McVeigh notwithstanding. Extreme left-wingers strike me as very willing to justify the means with the ends and seem to have a culture that encourages or compels a uniform idelogical viewpoint.

Please note that I am making a distinction here between mainstream "liberals/Democrates" and leftists. The leftists seem to me to be about 10%-15% of the population only. Is this group large enough to take over? I don't think so, but it is certainly large enough to cause chaos.

Sportcat
July 21, 2003, 01:32 PM
Damn... I thought the country would revolt when they tried to get rid of my Double Stuff Oreos!!!

So, where are all of the THR's going to meet when the SHTF?

CZ-100
July 21, 2003, 03:08 PM
This is why I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY GUNS!!!!:evil:

SodaPop
July 21, 2003, 03:19 PM
So, where are all of the THR's going to meet when the SHTF?

I'm personally going to resort to my natural insticts and become a warlord.
Start up an 'armed' army and start taking over all the un-cooperating towns in my area.


Maybe even liberate NJ.

It shouldn't be too hard.

If you see my army marching toward your town, just put up a flag and tell me your THR screen name and I'll let you join my army.

clange
July 21, 2003, 05:38 PM
I'm personally going to resort to my natural insticts to become a warlord.
Start up an 'armed' army and start taking over all the un cooperating towns in my area.


Maybe even liberate NJ.

It shouldn't be too hard.

If you see my army marching toward your town, just put up a flag and tell me your THR screen name and I'll let you join my army.
ROFL :D

QuarterBoreGunner
July 21, 2003, 08:15 PM
And I for one, welcome our new overlord SodaPop.


Seriously though, I have to agree with some previous posters- I doub't there will be a civil war, per se. I see more a long protracted slide into an even more restricted society. People, as a general rule seem like the classic toad in the boiling water.

It brings to mind a day dream I've often had; 'what would one of the founding fathers say, if you could bring them to our time, about the state of America?' Ok after the freaking out over the whole 'horseless carriage' thing... what would they say? Have we lost ground ( I think so) or gained ground (though I think we're better off now in any number of areas than say 1776...)


Just rambling.

Moparmike
July 21, 2003, 10:40 PM
Odd that you ask that question, as me and a friend were talking about that just last night.

I would hand them a copy of the Income Tax Code, a copy of the 16th amendment, show how the 10th amendment(0) is the veritable toilet paper of all 3 branches of government, a copy of national gun laws, a copy of the PRK's gun laws, a copy of NJ's gun laws, and then wait for their impending stroke(s). If they lived thru that, I would hand them a detailed book of the nation's history, then wait for their stroke. I would also show them the nature of frivolus laws and lawsuits.

I would give Thomas Jefferson a copy of everything we have done with the UN (lets remember he said {and I paraphrase}: "Do not form binding ties with other nations as they will be your undoing." He meant in a military way, and said that in another quote. Business ties are fine.)

If they lived, I think they would take up arms and "change" some laws and do some "gentle persuading" of our current lawmakers.


(0): Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

amprecon
July 21, 2003, 11:58 PM
This country full of sheeple? There are probably quite a lot. However I still hold on to the belief that most Americans are good people of good moral character. I like to compare Americans to honey bees; left alone to their work they are pretty much harmless until pestered.

I do believe that most people are not up-to-date with politics; I don’t think it’s on their Top-10 list of priorities. We have busy lives; we like to be left alone to do what we want to do, to take care of our personal priorities, not worry over the daily goings-on in politics.

There are extremists on all sides of the political spectrum, it was said that the left are extreme, but let’s not forget the violent actions of the anti-abortion activists also. I cannot predict the future, but the past has given me ample examples of what it takes to set a group of people into despair and hostility.

The Rodney King beating verdicts was enough for thousands to lose their self-control and revolt the unfair decision. Not to say their actions were justified, but what alternatives did they have? What other means of recourse could that group of people have taken? Appeals? Petitions? They reached their breaking point. There was nothing they did, nor could’ve done aside from sacking the courthouse and lynching those officers that would’ve given them the justice they sought, how would the rest of America have reacted to that? How did we react to what happened? Some sympathized with the actions of the communities (to some extent); others thought it was revolting, savage and unnecessary.

As far as I am concerned, the burnings, lootings, assaults were totally unjustified. The local businesses had nothing to do with the verdicts yet they were the focus of revenge. It seems that sacking the courthouse for the officers or the judge might have been more dangerous, but it was where the source of their anger emanated from.

What will it take to set off Conservative America? I believe that most of these sheeple will shed their sheep’s clothing when they do get set off and the hounds-of-war will be released. There will be an identifiable enemy and there will be an identifiable goal. The actions of Conservative America will be calculated and destructive, not diverted with random looting and burning. I believe that most believe in the Constitution and will fight to restore it to its pre-eroded status, maybe with a few amendments added, such as no lawyers allowed to run for president.

I also believe that the majority of our armed forces will take the side of the righteous because they are generally conservative people as well and took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (not illegitimate law).

The only problem I am having is trying to discern what will be the spark to set-off Conservative America. It has to be an attack on a common valuable asset or right, something that all Conservative Americans value, not just some. There has been an ebbing erosion of our rights, we have complained and talked and petitioned and formed associations and even stood before congressional hearings to give our concerns but to no avail. Eerily similar to the actions our forefathers took when appealing to King George. Those on the left will be our modern day Tories, hopefully to suffer the same fate.

Mr. James
July 22, 2003, 12:39 AM
amprecon,

I had to fly to Buffalo today for my work. I refuse to fly for any other reason, outside of family emergency.

What a pathetic sight. People, vast numbers of them, with grateful docility, taking off their shoes and placing all their worldly goods on the X-ray line, before trundling through the scanner.... They even wore special slip-off shoes to make the process simpler. "Oh, thank you for humiliating me."

Welcome to the camps, we've been well trained.

Before I stepped through the Magnotometer, one guy said, "you may want to take off your shoes [to put them through the X-ray]."

"And maybe I don't."

Guess which routine I got?

Hell if I'll make their job easier.

:fire:

Sportcat
July 22, 2003, 07:44 AM
Remember foklks, you don't have to fly if you don't want to. It's a privelege, not a right.

So please don't complain if don't like going through screenings before you get on a flight.

longeyes
July 22, 2003, 12:58 PM
"The only problem I am having is trying to discern what will be the spark to set-off
Conservative America. It has to be an attack on a common valuable asset or
right, something that all Conservative Americans value, not just some."

There's plenty of tinder out there to spark a Conservative "uprising."
America has always been a future-oriented country, based on the idea
that more freedom will bring a better life. When Americans lose faith
in that future, see the future of their children imperiled, their
retirement in jeopardy, their own identities and basic rights questioned,
they will understand it's now or never and that action is required.
Socialist incursions into the inner sanctum of the family are one
example of what threatens. Mortgaging future generations to pay
for unchecked social programs today is another. Absorbing millions of
illegal immigrants is yet another. I think a lot of Americans are
slowly realizing that they are Unrepresented but increasingly taxed
(although much of that is being hidden in unfunded debt and deficits).

Sportcat
July 22, 2003, 01:08 PM
Longeyes,

Excellent, excellent post! I agree with you 100%!

clange
July 22, 2003, 01:42 PM
Half the people in this country dont vote for the president. Half of the ones that do are idiots, that would welcome socialism apparently. So thats 25% that care enough to vote, and arent retarded monkeys. How many of them realize where we're headed still? How many of them actually have been exposed to something like this website or similar views? How many of them actually agree with said views? How many of them care enough to ever do anything? My guess is not too many.

