Home › Main Category › Second Amendment/Politics
bisley
Senior MemberPosts: 10,552 Senior Member
Things change.
bisley
Senior MemberPosts: 10,552 Senior Member
Since I started understanding politics, I have always considered myself a conservative, because I've always tried to reduce everything to simple decisions - right and wrong, black and white, yes or no - because nothing ever gets accomplished once it begans to be 'diluted' into too many gray areas. But the type of conservatism that I embraced has been gradually degraded through the years by too much compromise with too many utopian ideas. We were the wealthiest nation that the world had ever seen, and we could afford to share that wealth, it seemed, so why not give in a little?
Unfortunately, it is the nature of all governments to become corrupt, simply because of their inability to stick to 'yes or no' decisions that affect so many different people with so many different philosophies. It gives to some, and takes away from others, and it isn't always an equitable redistribution of their wealth. As long as the 'givers' have plenty, they don't squeal too loudly, because if they do, they get painted as robber-barons by any of the utopian ideologies (liberalism, socialism, etc.). So, the producers in our society just re-doubled their efforts to create new wealth, and mostly passed on their increased costs of doing business to the consumers who were demanding part of their wealth. It worked for a long time, till the demands became too great, but now that it is about to exceed the bounds of 'reasonableness,' it's all going to come crashing down, just like the libertarians knew it eventually would.
Conservatives of my ilk were the perfect target for Ronald Reagan's campaigns of the late '70's, early '80's, because his conservatism was rooted in the more libertarian ideals of Barry Goldwater (in his early days). Reagan was just a better salesman, and was willing to bend, just enough to sell those ideas to a normally 'wishy-washy' electorate that was fed up with the abject incompetence of Jimmy Carter. It worked, and the slide into economic oblivion slowed for a while, without any noticeable harm to the 'needy.' Trickle-down economics worked, for the most part, with the poorest of the poor still being more prosperous than any other nation's poor. It wasn't perfect, but it was a major improvement on the previous status quo.
But we have used it all up, now. The genuine prosperity that we once had is now just a memory, even though we haven't fully realized it, thanks to slick packaging. We are a debtor nation, bankrupt by any conventional accounting - we've just always been too optimistic about the future to give in to it. Reality is starting to creep in now, by the 50% of the population that pays the bills, because the last election showed us that the producers really are outnumbered by the consumers. The government that once encouraged the creation of new wealth, to support those consumers, no longer cares about the producers. This leader doesn't believe in trickle-down economics, or that the size of the economic 'pie' can be increased by entrepreneurial talent. He believes it is of a finite size, and must be cut into ever thinner slivers, until it is all gone. He doesn't say what comes after that.
We are about to enter a new frontier, economically, and I only hope that libertarians and conservatives can find a way to get together and rebuild it all, some day, because nobody else knows how.
Unfortunately, it is the nature of all governments to become corrupt, simply because of their inability to stick to 'yes or no' decisions that affect so many different people with so many different philosophies. It gives to some, and takes away from others, and it isn't always an equitable redistribution of their wealth. As long as the 'givers' have plenty, they don't squeal too loudly, because if they do, they get painted as robber-barons by any of the utopian ideologies (liberalism, socialism, etc.). So, the producers in our society just re-doubled their efforts to create new wealth, and mostly passed on their increased costs of doing business to the consumers who were demanding part of their wealth. It worked for a long time, till the demands became too great, but now that it is about to exceed the bounds of 'reasonableness,' it's all going to come crashing down, just like the libertarians knew it eventually would.
Conservatives of my ilk were the perfect target for Ronald Reagan's campaigns of the late '70's, early '80's, because his conservatism was rooted in the more libertarian ideals of Barry Goldwater (in his early days). Reagan was just a better salesman, and was willing to bend, just enough to sell those ideas to a normally 'wishy-washy' electorate that was fed up with the abject incompetence of Jimmy Carter. It worked, and the slide into economic oblivion slowed for a while, without any noticeable harm to the 'needy.' Trickle-down economics worked, for the most part, with the poorest of the poor still being more prosperous than any other nation's poor. It wasn't perfect, but it was a major improvement on the previous status quo.
