- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
This one I do not agree with:
If an American citizen went off to join Hitler's army during World War II, would there have been any question that this alone would make it legal to kill him? Why then is there an uproar about killing an American citizen who has joined terrorist organizations that are at war against the United States today?
The problem is that in WWII the american went over, put on a uniform and fought in a recognizable nation with boarders and uniforms. It was rather obvious who the bad guys were.
Today, one could claim that anyone wearing turban and professing undying loyalty to alla to be our enemy, but we have not done that. We also have no official declaration of war. Until we do those things we are in a different place, and anything done during peace time to a criminal could be done to any one of us the government decided was criminal. Even in war these people deserve a war time tribunal either before we assassinate them or after we capture them and then put them down. With no war declared by congress the only legal way to do things is to treat these terrorists as we would any other criminal, due process applies.
We were successful during WW II because we named who the enemy was. We also identified their ideology and formulated plans to kick their arses.
We were successful in defeating the Soviet Union because we identified the enemy. And we identified and UNDERSTOOD their ideology. We (via Pres. Reagan) formulated a plan to kick their arses.
Now onto today: who's the enemy? No one (via the Ovomit administration) is allowed to name it. What's the enemy's guiding ideology? Again, no one's allowed to mention that either. You can guess what will become of the efforts by our military who are completely overcome with PC (at both officer and enlisted ranks) by not being able to identify the enemy and their evil ideology. Can anyone here name a time in which a military force was able to completely defeat an enemy when they didn't know who they were fighting nor their ideology? I'd like to know. I'm not talking about a battle either, I'm talking about the overall war.
Can you imagine bunker hill with a commander and men saying, "You know they may not really want to kill us, they may be friendly and just coming to restore the order that we have disrupted, we may have been wrong, lets wait and see what they do?" How would have that ended?
Thanks for your comments.
I also didn't agree with his judges/police statement. maybe I have a distrust of both, but police in the US have huge over-reach because we accept the premise they will not abuse power. This is erroneous. People abuse power roughly in proportion to the amount of power they have. Same with judges. we used to be a nation of laws. we are now a nation of men. the more arbitrary the power, the more you attract people who want that power and are happy to be immoral.
How can we trust anyone in a society whose foundation is a system of stealing from peter to pay Paul, and then stealing from Paul to pay peter back, but only if peter is there friend.
So long as the base method of collection and paying for things is that the majority will take the club to a minority of its choosing, force money out of them by blackmail and then provide the "Needs" of society to there friends how can we expect to be an honest society.
When Bernard Madoff is guilty of a ponzi scheme, but when the government borrows money, sales that loan to the federal reserve as an asset that the federal reserve then prints money against is not a ponzi scheme (sure sounds like one to me) becuase its the government, how do you expect to have people who are not corrupt.
Only societies where every effort is made to apply the rule of all to all entities equally, and to apply taxation to all entities equally based on a percentage can that society stay honorable.
Is it any surprise that corrupt systems that put the government under one set of laws and us under another would result in a corrupt society? I think not.
Any man or woman that is ok with the state of things in our government, or thinks we are going in the right direction is not trust worthy, or they simply fail to understand the corrupt nature of the current system. The latter will change when educated and the first is guilty of theft, blackmail and likely worse and should be treated as such by the law. Any other act is not just as it applied different laws to different groups.
Yes you hit a nerve, sorry for the growling.
"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." Benjamin Franklin
Our government is as corrupt as Bernie Maddoff and much of the electorate too!
There is plenty of reason to growl!
O.A.
"However emotionally similar envy and resentment may seem, their consequences are often very different. Envy may spur some people to efforts to lift themselves up, while resentment is more likely to spur efforts to tear others down."