Little Communists.

[Saint Peter]

I am not going to read or respond intelligently to any of this, but I wanted to mention that I think the thread title would make and awesome NBC primetime sitcom. I'd watch the shit out of that.

I posted some good shit in this thread.

 

[mercury14]

Which part of "Phase Out" is confusing you? The idea is to end the programs and replace them with nothing, but to KEEP them running for 25 years with decreasing benefits to allow those who are basically fully vested - to receive benefits and for those who are not yet 40 - to have time to invest for their own retirement and medical plan.

And what's your plan for people with insufficient income to save for retirement? Or a woman who's hubby worked and then ditched the family? Or someone without health insurance who had to spend their money on their family's medical care? It's increasingly common for people to live for 30 years after retirement. Consider also that health care costs in the future are going to be so much more than they are right now. Saving for 30 years of living expenses plus health care really isn't realistic for a huge chunk of Americans.

Please explain how someone making just a bit over minimum wage can pay for living, their family, and save for 30 years of retirement. Show your math.

Why suspicious? I've posted what I'd like to do with the military in several threads and my best guess is that costs could drop 50-70%.

Any reason you came to that figure? Why not 20% or 80%?

A. Withdraw from NATO. Thank you mission accomplished.

Absurd. NATO's mission is quite relevant today. The Taliban attacked us and when we went to kick their asses, NATO came with us. They're still there too, controlling entire provinces. NATO is also a massive deterrent. Iran knows it can't shoot at a Belgian ship passing by because it would have to deal with NATO. See how that works?

B. Repatriate all foreign based troops.

What will be the strategic impact of this? Something tells me you aren't aware of the missions of our overseas bases in the first place.

C. Combine Marine Corps with the Army into "Ground Command"
D. Combine all Aviation into Air Force (army, marine, naval and current air force)
E. Combine all Naval forces into Sea Force
F. Create, "Space Command" for missiles, drones, satellite, etc.

There are reasons the Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard all use Aviation. There are reasons we have separate branches. And guess what? They work well together. Integration is great - and it's something that's in place in the daily lives of our service members. There are already regional commands that govern all branches. Not sure what savings you're finding here. And at what cost? What will be the cost of telling all the marines that they're just "ground command" guys like everyone else?

The reason we have different branches of the military is because they all run extremely different missions. You want to make a "Sea Force", however the mission of a guided missile frigate is nothing like Coast Guard patrol on the Potomac. If you combined these things into your Sea Force you'd still have such deep divisions in purpose that little would change.

And finally - no more 'nation building'. If you attack the United States - doctrine will be to smash your country - it's roads, bridges, infrastructure, military and then to come home and train for the next time. Hardship for the enemy? Yes, too bad.

That's a dumb, inflexible policy. In Yugoslavia there was mass genocide - an attempt to rape and murder a people out of history. The US and NATO stepped in and stopped it. Bad idea?

The Taliban and Al Qaeda attacked us from Afghanistan. Bombing a nation with barely any infrastructure to bomb wasn't an option. Their military is integrated with the population and not very bomb-able. Your policy would have been absolutely ineffective in doing anything except kicking the hornet's nest.

 

[Liar]

Why shouldn't congress have to be accountable for regulations? If it's important enough to be law, it is important enough for our congress to be on record as having voted for it. Changing a president and an appointed head of an agency should not be a game changer for regulatory apparatus.

I agree with your last sentence. In general, regulations are more of a legislative thing than an executive thing. So power over it where poweris proper.

Question there is, how bogged down in detail can the legislative body feasibly get? There are thousands of regulations in hundreds of areas. Sure, some are unessecary and others redundant, but even if you apply a hardline laisses faire approach to them, there will be thousands left that make too much sense to scrap. And regulations sometimes need to change fast as natural, geopolitic, economic and scientific circumstances change. Should every regulation be subject to a two chamber vote (in the world's biggest cooling saucer)? Congress would have time for nothing else, even if they say with their fingers on the buttons 24/7.

Maybe that's what the Colonel said. I'll have to read his post again slowly.

 

[garbage can]

I have to admit that seeing kids being used as political mouthpieces is disgusting. Although, this isn't as bad as PETA targeting kids with "Your Mom Murders Bunny Rabbits" comicbooks.