But we have used it all up, now. The genuine prosperity that we once had is now just a memory, even though we haven't fully realized it, thanks to slick packaging. We are a debtor nation, bankrupt by any conventional accounting - we've just always been too optimistic about the future to give in to it. Reality is starting to creep in now, by the 50% of the population that pays the bills, because the last election showed us that the producers really are outnumbered by the consumers. The government that once encouraged the creation of new wealth, to support those consumers, no longer cares about the producers. This leader doesn't believe in trickle-down economics, or that the size of the economic 'pie' can be increased by entrepreneurial talent. He believes it is of a finite size, and must be cut into ever thinner slivers, until it is all gone. He doesn't say what comes after that.
We are about to enter a new frontier, economically, and I only hope that libertarians and conservatives can find a way to get together and rebuild it all, some day, because nobody else knows how.
0
Replies
Luis
bisley wrote: .
The American Founding Fathers are the cornerstone of this Republic. They believed that active participation through voting, owning property, and upholding the values of the Constitution were the benchmark that all citizens must follow. These imperative philosophies, however, have been allowed to wander in the past fifty years. If America continues down her current path in the clumsy,misguided ideas of modern thought, Ameirca will no longer be the greatest beacon of freedom in the world. Thats a fact Jack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I myself belive like George Washington, John Adams and the other leaders of the Federalist Party that a government which recognizes the greater individual rights compared to other nations was essential.
.....Author David Ricci, in his book Good Citizenship in America writes this:
bisley wrote:
If I am reading this correctly what I am seeing is: One of the many things that have brought this country to it's knee's is 'Diversity' They can call it immigration, non-paper citizen, Illegal immigration or non-USA citizens, but over indudging in the wants and needs of an overly dirvirse society is a death sentence for a country like the USA.
.... Since the 1960's, we have become alienated from one another even as millions of strangers arrive every year. And as Americans no longer share the old ties of history, heritage, faith,language,tradition,culture,music,myth or morality, how can immigrants share those ties?
.....Many immigrants do not assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in thier separate subdivisions of our multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation. And in numbers higher tha our native born, some going berserk here. If one was to look on VDARE.com one would see very quickly that they cover the Dark Side of diversity covered up by a political correct media,which seem to believe it is socially unhealthy for us Americans to see any correlation at all between mass migration and mass murder,for example.
.."In our diversity is our strength!" So we are endlessly lectured, HOGWASH I SAY!!!! But are we really a better, safer, freer, happier, more united and caring country than we were before, against our will, we became what Theodore Roosevelt called "a polyglot boarding house for the world."
bisley wrote:
First off I ain't got that much faith in the 'Trickle down econonmics' theory either, Ronald Reagan tried pulling that crap on me and others here in the USA, and we are still waiting for some $$$ to trickle down. I ain't seen a penny of that money yet.
Thomas Jefferson (one of my favorite Founding Fathers) wrote this:
This nation, the United States of America, gives its citizens opportunities of which others can only dream. The American population of the 21st Century has forgotten about the accomplishments of the greatest generation of men in this country’s history, and such forgetfulness is skirting real danger. If more Americans do not start voting and do not strive to inform themselves about candidates, they risk electing tyrants who want to destroy the very freedoms they enjoy.
.....Many immigrants do not assimilate. Many do not wish to. They seek community in thier separate subdivisions of our multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual mammoth mall of a nation. And in numbers higher tha our native born, some going berserk here. If one was to look on VDARE.com one would see very quickly that they cover the Dark Side of diversity covered up by a political correct media,which seem to believe it is socially unhealthy for us Americans to see any correlation at all between mass migration and mass murder,for example."
