The Life Span of a Republic

[Malone LaVeigh]

It's an old joke from Mad Magazine, probably from the 60s, as I recall. No offence intended.

From Wikipedia:

The punchline of a popular Lone Ranger joke of the 1960s (or earlier) has taken on a memetic status of its own. The joke goes something like: LR: "Tonto! We're surrounded by hostile indians!", Tonto: "What you mean WE, paleface?"

Boy, the things I have to explain to these kids...

 

[RocketMan]

I remember that old joke, Malone. But your explanation is a bit of a stretch.

 

[LAK]

What The Real Hawkeye and Hugh Damright said.

---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[1wildbill]

The official language of aviation is english, but no one calls pilots or ATC's racists because of it. Speaking a common language was and is important to saftey and communication.

My quote, bold face added:This might consternate you, it did me. Do you know what the "Official Language" of the United States is? There is not one.

I also think if you are going to prosper in this country you should be able to speak proper English, or nearly proper. Let's face it, our language as spoken by different groups is not understandable to those outside the group. Cosby has made some good comments on this, but I am not talking about just one group, age is another group for instance.

Also, is there not constant problems with foreign pilots and ATCs that speak poor, if any, English?

 

[antarti]

What a great thread, lots of excellent posts.

While "qualifying" voters smacks to me of a resurrection of Jim Crow, I would like to propose an alternate plan.

Anyone collecting a check (pay or welfare) from any level of government is disqualified in voting at that level. i.e. work for fedgov, or collect welfare/SS? Then you can't vote in a Federal election. Same goes for state and county employees, including the Mayor/Governor/President/ etc.

When government becomes 1/4th of GDP (an oxymoron, as govt never creates any wealth), there are too many bureaucrats by about 1000% just going by financial indicators.

We have to have arms #1 in order to be able to resist. #2 is we must have cash to buy more arms, and ammunition, commo, etc.

In order to fight a dictatorship, or oligarchy which would arise, you need the ability to move with anonimity, the ability to have untraceable purchases, and the ability to get and cache arms.

The answer to your dillema is in the founding documents. Show up at a pawnshop with gold coins/bullion, and you'll walk away with anything you darn well please. What you have in the mattress is nobody's business but your own.

 

[1wildbill]

Was e-mailing a friend last night and mentioned that I had been thinking about converting my meager savings to gold. Not a bad idea I think.

Now about the voting restrictions; I draw a state teacher's retirement, Social Security Disability and Long Term Disability Insurance. I paid my hard earned dollars into all three for many years and I shouldn't have the right to vote? I also served 9 years in the U.S. Army, 1 of those in Nam. I shouldn't have the right to vote? (I can't shoot trap, is that not enough? )

I see your point, but I think you are generalizing way too much. I know there are welfare cheats out there and there are also people who need some short term help throught no fault of their own. Yeah back in the days before FDR things were different, you looked out for yourself, family and neighbors. Ah the good old days. They are gone. But to disenfranchise a whole group of people because they have some "connection" to the government won't work. How about the Military and the retired or disabled veterans? Would you deny them the right to vote also? If you work you probably pay taxes to state and federal government, no vote? No disrespect, but I believe that if you think about it you'll see the error in some of your statements.

It is too bad that we can't delete a bunch of people, uh, from the voting roles that is, but IMO we need to be careful who we accuse of not having any right to vote. Look at the small % of people who do vote, seems like the answer is somewhere else anyhow.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Frankly, I've been thinking more and more that maybe Heinlein was right after all and only volunteer veterans should have a say in politics.

 

[1wildbill]

Frankly, I've been thinking more and more that maybe Heinlein was right after all and only volunteer veterans should have a say in politics.

Nine years = volunteer. Present military = All volunteer. Frankly I had planned on making a career of the military. After I saw first hand the way the VietNam War was conducted by the politicians, and the reception that we recieved upon return, I changed my mind.

My point is that if you exclude everyone from voting that has any connection to the "guvment", you pretty much exclude everyone except groups like the Amish, drug dealers, and other criminals, (not including Amish with criminals), that pay no taxes,(actually I think the Amish pay taxes, just no FDIC). I don't think we would want to disenfranchise those such as LEOs, firemen, prison guards, EMTs, etc. All get checks from the government. Yes some EMTs work for hospitals, but even they are usually subsidised in some form or the other.

I realize there are groups like AARP, welfare "professionals", and other "entitlement groups" that just want to bleed everything they can from the system.

I wish we could exclude the idiots from voting, (read: people who think differently than me).

I have taken some of these posts personally, I realize that. For instance, my father volunteered for WWII and put in 21 years, then put another 20 in FAA. Received retirement checks from the Navy, FAA and SS. He was about as conservative as a person can get. Didn't like big government. I have the flag from his military funeral in my gunsafe now. He shouldn't have been allowed to vote? Damn right he deserved the vote, so do I.

My step-dad volunteered for WWII, was airborne grunt in the Pacific, worked for the state later. He is now retired and drawing state retirement check and SS. He thinks, "The government should charge me more for Medicare, I can afford it." He doesn't like AARP and doesn't belong to it. Should he not be allowed to vote?

Let's face it, we have too much government. It is in everyone's life in some form or the other. "Big Brother" is here, and getting bigger and stronger everyday! It really doesn't matter who you vote for, it won't change that.

Just my opinion.

 

[ramis]

I wouldn't worry about Medicare or Social security. I get to pay in for 40 more years just to watch them go broke and all my money disappear. :banghead:

ramis

 

[1wildbill]

"The government should charge me more for Medicare, I can afford it."

With people who think like that allowed to vote, things could change.

But, I feel your pain. Thought about, "the option to invest a portion of SS payments into the private sector."? The Dems accused Bush of, "trying to destroy SS ." over that one. You are right, something has to be done. Maybe we should try to just save some for ourselves.