I think having everyone here agreeing is distorting the view of the real world. Now i'm not saying it isnt possible, i just dont see 'conservartive america' ever rising up to do anything. Especially when we're "winning" and you have conservatives on the tv and radio championing their 'successes'.

Art Eatman
July 22, 2003, 03:42 PM
I travel a lot, mostly across the southern U.S. I'm gregarious, so I'm often in conversations with folks from all over the country. One of the clues to mood is the reaction to various comments I make or questions I ask about this world we live in. I also read newspapers along the way, particularly the letters to editors: That gives some feel as to what folks are upset about.

It seems to me there is a general sullenness building, increasing year by year. There seems also to be a decrease in hope for a better future. My feeling is that a continuance of this will lead to a powderkeg situation, where some seemingly trivial happening will start trouble--and it will spread. I haven't a clue as to what it might be...Race riots? "Get rid of illegals!"? Dunno.

The causes of the emotional climate vary with locale and personal viewpoints on many subjects. Water, abortion, taxes, socialism, war, economy, gasoline prices--heck, you name it! These are but a few, but they all appear contributory to a general malaise.

How long before something sets it all off? I haven't a clue.

Art

bogie
July 22, 2003, 03:55 PM
Well, whatever happens, our society is too high-tech to withstand much of a rift. Shut down the transportation system, shut down the food/water/energy into the cities, and you're going to have MAJOR problems.

SodaPop
July 22, 2003, 04:57 PM
i just dont see 'conservartive america' ever rising up to do anything.

I saw plenty of Conservatives in Florida up in arms about the handling of the ballot counts during the 2000 election. That was the first time I ever saw Conservatives go to the streets and say enough was enough.

RAY WOODROW 3RD
July 22, 2003, 08:07 PM
Hail SodaPop!

Don't forget to march your army to Forward Base Buckeye. My fire teams will be waiting;) . We all will be there awaiting your arrival and liberation of our oppressed state. :p

What will "spark" a controversy?

Nothing will spark a controversy. They will take gunners out one at a time like they have been doing. They will not rock the boat. WHY? Because it has been working great so far! Why screw up a good thing? Hate to say it but the majority will bow to more government and continue to bitch about it. How can I expect someone to stand next to me and fight when the majority can't seem to find the time to vote? Voting is a hell of a lot easier!

I forget who said this so I am sorry for not referencing my source:

"When will you know it is time to fight?"

"Grab your gun and go stand out in the middle of your street. If your the only one there, it is not time BUT if 3/4 of your neighbors come out and have their gun THEN and only THEN is it time."

I hate to be negative on this subject but the lack of participation in "The System" proves that people are happy just the way things are.

clange
July 22, 2003, 09:13 PM
I saw plenty of Conservatives in Florida up in arms about the handling of the ballot counts during the 2000 election. That was the first time I ever saw Conservatives go to the streets and say enough was enough.
Holding a sign on a street corner is a far cry from wholescale armed conflict.

Ray got my point. Right off the bat you have 75% of the nation that does not care, or does not agree with our general position. Of the remaining 25%, not many see things the way we do, and even fewer that are willing to go down shooting. The political climate is not even close, nowhere near sparking anything IMO. Its going to be a long time, and a LOT more BS before it is. Things will have to get MUCH worse then they are now for it to change. Our only hope IMO, is that 'things getting worse' is sudden enough that people notice.

longeyes
July 22, 2003, 10:19 PM
"Right off the bat you have 75% of the nation that does not
care, or does not agree with our general position. Of the remaining 25%, not
many see things the way we do, and even fewer that are willing to go down
shooting. The political climate is not even close, nowhere near sparking anything
IMO. Its going to be a long time, and a LOT more BS before it is. Things will have
to get MUCH worse then they are now for it to change. Our only hope IMO, is
that 'things getting worse' is sudden enough that people notice."

The Big Thing that will set off The Silent Majority is still opaque.
It could be many things. But to believe that there is not a simmering
anger gathering in a lot of American households...? There's still a
lack of focus to the anger, but that doesn't mean that the anger isn't
real and potentially directable. I think the American middle-class
is sensing that the America they believed in is somehow slipping away
from them. They may not yet have put it all together and found a "target"
for their frustrations, but I believe they may very well before this
is all over.

The thing, you see, is that the people on top appear to have a compulsion
to push their agenda to the breaking point. Why? Only a psychohistorian
can say for sure, but a lot of the Left's agenda seems to arise from
self-loathing and that is not a very sound platform for creating a
healthy and happy society. Year by year we are becoming more divided,
more fragmented, more balkanized.

Want a burr under the saddle? Perhaps formerly employed American
citizens watching highly paid tech jobs going to Indians who are brought
to this country, on H1-B visas, by corporate America to work
for a fraction of what the American citizens were paid? They get three
years, then another three-year extension. Now Bush & Co. wants to
qualify these imported workers for Social Security after six years.
My understanding is you and I need ten years to meet the minimum.

We have a lot of people, corporate and government, selling us out. That
is the realization that will spark whatever is coming.

carp killer
July 23, 2003, 01:45 AM
Look at the last Presidential Map for the borders (Red vs. Blue). The old city mouse vs. country mouse paradigm.

Bush carried the rural areas, Gore won in the welfare cities. That is where the break will be.

gunsmith
July 23, 2003, 05:53 AM
will be the trigger.
no,I don't mean an airplane crashing into the whitehouse.
some huge terrorist event will catch us un prepared again.
on sept 6th(2001) I was arguing with some friends that our gun
laws were setting us up for the Taliban to attack.
remember the run on guns the week after 9/11/01?
it seems most of the population believe the gov't
can somehow protect us
personally I feel that a loose nuke will be unleashed
in NY or DC
leaving a mess we may never get over

Joe Demko
July 23, 2003, 12:02 PM
If the break were (note the use of the subjunctive tense) rural vs urban, it should be interesting to see which group starves out first. Cities don't produce food, rural areas don't produce manufactured goods or motor fuel. The self-sufficient yeoman farmer doesn't exist any more. There are large areas of this country that are uninabitable, in a modern sense, w/o cars. If this little scenario were to occur, there'd be plent of suffering to go around and in the end the victors would be...all those who ever wished the destruction of the US.
Don't wish for civil war. They are always bloody and costly. It won't be exciting, it won't be romantic, and what follows won't be your wet-dream idea of a conservative paradise.

longeyes
July 23, 2003, 01:17 PM
Count me among those who are NOT fantasizing about the glories
of a civil war. I think a growing cultural divide and increasing
pockets of anarchy and lawlessness are more likely, not two vast
armies, with clearly defined objectives, marching against each other.

I personally believe that class and racial conflicts are very likely.
We could easily have an "Intifada" situation in parts of this country.
Where I live, in Los Angeles, we have all the elements for a mini-civil
war right now. If this State were, for example, to stop public
benefits to illegal aliens, I think we'd see urban violence and a whole
new level of social friction.

A lot depends on the economy. Can the middle-class maintain its
life-style? Can the lower class survive? Unfortunately, there are
"macro" issues that augur poorly. Global capitalism would seem to
make deflation inevitable; there are untold numbers of workers Out There
willing to work for a fraction of what Americans are used to earning.
Computers and telecommunications have given us "higher productivity;"
that means a lot of people likely to be permannently unemployed.
We need politicians who have a grasp of these issues. Right now I really
don't see any.

bogie
July 23, 2003, 01:24 PM
What worries me is a situation which would spark large scale rioting in more than one major city, which would be followed by folks defending themselves, which would then lead to a cry to disarm them, which would then lead to more conflict.

Pray for cool summers.

seeker_two
July 23, 2003, 10:26 PM
There are large areas of this country that are uninabitable, in a modern sense, w/o cars.

We still have horses, mules, bicycles, and feet out here in BFE...:D

But you do have a point. The big problem for rural areas would be pharmaseuticals.

However, factories still have to TRANSPORT those goods to the cities somehow...:evil:

Glock Glockler
July 24, 2003, 01:57 AM
One thing's for sure, we should all be prepared.

How many of you have guns, ammo, water, and food stocked for possible nasty scenarios?

How many of you have a way into a rural area that will most likely be less hot?

Remember one thing though: No country has ever been more than 3 meals away from a revolution,

only1asterisk
July 24, 2003, 02:42 AM
I don't see any glory in war, much less civil war, but I belive that an oppressed people have the right to overthrow their oppressors. We here in the US will not do that. We have collectively sold our freedom for a safe, comfortable prison. Most people are happy that way. They don't feel oppressed, or if they start to, they just turn on their big screen tv or pop in a DVD. Those of that rock the boat will be dealt with. There may be riots and panics, but order will soon be restored least the majority wake from their comfort coma. There will be a slow and steady decline, a rot or slow cancer. Our end will be that of the Romans.


David

Byron Quick
July 24, 2003, 07:22 AM
Remember one thing though: No country has ever been more than 3 meals away from a revolution,


History does not support that statement. Consider Josef Stalin for example, who used induced famine to starve folks he considered politically unreliable to [I]prevent[I] rebellion. If your premise was correct, he would have been shipping them food. Same thing with Ethiopia several years back, the central government was using starvation as a weapon against the rebels.

Notice any rebellions in the starving areas of sub-Saharan Africa? Famine's there right now. Much more than 3 meals have been missed.

What about the slums of Rio? Seen any homeless joining together to raise the red flag? They're too busy dumpster diving.

There are countless example of people starving en masse throughout history with no revolution or even a large riot.

There are even more examples where chronic malnutrion...much less missing three meals... was the rule for generations.

Where I have read something similar to this is folks commenting that no American city has more than a 3 [I]day[I] supply of food on hand in the supermarkets and that their resupply is dependent on the interstates and railroad net being operative. These commentators were talking more about widespread urban rioting and the breakdown of law and order in that event rather than revolution.

Glock Glockler
July 24, 2003, 07:37 AM
These commentators were talking more about widespread urban rioting and the breakdown of law and order in that event rather than revolution.

That's what I meant, though your distinction between the two is accurate.

Thanks

Mikul
July 25, 2003, 02:19 PM
Believe it or not, I think the government is going to begin cutting services. They will have no other choice when the dollar loses it's leadership position. If it raises taxes enough to cover the existing budget, they'll actually lose money. My estimate is that they would need to raise an additional 30% to keep everything as they have been. Can you imagine losing 80% of your paycheck? You might as well go on welfare.

So they'll cut welfare because we'll beg them to do it. They could cut Medicare and social security, but how do you market cutting funding to old people? Welfare is just a bunch of no-good lazy people, right? It looks better on TV. Besides, the old people aren't going to go out and find work, but all of the welfare recipients who have been holding down the economy will flood the landscape with cheap labor. At least, that's how they'll play it.

Then you'll have three generations of reasonably young people who have never earned a living with nothing to lose. The crime rate will go through the roof as these people steal, beat, and murder to take what they think is theirs.

The cities will crumble. People will flee to the suburbs and beyond bringing the predators with them. Shootings will begin and the national guard will be called into the major cities to bring it under control which will drive even more criminals into the suburbs and rural areas. The crime will be too widespread for the national guard to do anything about it.

Militias will be formed as the only way for rural areas to defend themselves. The first ones to be formed and show up on the government's radar will be shot down. Para-military gangs will form up along both sides of the racial lines.

Washington DC and various state capitals will begin to look like mideival walled castles.

Foreign military assistance will be called in. These troops will draw fire from BOTH sides.

Foreign economies will begin to tumble out of fear even before the United States.

China will use the opportunity to expand.

Muslim troops will march into Jerusalem after Israel loses significant American funding.

France will surrender to the Springfield Knitting Association.

rrader
July 25, 2003, 08:27 PM
Travis McGee

ShooterX10: I don't think that a American civil war would break down along geographical lines. Sure, big chunks of the west would probably go "our way," but only because they would fall more on the rural side of a rural vs urban war.

Actually the Western States are the most heavily urbanized areas of our nation. A higher % of westerners live in what would be called urban areas than most other parts of the country.

Pilgrim
July 25, 2003, 09:36 PM
Any civil war will be a waste of time if the current crop of politicians remains in office.

Pilgrim

TamThompson
July 25, 2003, 11:28 PM
You got it, Longeyes!
My husband and his co-workers are up in arms over IBM's announcement that all those nice, white-collar programmer jobs could be done more cost-effectively in India. Grrrr!!!!

Corporate America is selling out American jobs, and the Bushies are aiding and abetting them. I can see TSHTF when the number of families whose income drops from the high five figures to NOTHING hits critical mass because the Republicans opened up the floodgates to H1-B visas.

I agree that the actual trigger will probably be some catastrophic terrorist attack, in a climate of economic downturn and instability.

spartacus2002
July 26, 2003, 09:40 AM
China will use the opportunity to expand.

Muslim troops will march into Jerusalem after Israel loses significant American funding.

France will surrender to the Springfield Knitting Association.

You forgot to mention about Skynet taking over.:D

Waitone
July 26, 2003, 09:49 AM
I can see TSHTF when the number of families whose income drops from the high five figures to NOTHING hits critical mass because the Republicans opened up the floodgates to H1-B visas. Now that the mighty IBM is talking out in the open about moving JOBS offshore perhaps we'll begin the national debate. Problem is the trend has been place and accelerating for the last 10 years. One traditional industry, textiles, has lost 400,000 jobs in 5 states over the last 3 years, but no one complained.

The reaction will be to blame the president in office. Problem is what we see today is the direct, linear result of decision made 15 years ago by all presidents and all political parties. It ain't just republicans. It was a decision made by the ruling class. So when the time comes to grab the pitch forks and head for the massah's house remember the complicity of the ruling class, not just one team.

TamThompson
July 26, 2003, 10:09 AM
I agree there's fault on both sides of the fence. That's why I'm a moderate. (You do, however, see Republicans much more represented in the ruling class than Dems, though, since they tend to have more money. Not that I'm knocking money--would love to have more of it!)

What should be of great concern to everyone is that we are losing the middle class here in America. The middle class, backbone of the economy, traditional route up for many people, is being systematically destroyed by the upper class who have decided there's no money in looting the pockets of the poor so they're making their profits now by exporting white-collar jobs.

Someone, somewhere along the way, decided that the ruling elite would no longer care about the middle class. (Granted, the middle class didn't care when blue-collar jobs were exported, as you pointed out in the textile example, and we SHOULD have. The parable about "and then they came for me" comes to mind.)

They don't have to care--they think they'll be safe in their gated communities, walled-off from us upper-middle-class riff-raff. It's already happening if you look around. Gated communities, rural retreats (all those celebs with ranches in places like Montana and Wyoming, miles from anywhere), et cetera.

Personally, I don't think they'll be safe. I think the sheer volume of hordes of enraged masses armed with whatever they can find WILL eventually overwhelm most of their defenses. Would you like a broiled flank of ruling elite along with that dusty old can of '04 Shiner Bock?

Somebody needs to stick up for the American middle class, and the people who come closest tend to be the Democrats, which is why I usually vote for them while carping loud and long to them about gun control.

If you're middle class right now, you need to WORK LIKE HELL to try to get yourself into the upper class, or you'll find yourself poor withing 10 years, nickled and dimed by bank fees, credit card fees, communications fees, and taxes.

Intune
July 26, 2003, 10:12 AM
My brother works at Sprint in KC. He says that they are getting ready to lay off approx 5,000 people. All of their IT will be outsourced. Where to? India.

I agree with Art, something is in the air. Almost an electric sense of dissatisfaction with their companies, the gov, illegals & the borders, the UN, etc. My territory is the Central time zone. From Minneapolis to San Antonio I get the same vibe. I'm 45 years old & I've never felt, seen or heard anything like it. People are angry and the only things that are missing are focus and a spark. It may degenerate into a race war.

Chainsaw
July 26, 2003, 10:15 AM
The "war" has been with us for quite sometime with the McGoverninks winning all the battles so far. The real question seems to be when will the people enter the fray? Well....... my US Congressman indicated the most calls he ever received over any percieved problem was when the cable channels decided not to carry the local network affiliates channels(now since resolved) on their cable systems. Even more calls than during Monica/Whitewater Gate.:rolleyes:

TamThompson
July 26, 2003, 10:18 AM
It may, indeed, but I think the new battle lines seem to be not between races, but between the haves and the have-nots.

The best advice I can think of for anyone who thinks there's the slightest possibility your job might be sold out to the foreigners is to start brainstorming about starting your own business, even just a side-line to start with. Base it out of your home, at least at first. Get independent of large corporations. I'm doing this, and while it's not very successful yet, I am making some money and doing things I like to do (writing and coaching people for fitness and triathlons.)

I'm trying to nudge my husband into talking with some of his entrepreneurial-minded friends and starting some sort of software or web-based business. Of course, if the S really H's TF, that'll probably go down.
But it's something.

Start thinking about what you can do to work for yourself, or with your friends! You don't have to plan it all out in one day--it will evolve. Just start thinking about getting free from the corporate shackles. (I did this 2 years ago because I just couldn't stand how I was treated. I was a mechanical engineer.)

Marko Kloos
July 26, 2003, 10:39 AM
I agree there's fault on both sides of the fence. That's why I'm a moderate. (You do, however, see Republicans much more represented in the ruling class than Dems, though, since they tend to have more money. Not that I'm knocking money--would love to have more of it!)

Actually, the Dems are every bit as wealthy, and every bit as well represented in the "ruling class" as the Republicans. The three wealthiest U.S. Senators are Democrats, by the way.

What should be of great concern to everyone is that we are losing the middle class here in America. The middle class, backbone of the economy, traditional route up for many people, is being systematically destroyed by the upper class who have decided there's no money in looting the pockets of the poor so they're making their profits now by exporting white-collar jobs.

"Looting the pockets of the poor" has never been profitable. The reason why these corporations make their profits by exporting jobs is because they need to make profits somehow, in the face of confiscatory taxes and onerous regulation via EPA, EEOC, ADA, and a zillion more federally-created bureaucracies, each with a bunch of self-important parasites in charge who can penalize you to death or shut you down in the blink of an eye.

Corporate profits are what drives an economy. If nobody is allowed to make profits (in the name of "fairness"), nobody has an incentive to create a business. The government does not create jobs; it never has. Private enterprise creates jobs via profits and expansion. Government just loots the fruit of someone else's labor...either in the form of corporate and dividend taxes, sales taxes, income taxes from the pockets of the employees, or a million other taxes and tariffs.

Somebody needs to stick up for the American middle class, and the people who come closest tend to be the Democrats, which is why I usually vote for them while carping loud and long to them about gun control.

If you think that the Democrats care about the middle class, you have a nasty surprise coming your way. The main reason why Democrats are competitive in any election is the fact that they basically buy their votes with confiscated money. If it wasn't for the welfare cities voting almost uniformly Democrat, and outvoting the country just by sheer numbers, there wouldn't have been a Democrat in the White House since JFK. His successor LBJ started the Democratic trend of promising tax money in exchange for votes, and calling it "compassion".

I'm not saying the Republicans are much better. Both big parties are Statists, and they only differ in the nature of their pet prohibitions. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a problem with reaching into the wallets of the middle class and the upper class.

If you're middle class right now, you need to WORK LIKE HELL to try to get yourself into the upper class, or you'll find yourself poor withing 10 years, nickled and dimed by bank fees, credit card fees, communications fees, and taxes.

All the bank fees and credit card fees imposed upon me by my banks were agreed to me via contract. All those fees are trivial compared to the amount of taxes I am forced to pay at the point of a gun every year.

You've almost realized why this country is in a downward spiral. We're being bled dry by our government, whether it has Republicans or Democrats at the helm. You can't open a lemonade stand anymore in this country without a permit from City Hall, an environmental impact study, pre-payment of one year's worth of business tax in advance according to projected profits, mandatory sexual harassment education for the employees, a workforce that exactly represents the ethnic makeup of the neighborhood, and a wheelchair ramp at the curb. Is it a wonder so many people sit back and happily collect "free money" rather than start their own lemonade stand?

Both political parties balme different sources for our misery: the Dems blame "Big Business", and the Republicans blame illegals, swarthy people, and labor unions. The truth of the matter is that both parties love to incite class warfare, because it distracts the lot of us from realizing just who is doing the screwing here. And don't kid yourself...Democrats are just as good as Republicans when it comes to pork barrel projects, and the appropriation of money that was made by someone else.

TamThompson
July 26, 2003, 10:44 AM
Here's my worst nightmare (I wrote a fiction novel about this, and need to edit it and try to sell it):

The middle class ends up in indentured servitude.

Couldn't happen? Think again. Consumer debt is at an all-time high. Now, huge numbers of those consumers' jobs are being replaced by H1-B's or shipped overseas. The debtors (credit card companies and banks) see this, and with their usual vulture-like ingenuity TURN IT INTO AN OPPORTUNITY!

"That's right, Mr. In-debt-and-no-job-Consumer, we can make your little financial difficulties just GO AWAY, and you won't have to take any more responsibility for them. Just sign right here, and we'll make you a Voluntary Financial Associate of ViMastAmCap Credit Corp. For the next seven years, you'll live in our housing, we'll feed you, and you'll work for us, when and how we tell you to. You won't have to make any more decisions. Won't that be easy?"

Then, in a few more years, they'll tinker a bit more with the laws, and introduce Involuntary Financial Associates---meaning, they're allowed to shanghai you into indentured servitude if your debt-to-income ration hits a certain level. That's where the handcuffs come out--no more volunteering, they come get you.

Several problems get solved at once:
1. The banks and credit cards get their money out of broke people
2. The broke people have something to do, and aren't roaming the streets
3. The sheeple of America, who hate taking responsibility and thinking for themselves, don't have to anymore
4. America once again gets a source of cheap labor.

Yeah, the politicians will allow it. You bet.

Get out of debt now, while you still can.

spartacus2002
July 26, 2003, 11:58 AM
Our current condition of taxing everything and regulating everything is strangling business growth.

Businesses are becoming so scared of noncompliance with arcane, ambiguous regulations that they would rather not put their necks on the chopping block. But, compliance is hideously expensive, too. We are beginning to reach the point where the costs of compliance will exceed the costs of noncompliance.

I too see the growth of a fuming, brooding anger in America. Hardworking honest people are tired of seeing politicians cater to "special interests" and are tired of seeing more and more nickel and dime taxes, costs, fees, and licensing. Hell, I read today that Seattle is thinking of a "Latte tax" of 10cents on every designer coffee sold--but it's for the cheeeeeeeeeeeeeldren. Now SCOTUS has OKed racial discrimination in education for the next 25 years, according to Justice O'Connor. Why work hard when you can just collect on other people's guilt?

The old bumper sticker "Keep working! Millions on welfare depend on you!" is no longer a wry joke but is becoming a bitter battle cry of the overtaxed.

Americans used to believe that the government was the servant of the people, but now both government and people believe it's the other way around--and the people are getting tired of it.

longeyes
July 26, 2003, 12:15 PM
California is the great laboratory model. You can plainly see
the Crisis right here. In my view this state, where I have lived
most of my life and which I still love, even as I contemplate
moving away from it, is New Cuba.

Do I expect the replacement of Gray Davis, should that happen, to
change anything? No. S&P zeroed in the underlying problem by
dropping CA's bond rating by three notches, citing doubts that
revenues would match expenditures. That cold statement didn't faze
the pols. The budget is actually a couple of per cent bigger than
last year's, with $11 billion to be rolled over in debt over several
years (probably illegal) and a remaining shortfall of $8 billion
going into next year. THAT is a solution?

Well, anything but address all of the issues eloquently raised above.
What is happening in California is happening nationally, and the
only difference is that CA doesn't have a printing press or an
ever-expanding debt ceiling to hide the problem of devalued labor
and currency to go along with shrinking freedoms.

AZLibertarian
July 26, 2003, 12:22 PM
Some of you apparantly view politics the same way I do....hence my moniker. I used to be a true Repubican conservative. The whole Ronald Reagan thing. My turning point came under Bush 41. As I see it, the R's have been just as complicit in the problems we face today as the D's...they've just had a better rhetoric to my ears. I didn't vote for Bush 43, as I remain deeply critical of his father, and I fell somewhat for the "lightweight" label he acquired. In fairness, he's become a much better president than I ever imagined...certainly the best president in my lifetime. I'll vote for him in '04. Gore was/is one of the biggest idiots ever to make it to the national stage. How he got to the nomination amazes me. As I see it, his one redeeming act is that at least he had the sense to get out of the current D nomination sweepstakes. The current 9 D nominees make Gore look like the reincarnation of Roosevelt in comparision.

I'm under no illusion that I'll ever see a Libertarian candidate for national office taken seriously. There's simply too many people who aren't involved enough to know that, in spite of the many differences between a R candidate and a D candidate, these two parties operate very much alike. However, I will say that some R's have had temporary successes by adopting libertarian views. Goldwater ("I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"), Reagan ("The taxing power of the government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change. We've tried that, and surely we must able to see it doesn't work.") and many elements of Gingrich's 'Contract With America' are essentially libertarian views. Republicans can have success with libertarianism, but they all too often fall back on their nature to increase the size and scope of government while telling us they're keeping us from the socialism that the Democrats envision.

I work for a Fortune 500 company with somewhere near 70,000 employees. Our CEO is constantly in Washington DC-- lobbying for this, testifying for that--whatever. To look at him, you might think of the stereotype of Mr. Moneybags...one who ought to be a Republican. Yet he's not. He's a big-time supporter and contributor to Democratic causes and candidates. I think it's a mistake to believe that the big-moneyed business leaders favor Republicans. My view is that the big money in this country likes a big government...as long as they can continue to profit from government policies. The biggest problem in this approach is that companies and CEOs concern themselves with such a short time horizon (i.e., the next quarterly report), that they're unwilling to face bigger problems further out on the horizon if it means the next quarter's profits will be impacted. Hence, government has been leading us in a direction many of us believe will lead to ruin.

TamThompson
July 26, 2003, 12:46 PM
I agree with some of your points, although I liked Gore and voted for him. (Please--no anti-Gore flames, he's out of national picture now.)

I think Howard Dean is the Dem's best shot in '04. I count it as a mark in his favor that Handgun Control, Inc. is severely pissed-off at him (hey, he's the governer of VERMONT, where they have open carry!)

I don't buy letting corporations off the hook on the exporting of American jobs because they've been highly regulated. There were some good reasons why they were regulated in the first place. Remember things like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire about 100 years ago? Women workers burned to death because a textile company locked 'em in to keep 'em working.
Why can't these so-called beleagured companies work to change the system, instead of gutting the American economy? I honestly think that greed didn't just vanish with the '80's.

And Marko, I'd appreciate it if you didn't patronize me by using phrases like "you've almost realized why..." That sounds like you're some sort of all-knowing person with all the answers. Accept that the things I realize are different from the things you realize. We all see things differently. I really hate it when one side paints the other as "puppies who just don't have their eyes open yet." It's demeaning.

Art Eatman
July 26, 2003, 01:43 PM
Tam, corporations exist in order to make a profit; without a profit they cannot exist. Corporations have no inherent duty to work to change any system. A group of corporate officers might work to change a political system, but only as it enhances profits.

The issue of profitability is why corporations are "exporting jobs". Profitability has been on the decline for over 20 years, now. Today, it is almost non-existent, if you take a serious look at the various companies of the S&P 500. We as a nation can no longer coast on the heavy-manufacturing advantages we had at the end of WW II. The same holds true for "Information Age" production.

American consumers are voting in favor of exporting jobs, every time they buy something made in Asia (e.g.). "Consumerism" is freedom of choice: WalMart or Neiman-Marcus. The only way industrial jobs in manufacturing--those highly-paid blue-collar jobs--can be kept here is for average prices be higher and consumers not be able to buy as many things. The same holds true for IT jobs, as well. Imagine the cost of a computer made entirely of US-made components, as well as the added monthly ISP costs of US-only customer service calls.

I don't have an answer. However, I believe the points I've made here are indicative of the general air of malaise extant nationwide. Nobody seems to have an answer to that ancient question, "Quo vadis?"

Art

Waitone
July 26, 2003, 02:40 PM
What has happened is the cost of US labor is far too high to compete on a global basis. What is a high cost? It has two components. First, market value driven by pure market forces. Second, mandated cost both direct and indirect. An example of a direct mandated cost is social security tax, medicaid tax, workman's comp, unemployment insurance, etc. These are mandated costs which do nothing to increase productivity or alleviate a competitive situation. An example of an indirect mandated cost is the cost of all kinds of regulatory compliance such as OSHA, EPA, FDA, USDA, ad nauseum.

I once discussed the trend of offshoring textile jobs with a textile executive. He asked me what I thought the labor component was of the total cost structure of textiles produced in the US. I guessed 30%. He laughed and said it was less than 5%. How can you justify offshoring for a few percentage points on the cost structure. He said you can't. It is justified of the reduction in cost of compliance related to health, environmental, safety, AND LITIGATION PREMIUM.

Now combine artificially high costs of labor with the complete remove of barriers to exit and you have what is going on right now. NAFTA and the WTO and a host of trade agreements was posited on reducing the barriers to trading goods, not the export of jobs. Traditional manufacturing is climbing all over itself heading for the exits. Information based jobs are next and the rate at which they will leave will be astounding. Sending a job offshore is not free trade. It has implications the likes of which we have only begun to examine.

Meanwhile the political and ruling classes play deaf, dumb, and blind.

Yeah, people are a little grumpy right now. Well they should be. Taxpayers and former taxpayers watch what is happening while those responsible for the mess (I call it the ruling class) perceive no problem at all.

And that boys and girls is how revolutions get started.

NIGHTWATCH
July 26, 2003, 03:29 PM
Guns will be the issue. Freedom. And I think the "militia" will take on a new skin. Individual acts.

I think many lives will be destroyed as the result of this tyranny. Many will then be tired of living, having lost everything, but not willing to allow this country to perish. Life sacrifices will follow.

Hey, how many reps are there in govt? How many of us will be willing, after having lost everything to these wolves, will think twice about killing a politician?

The difference between us and terrorists would be to specifically target those individuals responsable. There are more of us than they, and guns will always be available on the black market for our purposes.


Pain will supply courage and anger. Just my thought. :)

AZLibertarian
July 26, 2003, 03:43 PM
Ah, Nightwatch...you too have read Unintended Consequences by our very own John Ross.

You may be right with the SHTF-Civil-War being begun by an individual, and not by any group associated with a viewpoint.

Those two knuckleheads who became known as the "Beltway Snipers" absolutely tied in knots the law enforcement agencies of 2 states and the fed's in DC. Imagine the chaos that someone(s) who wasn't absolutely stupid (as these two clearly are) might foster. Scary, isn't it.

Moparmike
July 26, 2003, 03:57 PM
IT is being outsourced. Great. I just happen to be pursuing a degree in that feild, and now it will be toilet paper by the time I graduate. I knew that IT was seeing tough times and that they werent due to let up soon, but that is the last thing I wanted to know. Great, just friggin' great.

The price of goods and services wouldnt be so damned high if all these useless ninnies would stop suing everyone for anything and everything. I have gotten scared of saying "so sue me" when someone whines about something I did or said because they might actually do it, which is pretty damned pathetic.

So, how does everyone think it will go down and be sustained? Will it be a 'Nam like situation, where the battle-lines more encircle the country (hence guerrilla warfare) or will there actually be a front? Do you think that there will be occupation of sympathetic places (cities, counties, states) like in the Civil War?

TamThompson
July 26, 2003, 04:10 PM
Art,
I realize that companies are in business to make a profit. I read "The goal." I've got no problem with that--Lord knows, I'd like to make more profit, myself! But I feel they also have a duty to be good corporate citizens, seeings as they are legal entities with much of the same rights (to sue and be sued) as individuals. And we individuals have responsibilities as well as rights.

To me, part of being a good and moral corporate citizen is taking care of your employees who MADE you profitable and big in the first place. Also part of being a good corporate citizen is trying to buy/hire American first.
As a consumer of these goods, I try to buy American, if it is at all possible.
I don't see companies doing the same with regard to new jobs.

As someone else pointed out, it is incredibly short-sighted of companies to export American jobs. Don't they realize that they can only do that for so long before there are too few people here in America with an actual income who can afford their products? We can only be a nation of consumers for so long before we consume ourselves.

It's all fine and well to support politicians and parties who don't want gun control, but as I've said before, if all the jobs go away and we don't have any money, we won't be able to afford any ammo (or new guns!) (My point being that it isn't wise to base votes on a single issue.)

And yeah, it's depressing to be a boomer, and to watch the thriving America of my youth (late 50's, 60's, and early 70's) go straight into the toilet right in front of my eyes.

Well, this old girl ain't goin' down without a fight, I'll tell you what! Militia? Sign me up, bad knee and all. I'll do what I can. That's one of the best redeeming quality we Americans have, I think: when it really gets tough, we get our dander up. And right now's the time to have it up.

longeyes
July 26, 2003, 04:44 PM
I think Tam's point is well-taken: American businesses exist within
America and need to consider the culture within which they operate.
Globalism that enhances corporate profits might make sense if American
workers actually owned the corporations, other than by participation in
retirement funds, that are making higher profits by international trade
and outsourcing. But that's not the case and may, in fact, be a
significant flaw in our current economic structure.

We all want to live better materially, but my view is that a consumer
culture is, increasingly, a passive and weak culture. Nations are
strongest when they are most productive; so too cultures and individuals.
There is something effete and narcissistic, to me, about where we
have arrived. Increasingly we have to import people to do the essential
work--in science and engineering--that has created our material success.
Our children prefer to be "American idols" of one kind or another,
looking for the quick buck and the sexy style, rather than the pursuit
of quality and the joy of real creativity. (Remember Pirsig's Zen and
the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?). Yes, it is all related.

benewton
July 26, 2003, 05:40 PM
You people are very tough on the corporations, Tam in particular, and I'm not sure that you're all wrong.

But, as noted, corporations exist to generate a profit, as do all business ventures. No profits, no companies, or, in our current situation, perhaps ,
"good and moral corporate citizens" who build there and sell here. Which can't continue forever, from an economic point of view, for reasons to obvious to detail.


You've got to recognize the tax and regulation situation as a major factor in the decline of our nation's future prospects. After all, when employed, I may make four times my Indian counterpart's salary, but 50% of mine goes to income and social security taxes before I even cash the check.

Then, you've got to add in the added costs of regulation: how much would my squash cost if the fuel tax, labor insurance requirements, and many other "overhead" costs, were eliminated? Who can tell, for sure, exactly what they actually pay in "taxes" these days?

So, given the load, we can't afford to work for less than we do, the government can't shrink, since it has to buy votes to sustain itself, and the corps go elsewhere, and for a good, logical reason: they'll die if they try to remain here!

If you were personally a corporation, what else would your response be, as a "good and moral corporate citizen", to (Sorry about this one, Tam.) your impending rape?


I don't think that the fight will ever get started, except for a few of us who've had about all they'll take, and they can then be expected to be painted with the Waco brush, and so tossed into the trash as unworthy to participate in the new "golden" age.

I hold no hope that thing'll change any time soon, but I grew up in the 50's, have no kids, and have the irresistable urge to stay around and watch which way the water rushes as the mess goes down the tubes.

TamThompson
July 26, 2003, 06:27 PM
Well, yeah--having worked for four different corporations as a mechanical engineer, I feel like I've been royally screwed over by them. I've also hit my head on the glass ceiling so many times I've got a lumpy noggin.

Those corporations have a LOT of money. If they feel they're excessively regulated, why not try to lobby to do something about it, instead of throwing away their workers like used kleenexes?

No sympathy from me!

NIGHTWATCH
July 26, 2003, 06:28 PM
Its a great book, isn't it? ;) Thank God for truckers. :D

Waitone
July 26, 2003, 06:33 PM
Tam,

check you private mail.

SodaPop
July 26, 2003, 06:54 PM
And I think the "militia" will take on a new skin. Individual acts.

One thing that many people in this forum fail to remember is that the vast majority of our Military would not go along with gun confiscation. If we had 8yrs of Clinton government, I would not rule out the potential for a military coup from the United States Military.

The Liberals are capable of creating chaos and confusion but not getting the US military to act on its on civilian population.

Do you think Republicans and Libertarians could get the US military to act against and gun confiscating Federal government? I think so.

I'm not some lone 2nd Ammendment lover. There are Generals and Senators that would take up arms against 'domestic enemies'. They aren't going to do it now, but I'm sure they'd come out of the woodwork if need be.

TamThompson
July 26, 2003, 07:01 PM
Uh, SodaPop, we DID have eight years of Clinton's rule, stymied as he was by the GOP's in Congress. Damn, I wish we could go back to the days when the worst thing we had to worry about was Monica's stupid little blue dress!

SodaPop
July 26, 2003, 07:10 PM
Uh, SodaPop, we DID have eight years of Clinton's rule, stymied as he was by the GOP's in Congress

And how popular was Clinton with the military? Who was it that said he better not go near the military bases because his life was in danger? I believe it was Senator Graham.

I'm not going to kill every person that violates my Constitutional rights. If someone, whether they are Federal or State government, LEO or an individual, I'm going to hire a lawyer instead of taking up arms (no lawyer jokes please).;)

The reasons for me to take up arms against another human being are very few. As long as I can still vote and speak freely my guns will stay in my safe and my CCW holster.

The damage the Clinton administration has done is not irreparable. Our Supreme Court recently made a stupid decision on 'Affirmative action, but I believe that is still a minor issue (not worth taking up arms over). All hope is not lost IMHO. We can still vote and make a difference with public service and volunteerism.

There are two people that come to the TFL(and now THR gatherings) I organize that have run for a Senate seat in Delaware and now one is running for Mayor of Cherry Hill, NJ.

Moparmike
July 26, 2003, 07:11 PM
He may have meant Hillary "Guns are evil" Rodham "All hail Queen Hillary" Klinton.

benewton
July 26, 2003, 07:27 PM
Ah, vets comment as you think best.

A military combat unit is primarily dedicated to itself.
Each person may have a view, but they're young and live in the here and now.
They might get some resistance at the first order, but a general courts martial will enhance their right to give orders.

And, they'll do exactly what they're told to do, within some bounds...

They'll be nice, present in forces too large to allow any effective defense, but shoot one and then, it'd be an us against them fight.

And nobody with any sanity doubts how that would go.

Been there, and remember what I thought, and how the system works.

Do NOT count on the military to either protect you or to disobey orders. They'll do neither.

longeyes
July 26, 2003, 10:06 PM
Hillary, if elected, is going to have a very tough road to hoe as
Commander-in-Chief.

As for what the military would do in a serious Constitutional crisis, I
don't think that is a matter to be resolved at the squad, platoon, or
company level. What will matter is what the highest ranking officers
think. These are educated men who understand the Constitution and have
sworn to protect it and understand what might constitute an illegal
order. I believe they all have a very good sense of smell too. There
is no love among them for Clintonian mischief or decadence.

AZLibertarian
July 26, 2003, 10:33 PM
Hillary, ... a very tough... hoe...

Sorry, Longeyes. These words just jumped out at me.

Moparmike
July 26, 2003, 11:23 PM
Watch it AZ, Art's Grammaw's wrath will strike you down with all of its 220v tenacity.

{AZ stands there, then "zzzzzzzzzzzzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPP"}
Hey, that was kinda entertaining. Mam, would you do that again for a Klondike bar?:D
"Sure."
"zzzzzzzzzzzzzzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPP"
"Cooooooooolllllll!!!!!":D :D

Art Eatman
July 27, 2003, 03:12 AM
Interactions and unintended consequences: Corporations once filed annual reports. The SEC then required quarterly reports. This reduced the amount of time to improve profitability conditions from 12 months to three, in order that corporations have happy stockholders. This reduced long term planning down to short-term planning. All this accumulated as time pressure on the upper strata of management. Bottom line? They don't really have the time to even think about "good citizenship".

Then factor in that most large corporations, since back in the 1960s/1970s may have corporate hq in the US, but they are actually multi-national, with no national loyalty toward this country.

The primary unintended consequence is that there is no longer any "family" atmosphere, and this adds to the malaise of the workforce--and the population at large.

Esprit de corps is as important to a corporate workforce, or a state agency workforce, as it is to a military unit. Too many people have forgotten this, or never even thought about it.

Art

longeyes
July 27, 2003, 12:04 PM
"Esprit de corps is as important to a corporate workforce, or a state agency
workforce, as it is to a military unit. Too many people have forgotten this, or
never even thought about it."

Truly said. And if so, then a business strategy that discards cohesion
and esprit de corps for continued expansion and escalating profits
may ultimately be short-sighted. It's possible for the goal of a
company to be to provide an honest living for its employees, as with
any family business. The current corporate structure could turn out
to be a two-hundred year failed experiment, just as the "nuclear family"
of two parents and kids, as opposed to the extended family (band, clan),
seems to be wearing quickly around the edges.

Glock Glockler
July 27, 2003, 01:46 PM
Tam,

You mentioned about a corporation 'throwing away it's workers like a kleenex', tell me, should people be able to ditch a company like a used kleenex? So it's bad when the evil corporation lays people off, but if the individual employee ditches a company for a better job we praise them for 'moving up to a better job'. That smacks of hypocracy to me.

Yes, they might have a lot of money but they also might have a lot of expenses. Many companies make tremendous amounts of money yet are not very profitable. Perhaps they should invest in more lobbying to keep he lawyer dominated congress from crafting scores of new laws for them to comply with, it might be effective and it might not be, but I don't understand that alleviates Congress of their responsibility of passing those laws.

To me, part of being a good and moral corporate citizen is taking care of your employees who MADE you profitable and big in the first place.

A corporation is responsible to provide what they promised in whatever contract the employee bargained for, if it's a check for x amount of money and certain benefits, then that's it. They don't owe you life-long employment or anything outside of your contract, just as you don't owe it to them to work for them forever.

Also part of being a good corporate citizen is trying to buy/hire American first.

What is a 'corporate citizen'? I do try to buy American whenever possible, but it's often not. If I want a good pistol, whom do I get it from? The best pistols these days come from abroad. American 'workers' are often lazy, unmotivated, and incompetant. I know plenty of people who own landscaping, carpentry, construction, and other businesses who cannot get poeple to work for them who will consistently show up to work. OTOH, people from Mexico, Guatamala, Hondorus, El Salvador, etc, will work those less-than-pleasant jobs and do a good job to boot. Why work when you can get on the dole and live off the labor of others?

Even when many Americans will work, there is a teamster mentality that is prevelant to the extent that people won't perform the slightest function outside of their job. God forbid that someone cover the phones for an hour on a day when the receptionist is sick.

Or maybe it's the fact that American companies are forced to hire "minorities" to insure a diverse workforce, as if that's what we need as opposed to a productive workforce. My roommate's company was sued for 6 months worth of unemployment compensation because he was "discriminated against due to his inability to read" (wonderful job the govt schools are doing, right?), even though he hadn't even filled out one letter on a job application.

Marko and Benewton both mentioned the govt imposed obstacles facing companies in the USA, but they really only scratched the surface in the depth of the problem. The USA has rot down to it's very core, in it's founding documents, and it must be corrected if we are to survive. You'd be better served by addressing these problems instead of blaming corporations that are trying to survive govt onslaught by socialist politicians that you have voted for.

Mikul
July 28, 2003, 07:33 PM
Blaming corporations is difficult. Take a look at the United States in early 1900 before regulation began. The working conditions would be considered 3rd world by today's standards. Corporations joined together against the working man across the country. Heck, they had they're own armed police. This is the natural tendency of large companies.