Mass immigration and mass murder?
I always thought you were a bit of a wing nut but raised some valid points on issues that wouldn't normally have come up, but come on,please tell me that the last sentence is hyperbole.
You talk of "old ties" of faith, language, heritage, music, myth and tradition binding people together, yet every wave of immigration in the US has done what you speak out against, forming ethnic enclaves and holding on to tradition, be they Eastern European Jews in NY or German Protestants in Texas, within a generation or two they become Americanised and start to begin to move out into suburbs, assimilate, amass wealth and move away from their traditional areas. Even these two examples are different in every respect from the supposed commonalities you imply are essential for unity.
Many Americans never had, have or will share common ties such as these, what they share is a constitution which guarantees them the right to be different, to publicly speak out, to practice different faiths and to bear arms etc., in other words while you view the constitution as a means to an end I view it as an end to a means. The constitution is what unites America, not the same languages, cultures or faiths, every American is protected by the same piece of paper, not by title,rank, race or creed.
Hate on immigrants all you want, most of them move to bust their guts for a better life doing jobs you or I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, if the federal and state goverments really wanted to stop illegal immigration they could do so in a heart beat, by closing down the border and making employers of illegals accountable (severely accountable). As it is it's pretty damn convenient for a man named Juan to clean your neighbours pool and plant his garden or slaughter hogs or pick crops for a fraction of what it would cost to pay a citizen, tell me I'm wrong and that your kids want to go and clean pools for peanuts?
I guess i'll get roasted alive now:tooth:
No - I just don't understand the context of your post.
It appears to be a copy/paste from something, in response to something that has absolutely nothing to do with the original post. Please explain how it fits into this thread, or delete it and start your own on whatever topic it is that you want to discuss.
He copy pasted from Roberts post. I found it by slogging through.
Why didn't you re-format and post it so doddering old men could decipher it? :jester:
My apologies, waipapa - your comments are actually quite coherent and thoughtful, now that I am 'synchronized' with it. I initially just skimmed the post you quoted, for comments on the subject I posted, and therefore failed to recognize what point you were addressing.
Well Sir,you are certainly entitled to your opinion like I, and all the others here. I just call 'em like I see 'em.
By 2016, I belive this country will be experiencing the lowest low it has seen since the depression of the 20's. Depressions now can be more complex and not so clearly seen. Large dependence on world markets, currency values and modern rapid communication lines makes economic ripples appear almost instantly.
We are currently an economically depressed country. If you deny it, you are blinded by all that makes this depression more complex and less plain to see. We aren't lining up for a ration of bread and beans and likely won't ever have to. HOWEVER, we feel the depressed economy in a different way now than before. We see it through rapidly expanding deficits and national debt spending to try and keep the proverbial head above water. The system will eventually decay through bankruptcy and complete insolvency. THEN we will see the traditional depression.
In the 20's, sure we had exports and internatinoal trade, but NOTHING like we do now. Our product was more domestic and the consequences of letting it spiral out of control at the hands of banks was felt swiftly. The depression of the 20's and 30's was a "Great Depression" by standards of that time. This tortured, agonizing and slow-to-kill depression we are in now is nothing the people of the 20's coudl ever have imagined. It's end-game consequences will be far more massive than anyone can see and its scars will be healing for many, many, many decades to come.
That was a little off topic, but it speaks to the consequences of greed and corruption in this country and its results.
-Jason
Sorry Bisley, I don't post much and forgot to do the pretty box thing :conehead:, It is confusing as all get out if you skim read it, I just tried
Robert, my apologies for the childish name calling, I could have made my point without insulting you, for that I am sorry.
Waipapa
Mostly, everyone here says what they think, and we ruffle each others feathers on about any subject. People come and go all the time, here. Sensitive types don't stay long, but those who stay and mix it up a little eventually learn that they can actually get along with folks whom they may disagree with, profoundly sometimes. This forum is unique, in that the members pretty much straighten up the folks who get out of line, without a lot of heavy-handed 'moderation.' You are very welcome to express your opinions on any subject. It helps some of us a lot to get input from folks with a different perspective.