I'd say get the young-uns back to learning how to put a condom on a cucumber....

 

[Instant_Star]

I'd say get the young-uns back to learning how to put a condom on a cucumber....

We used a banana.

 

[pointless]

I like this.

You have my vote.

seriously? how much of that did you actually read?

 

[HartMann]

Lovely

It is always a pleasure to hear (or rather read) Americans cry 'wolf' or 'communists'. What the hell do you know about communists, except for the Mc Carthy-era? Have you ever seen a communist? Spoken to one? Sorry, I did not mean one of your WestCoast turtleneck pipesmoking Communists. I talk about real people. Have you heard what they have to say for their ideas?

I certainly would not agree with a communist, but it seems to me that you would not even know the difference between communists, socialists, bolsheviks, social democrats, democrats and a social market society.

What precisely in that video was communist thinking? Try to think a bit further than just the tip of your nose... Come on: God's own country, you must have heard about the Christian obligation to look after the needy, the poor, the sick and the feeble-minded, right? Christian caritas. You made "charity" of it, which does not even cover it by half. That is health insurance, unemployment cover, etc etc etc for everyone in newspeak.

Wake up from the idea that you are still trappers at the wild frontier... you are not. Time to grow up as a nation and understand that there are people that cannot look after themselves and need to be supported.

Oh, and as far as your Pledge of Allegance goes, alrady the Romans did that:
Iurant autem milites omnia se strenue facturos quae praeceperit imperator, numquam deserturos militiam nec mortem recusaturos pro Romana republica!

And guess what, in the year 69 a.d., yes 69 years after the birth of Jesus Christ, a rebellion broke out because the soldiers resented that oath.
That did not hinder others to swear alliagence to the flag, the state or whatever.... Even the WaffenSS did:
Ich schwöre Dir, Adolf Hitler, als Führer und Kanzler des Deutschen Reiches, Treue und Tapferkeit. Ich gelobe Dir und den von Dir bestimmten Vorgesetzten Gehorsam bis in den Tod! So wahr mir Gott helfe!
Why do you always think you reinvented the wheel, when in fact someone just picked up a history book and warmed up old ideas?

I am still waiting for the first rebellion against that juvenile patriotism in the US. Seems that you are 1942 years behind.... and counting.

 

[richard_daily]

Aww, this thread is so cute.

 

[eyer]

It is always a pleasure to hear (or rather read) Americans cry 'wolf' or 'communists'. What the hell do you know about communists, except for the Mc Carthy-era? Have you ever seen a communist? Spoken to one? Sorry, I did not mean one of your WestCoast turtleneck pipesmoking Communists. I talk about real people. Have you heard what they have to say for their ideas?

I certainly would not agree with a communist, but it seems to me that you would not even know the difference between communists, socialists, bolsheviks, social democrats, democrats and a social market society.

What precisely in that video was communist thinking? Try to think a bit further than just the tip of your nose... Come on: God's own country, you must have heard about the Christian obligation to look after the needy, the poor, the sick and the feeble-minded, right? Christian caritas. You made "charity" of it, which does not even cover it by half. That is health insurance, unemployment cover, etc etc etc for everyone in newspeak.

Wake up from the idea that you are still trappers at the wild frontier... you are not. Time to grow up as a nation and understand that there are people that cannot look after themselves and need to be supported.

Oh, and as far as your Pledge of Allegance goes, alrady the Romans did that:
Iurant autem milites omnia se strenue facturos quae praeceperit imperator, numquam deserturos militiam nec mortem recusaturos pro Romana republica!

And guess what, in the year 69 a.d., yes 69 years after the birth of Jesus Christ, a rebellion broke out because the soldiers resented that oath.
That did not hinder others to swear alliagence to the flag, the state or whatever.... Even the WaffenSS did:
Ich schwöre Dir, Adolf Hitler, als Führer und Kanzler des Deutschen Reiches, Treue und Tapferkeit. Ich gelobe Dir und den von Dir bestimmten Vorgesetzten Gehorsam bis in den Tod! So wahr mir Gott helfe!
Why do you always think you reinvented the wheel, when in fact someone just picked up a history book and warmed up old ideas?

I am still waiting for the first rebellion against that juvenile patriotism in the US. Seems that you are 1942 years behind.... and counting.

Looks like a socialist globalist got his uptight nerve tweaked...

 

[Ishmael]

It is always a pleasure to hear (or rather read) Americans cry 'wolf' or 'communists'. What the hell do you know about communists, except for the Mc Carthy-era? Have you ever seen a communist? Spoken to one? Sorry, I did not mean one of your WestCoast turtleneck pipesmoking Communists. I talk about real people. Have you heard what they have to say for their ideas?

I certainly would not agree with a communist, but it seems to me that you would not even know the difference between communists, socialists, bolsheviks, social democrats, democrats and a social market society.

What precisely in that video was communist thinking? Try to think a bit further than just the tip of your nose... Come on: God's own country, you must have heard about the Christian obligation to look after the needy, the poor, the sick and the feeble-minded, right? Christian caritas. You made "charity" of it, which does not even cover it by half. That is health insurance, unemployment cover, etc etc etc for everyone in newspeak.

Wake up from the idea that you are still trappers at the wild frontier... you are not. Time to grow up as a nation and understand that there are people that cannot look after themselves and need to be supported.

Oh, and as far as your Pledge of Allegance goes, alrady the Romans did that:
Iurant autem milites omnia se strenue facturos quae praeceperit imperator, numquam deserturos militiam nec mortem recusaturos pro Romana republica!

And guess what, in the year 69 a.d., yes 69 years after the birth of Jesus Christ, a rebellion broke out because the soldiers resented that oath.
That did not hinder others to swear alliagence to the flag, the state or whatever.... Even the WaffenSS did:
Ich schwöre Dir, Adolf Hitler, als Führer und Kanzler des Deutschen Reiches, Treue und Tapferkeit. Ich gelobe Dir und den von Dir bestimmten Vorgesetzten Gehorsam bis in den Tod! So wahr mir Gott helfe!
Why do you always think you reinvented the wheel, when in fact someone just picked up a history book and warmed up old ideas?

I am still waiting for the first rebellion against that juvenile patriotism in the US. Seems that you are 1942 years behind.... and counting.

Seems to me that you are the one unacquainted with the definition. If you are supportive of the 10 points found within the Communist Manifesto, then you ARE a Communist. All of the other sub-groups you mentioned are just that, sub-groups under a unified philosophical banner that differ among themselves as to just how those 10 points will be achieved. Each group taking a different road to the same destination. And when that is pointed out, posters like you jump in and try to argue the subtle differences in those pathways and attempt to drag the discussion down one mink hole or another when, in fact, it makes no difference at all because the destination is the same. That being the case, and being that I want nothing to do with the destination, why in the world would I even want to start discussing the minutea with you?

As far as 'people that can't take care of themselves' is concerned, that's pretty much been the case for the entire history of mans existence. And in spite of that we have managed to thrive as a species. Obviously we managed to take care of ourselves, and others, without the need of government. Historically, as soon as the government gets involved 'taking care of the needy' the throngs of the needy that needs taken care seems to grow far faster than the population. When you plot the trajectory you soon find that we will be left with but two groups in this country, the government and the 'needy.' The trend is as unsustainable as it is undesirable.

The 'needy' are better taken care of by private organizations. And while it is true that from time to time these organizations are either scams, or abusive to those they are allegedly caring for, they are soon found out and shut down permanently, often with criminal prosecutions. Whereas those institutions run by the government go on and on and on. They exhibit all of the properties one would normally associate with eternal life. And when found to be abusive and or filled with 'waste, fraud, and abuse' we are treated to very expensive hearings, a token change in personnel, and solemn reassurances that the problem was taken care of and, oh by the way, that agency will receive a 7.5% budget increase in the following year (regardless of real growth in the economy).

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Nor will he offer any evidence.

To both of you.

Is this part of the formal curricula? No, of course not. One can only imagine the publics response if that were to be attempted.

Is that video making the rounds in the public schools, you bet your ass it is. All anyone has to do is to start asking questions of the kids. In this state there are 3 groups that offer 'free talks' at the public schools as well as an pool of substitute teachers that show the video and 'discuss' it in the classroom.

Now you, and others, can say that this is nothing more than a discussion of current events and is all part of the schools obligation to the children and the community. And on a very superficial level that certainly sounds reasonable.

No elementary or middle school child (and few high school students) are equipped to evaluate that presentation. And none are equipped to confront the presenter or teacher with counter-views. It boils done to captive indoctrination in Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Bolshevik (whatever) dogma.

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

Who did you have in mind? Prisoners in GITMO?

I'm happy to admit it if I read her wrong, but I think she means "bring the US troops home," not "release all captive foreign violent people."

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm happy to admit it if I read her wrong, but I think she means "bring the US troops home," not "release all captive foreign violent people."

I certainly hope so.

Of course, there is another issue here which is a bit off topic for this thread, but has to do with the repatriation of enemy troops. Namely, what is our obligation to repatriate those detainees if we did bring our guys home?

Normally, two enemy countries would engage in repatriation concurrently. But in the present instance Al Qaeda is not known for taking prisoners.

Meanwhile, what is the legal status of detainees which we prosecute for "war crimes" if they are found not guilty? Do we still have the right to hold them in "non-punitive" detention?

Does the answer to that question depend on whether the prosecution occurred in standard criminal courts or military tribunals?

It's a huge, complicated issue no matter how one looks at it.

 

[Peregrinator]

I certainly hope so.

Of course, there is another issue here which is a bit off topic for this thread, but has to do with the repatriation of enemy troops. Namely, what is our obligation to repatriate those detainees if we did bring our guys home?

Normally, two enemy countries would engage in repatriation concurrently. But in the present instance Al Qaeda is not known for taking prisoners.

Meanwhile, what is the legal status of detainees which we prosecute for "war crimes" if they are found not guilty? Do we still have the right to hold them in "non-punitive" detention?

Does the answer to that question depend on whether the prosecution occurred in standard criminal courts or military tribunals?

It's a huge, complicated issue no matter how one looks at it.

It certainly is, and I won't even pretend to have answers to your questions. Might be a fun thread to read in itself, though. I like those sort of cerebral exploratory threads. Of course, if you start one, Ishmael is likely to demand to know what your point is, and berate you if you say you don't have one.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

To both of you.

Is this part of the formal curricula? No, of course not. One can only imagine the publics response if that were to be attempted.

Is that video making the rounds in the public schools, you bet your ass it is. All anyone has to do is to start asking questions of the kids. In this state there are 3 groups that offer 'free talks' at the public schools as well as an pool of substitute teachers that show the video and 'discuss' it in the classroom.

Now you, and others, can say that this is nothing more than a discussion of current events and is all part of the schools obligation to the children and the community. And on a very superficial level that certainly sounds reasonable.

No elementary or middle school child (and few high school students) are equipped to evaluate that presentation. And none are equipped to confront the presenter or teacher with counter-views. It boils done to captive indoctrination in Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Bolshevik (whatever) dogma.

Ishmael

Which schools has it shown in? There may be groups that would like to discuss it, doesn't mean they've been invited to do so. Are they showing it in class or after school?

I'm assuming you're using the term "substitute" teacher rather liberally.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Of course, if you start one, Ishmael is likely to demand to know what your point is, and berate you if you say you don't have one.

And he probably won't be alone.

 

[Peregrinator]

And he probably won't be alone.

This is, after all, the GB.

 

[kbate]

I agree with your last sentence. In general, regulations are more of a legislative thing than an executive thing. So power over it where poweris proper.

Question there is, how bogged down in detail can the legislative body feasibly get? There are thousands of regulations in hundreds of areas. Sure, some are unessecary and others redundant, but even if you apply a hardline laisses faire approach to them, there will be thousands left that make too much sense to scrap. And regulations sometimes need to change fast as natural, geopolitic, economic and scientific circumstances change. Should every regulation be subject to a two chamber vote (in the world's biggest cooling saucer)? Congress would have time for nothing else, even if they say with their fingers on the buttons 24/7.

Maybe that's what the Colonel said. I'll have to read his post again slowly.

Perhaps Thousands of Regulations, might be a major part of the problem I am attempting to address? I did not vote to empower "The secretary" to write arbitrary law forcing my insurance company to cover drugs for family planning, not does the constitution empower anyone to do such even under a liberal reading of the commerce clause - but as we have interpreted things, that is what we get.

I do not particularly care if the legislative body is bogged down - we pay them well, give them great health plans, plenty of staff, free mail, free travel and retirement after only a few years on the job. I think we have a right to expect more than, "The secretary shall . . ."

 

[kbate]

I certainly hope so.

Of course, there is another issue here which is a bit off topic for this thread, but has to do with the repatriation of enemy troops. Namely, what is our obligation to repatriate those detainees if we did bring our guys home?

Normally, two enemy countries would engage in repatriation concurrently. But in the present instance Al Qaeda is not known for taking prisoners.

Meanwhile, what is the legal status of detainees which we prosecute for "war crimes" if they are found not guilty? Do we still have the right to hold them in "non-punitive" detention?

Does the answer to that question depend on whether the prosecution occurred in standard criminal courts or military tribunals?

It's a huge, complicated issue no matter how one looks at it.

Repatriation of our own troops has no bearing in any way on the status of enemy detained anywhere. Criminal enemy - should have been tried long ago or released for lack of evidence. Taliban (who are a legitimate military enemy) should be accorded full Geneva protections.

As far as the thread ... a moveon.org commercial as no bearing on communism or education.

 

[kbate]

It certainly is, and I won't even pretend to have answers to your questions. Might be a fun thread to read in itself, though. I like those sort of cerebral exploratory threads. Of course, if you start one, Ishmael is likely to demand to know what your point is, and berate you if you say you don't have one.

Sorry, it appears to me, that few are willing to put out plans and take the heat from those who would rather pick apart than put out a plan of their own.

Exploratory threads are pointless when most would rather hide behind party doctrine.

 

[Peregrinator]

Sorry, it appears to me, that few are willing to put out plans and take the heat from those who would rather pick apart than put out a plan of their own.

Exploratory threads are pointless when most would rather hide behind party doctrine.

Agreed. I was commenting on the times that I've said, "Hey, GB, what do you think about this?" Inevitably, someone, usually Ishmael, wants to turn it into a debate, counting points won and lost and all the rest of it. It's hard to have a reasoned dialog here.

 

[Ishmael]

Repatriation of our own troops has no bearing in any way on the status of enemy detained anywhere. Criminal enemy - should have been tried long ago or released for lack of evidence. Taliban (who are a legitimate military enemy) should be accorded full Geneva protections.

As far as the thread ... a moveon.org commercial as no bearing on communism or education.

The Taliban has NO Geneva protections, they are illegal combatants by definition. However on the military tribunal findings we agree.

Ishmael

 

[Bad_Doggie]

It is always a pleasure to hear (or rather read) Americans cry 'wolf' or 'communists'..

Because it’s very, very, very scary in the mind of some folk.

Look it’s very easy…..

This is what is being taught in the nations elementary schools.
Contract for the American Dream

Ishmael

All you have to do is make up some patent lie, shout it loud and often and convince yourself and your bros that you making some sort of valid point.

I think that all will note, however, that dear Ishie has avoided telling us exactly where this video is being shown let alone TAUGHT in schools.

Oh and Ish due to your past record your say so just ain’t good enough.

Woof!

 

[HartMann]

Fully agree, bad doggie. Very very scary, specially as I certainly do not subscribe to any leftist ideas such as communism, socialism etc. Far be it from me to do so.

I just cannot hold back my froth when I hear this kind of "the market/private companies will look after everyone" rubbish.

The US has one of the most performant medical systems in the World. Also one of the most expensive ones. And certainly the system where the largest proportion of the population falls through the gaps,i.e. to which the largest percentage of its citizens do not have access due to poverty or other reasons (if you compare that percentage with other industrialised nations). You might see that as a cure along the lines of "survival of the fittest". But for a nation that carries the bible in one hand and the sword in the other, it always strikes me as bizarre that Americans tend to forget that part; or are blind to the fact that actually in spite of their fabulous wealth, too many people suffer in their system.

But hey, I am European, so probably I see things a little differently....

 

[kbate]

The Taliban has NO Geneva protections, they are illegal combatants by definition. However on the military tribunal findings we agree.

Ishmael

The Taliban was the legitimate government of Afghanistan before we went to war and ousted them. They have never surrendered nor have accepted the NATO/UN/US puppet government.

Therefore - by definition, they are still a legitimate armed force and should be treated as such.

Furthermore, by treating them as criminals and terrorists, we empower them far more than we would - if we treated them properly and we endanger our own troops - practically guaranteeing death by torture to any who are captured.