Today, the amount of paperwork, fees, and regulatory compliance necessary to run a simple bakery would make your head spin. I know two people who ran their own businesses with only a couple of employees. They had to fire the employees because they're too difficult to deal with at that size. One of them closed the business down because the state wouldn't let him fire one of his employees even though she could not do the necessary work. This happens in every company to some degree. I work in a company with 15 employees. We could fire seven of them without even noticing. Another friend works in maintenance where the union employees aren't allowed to do more than two maintenance items per day. On his first two days, he did 50 before someone read him the riot act. The only businesses I know making a decent buck have senators and representatives lobbying for specific budget outlays or carving legislation to favor their market.

Normally, Americans would rise up to start their own small businesses to fill the niche, but this is where regulation is truly insidious, it kills the advantage that small companies had over large ones. There are precious few job advertisements in today's newspapers and the few that are there are for large companies. I almost never see small companies advertising anymore.

Glock Glockler
July 28, 2003, 09:35 PM
Take a look at the United States in early 1900 before regulation began. The working conditions would be considered 3rd world by today's standards. Corporations joined together against the working man across the country. Heck, they had they're own armed police. This is the natural tendency of large companies.

Are you saying that the rise in the standard of living is because of or in spite of govt regulation? Help me out here.

Thanks

Art Eatman
July 28, 2003, 10:53 PM
GG, while I don't know about "natural tendency" of large corporations, around 1900 half the workforce was on-farm. The standard non-farm work week was 55 to 60 hours, particularly for grunt-labor blue-collar folks.

There is no doubt that the mix of public sympathy, trade unions and such governmental folks as Teddy Roosevelt brought about much safer working conditions as well as improvements in overall health.

Regardless of subject, this country has always operated like a swinging pendulum, almost always going too far out and not staying near enough to the middle. Doesn't matter if you're talking morality (Puritanism vs. today's Hollywood) or working conditions. In the late 1800s, the unions had little or no political power. By the 1950s/1960s, they had too much (IMO). As another example, we've gone from no safety-net welfare to too much cradle-to-grave welfare. Pendulum.

As far as "natural tendency" to oppress the workers, corporations are no worse than governmental agencies. I think it's more the nature of any pyramidal hierarchy...

Art

Art Eatman
July 28, 2003, 10:54 PM
GG, while I don't know about "natural tendency" of large corporations, around 1900 half the workforce was on-farm. The standard non-farm work week was 55 to 60 hours, particularly for grunt-labor blue-collar folks.

There is no doubt that the mix of public sympathy, trade unions and such governmental folks as Teddy Roosevelt brought about much safer working conditions as well as improvements in overall health.

Regardless of subject, this country has always operated like a swinging pendulum, almost always going too far out and not staying near enough to the middle. Doesn't matter if you're talking morality (Puritanism vs. today's Hollywood) or working conditions. In the late 1800s, the unions had little or no political power. By the 1950s/1960s, they had too much (IMO). As another example, we've gone from no safety-net welfare to too much cradle-to-grave welfare. Pendulum.

As far as "natural tendency" to oppress the workers, corporations are no worse than governmental agencies. (I've worked in both.) I think it's more the nature of any pyramidal hierarchy...

Art

Glock Glockler
July 29, 2003, 10:39 PM
Art,

I agree with you about the pendulum, though I wish there were some way to temper the extremes. Just for arguement's sake, I don't think there should be any govt safety net, butwe can save that debate for another thread.

I think the main point that I was trying to make was that blaming 'those evil, greedy corporations' is not only inaccurate as to where the true heart of the problem lies, it's a cop out. Corporations are outsourcing stuff to India these days because it's economically viable to do so, but no one mentions that within the past few years the Indian govt actually pulled back a decent amount of the socialist nonsense regulations that have been strangling their economy. It's kinda funny how Indians can be successful aywhere in the word they go, to the US, Great Britian, Australia, Europe, but not in India!

Are Americans that are blaming the corporations even taking the slightest look at the amount of poison that the US govt is shoving down our throats? Every business day the govt adds 200 pages of legalese nonsense to the books, which we then have to hire scores of lawyers to interpret, and complying with further add to the already huge cost of doing business? What about the asset forfeiture that is going on across the country, why would you want to build an apartment building if you're worried about the govt seizing the whole thing from you because someone claims to the got that a drug deal took place there? Sorta kills any profit motive. What about the EEOC levying fines against businesses because they didn't have AA policies in place, and awarding those fines to people that never worked in said business?

This is just the slightest scratch in the surface of what the govt is doing to strangle our economy, so I find it odd that so many Americans are so eager to point fingers at other countries when our own backyard is in shambles.

TamThompson
July 29, 2003, 10:46 PM
Lysander,
The corporations started the trend of disloyalty by doing lay-offs in the late 70's and early 80's. Once employees figured out that there was no such thing as job security anymore, they started job-hopping.

Why are you sticking up for the corporations? Do you own lots of stock, or are you a high-level manager?

Glock Glockler
July 30, 2003, 01:11 PM
Tam,

Lysander is a dead, 19th century, anarchist who was one of the few decent lawyers ever to come down the pipe. I am not he, though I do think he has some pretty insightful comments about the Constitution. Feel free to call me Glockler, all my friends do and most of my enemies:)

I'm not sticking up for corporations per se, I'm just trying to view the situation objectively. No corporation owes you or me a job for life. Downsizing is natural for companies, they do it when they have to tighten their belt and cut back on expenses. Has your financial situation ever changed where you and your family had to cut back on expenses? Maybe going out to eat less, maybe taking a smaller and more affordable vacation, but you are essentially downsizing and laying off the businesses you don't then patronize.

I own very little stock, I'm actually looking to invest in art cause it can have very good profits and the tax man won't know about it. I'm not high-level management though I am basically an entry level employee. I'm 3 yrs out of college with 2 working in corporate America. The reason why I'm not caught up in the anti-corporate ferver is because my parents own a small business and I've known a lot of people who are small business owners. That has given me a lot of insight of how things work, and not just from the employee perspective. I've seen how govt nonsense poisons small business, and how it's intended to do exactly that so it can help the bigger corporations run them out. My folks recently had to spend thousands to try to get in compliance with HIPPA, which was passed under Clinton, and imposes scores of regulatory nonsense on businesses that you cannot be in compliance with though the govt has carte blanche to fine you unspecified amouts for.

What could my folks have done with the thousands they had to needlessly spend, could they have given certain poorer folks a price break, or maybe gone one a vacation, or maybe have put that money towards retirement? That is just one example, there are plenty more. I've seen how people like Gore propose myriads of lush govt programs, none of which they have constiutional authority to do, that come at the expense of others.

It's a whole lot easier to blame other countries, but's it's not as easy to take a hard look at ourself and fix what's wrong here. There are scores of things we could doright now tha woud improve our economy tremendously, but various special interests would loose their gravy train, though the nation as a whole would benefit.

So tell me, if it would benefit the national economy and put us back on track, would you give up your favorite govt program?

Waitone
July 30, 2003, 01:20 PM
Hey, Tam

Here's some more red meat for ya.

www.zazora.com The site is devoted to statistics related to imported workers being hired by US corporations.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/29/180447.shtml Diane Alden is an op-ed writer who has drawn a bead on offshoring jobs. As good research in the issue as I've ever seen.

If you enjoyed reading about "A New American Civil War - West Vs. East?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!