Most of the 'deeper' subjects (politics, mostly) get ignored or hi-jacked, especially if they contain more than one paragraph. I know this, but make long posts anyway, because it makes me feel good to get things 'off my chest,' especially if somebody happens to agree with me. For the most part, I fully expect that anybody who does bother to read them will cherry-pick them and go off on a tangent. Even then, it makes for some interesting repartee on occasion. If nobody reads it, it still has the positive effect of helping me to organize my own thoughts, by just writing them out.
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:
Sounds about right to me, and not really off-topic, either.
A good point Robert, but you've just scratched the surface. I think a big part of this diversity that you view with negativity can be tied to the modern media outlets - primarily the Internet and hundred-plus channel cable/satellite TV.
When I was a little kid in the 1970's and into the '80s, everybody had roughly a dozen TV channels - the big three networks, a few local stations, feed from the station in the biggest nearby city, and PBS. As far as TV being a socially binding force, everybody was at least sort of on the same sheet of music - or at least aware of the major trends in the world.
Now, we've got so many different media outlets we can pick what we like and hide from what we don't. It's human nature to bind with groups of like-minded individuals - religions/cults, Internet forums, political/social causes, Star Trek conventions; take your pick. To that tendency, add the fact that it's now much easier to avoid folks or topics we don't want to spend time on. There's self-checkout at a lot of stores and some Jack In The Box restaurants now even have automated stations that give you the option of placing and paying for your order. The only human interaction involved is when your order is ready and they call your number. Texting lets us keep conversations to "just the facts".
Basically, we're highly diversified, but not melding very well.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
First off I am not offended,as stated before you Sir, are entitled to your opinion,doesn't matter if I or anyone else likes it,or not,agrees with it or not. Childish name calling heck I thought "WingNut" was pretty darn good, since I have been cursed out,:cuss: blessed out, chewed out,yelled at,fussed at,screamed at,and other thing so vile, many times in my life,I don't even worrry about it,nor do I wonder about it anymore.
I have adopted the philosophy over the years,to just simply say what's on my mind. I am a true believer in our USA 1st Amendment "Freedom of Speech", and although I know that depending on what ones says, and where one says, and how one says may or may not bring out the Beast in some. Anyway when folks resort to name calling because of a difference of opinion,(and not saying you are waipapa13), that just goes to prove what I have been saying and knowing all along. Either they are not well versed or informed on the subject at hand,or they are either Unwilling or Unable to engage in meaningfull discussion of said topic. My same philosophy also applies to those who have to resort to an excessive use of "Colorful Metaphors"( and I ain't talking about calling Obama Ovommit either,I mean hard core, derogatorry,demeaning, name calling,slurs, etc.), while attempting to discuss a subject or point. My current old lady is living proof of what I say!
waipapa13, here is what I try to do now. When someone calls me a name,let's use your adjective "Wingnut" I just simply say, "Hey you could be something too,if you tried.":roll2::tooth:
Bigslug wrote:
Thanks for the vote of confidence BigSlug. You just nailed what my point was. Were are not merging or combining very well these day are we?
BigDanS wrote:
That is straight out of our Pre-amble US constitution.:that::agree:
waipapa13, Please do not ever apologize to me for stating your OPINION,not now not ever!!!!!! If you or anyone else on this God forsaken planet ever accuse me falsely and I can prove it,then that would be another matter, but for writing,stating, speaking your opinion,you owe me nothing Sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And by the same token if you ever fall into the pit of "Go along,to get along", like I did many moons ago,when I wore a younger man's clothes, then you will find that to be worse in the long run, as opposed to stating your opinion, and ruffling a few feathers,my friend.
Again Well said bisley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank You Sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:that::agree::applause: