A little mature discussion in the P&R board? Say it isn't so.

[toyotapower]

Originally Posted by bush

The problem with the current checks-and-balances system is that it leaves the people in the dark to a lot of what goes on. How many people could name off the top of their heads 10 major bills that were passed into law in the last 12 months?

Sure, we have the power to vote our president and representatives into office, but what good does that do us when a lot of what goes on in government happens behind closed doors, for special interests, and often against the will of the people?

i agree with you completely bush. this is the cause for the problems, the fact that the people are in the dark. and sure we have the right to vote our representatives into office, but is it really the ones we want in there? a lot of times its not so much political views that get politicians voted, its a knowledge of business and marketing. the person who gets their name on the radio and on the billboards the most is probably going to win because its them that the people will remember.

[jim schmidt]

Sounds like blaming the victim to me. Remember the "Clear Skies Initiative?" The name was a deliberate attempt to fool you.

[gngsquared]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

A quick search should provide some information, along with other examples. Now I'm sure several here will assume that I'm anti-gun, but there's really not much one can do about assumptions. The point of the post was a memory jog for those who believe the military would never engage or fire upon citizens. There are numerous examples otherwise, even in the case of unarmed citizens.

I seem to recall a very recent thread where a soldier who failed to follow orders was somewhat harshly judged, just last week I believe.

Would I put my life on the line? One could certainly argue that I already did, but I don't refer to it much because I believe it was my duty and not something that makes me more right than any other citizen in a democracy.

You are old enough to remember that Kent State was the product of placing inexperienced 'Ohio National Guard' troops in a position that they should not have been in. They were not trained for crowd control and were issued ammo strickly against the ROE. It was in no way a concerted effort of the military to shoot civies.

If your second point pertains to the POS that decided after 2 years in the service that he could not move out with his troops, then that guy got what he had coming (at least).

Lastly, thanks for your service. Better than the rest because of it? No, but better able to comment than those that have not served and post comments like great armchair generals.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by sexybikerpimp

i agree with you completely bush. this is the cause for the problems, the fact that the people are in the dark. and sure we have the right to vote our representatives into office, but is it really the ones we want in there? a lot of times its not so much political views that get politicians voted, its a knowledge of business and marketing. the person who gets their name on the radio and on the billboards the most is probably going to win because its them that the people will remember.

Thats an understatement.................

BUSH AND KERRY SPENT ALMOST 661 MILLION dollars combined for the last election.

Tell me who can compete with that?

Lobbying needs to be illegal, corporations need to be stripped of "human" rights and money raised should be accounted for and regulated a lot more.

I could go on and on but lets face it.............until I flip the fuck out, nothing is going to change.................

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by gngsquared

You are old enough to remember that Kent State was the product of placing inexperienced 'Ohio National Guard' troops in a position that they should not have been in. They were not trained for crowd control and were issued ammo strickly against the ROE. It was in no way a concerted effort of the military to shoot civies.

I didn't say it was a concerted effort to shoot "civies". However, that is nonetheless what happened in the end, isn't it? It goes to show how thin the line becomes when the pressure is on and the guns are loaded.

Mostly I was addressing the sense of absurdity of the citizenry overwhelming the military outside of the existence of a military coup using small arms. The thought that the military would fail to return fire when fired upon is simply not realistic.

If your second point pertains to the POS that decided after 2 years in the service that he could not move out with his troops, then that guy got what he had coming (at least).

I wasn't attempting to have that debate. Again, this was addressing the notion that the military would not fire upon armed citizens if ordered to do so, being addressed by one of the people bent out of shape about a soldier who failed to follow orders. Just seems mildly inconsistent to me.

Lastly, thanks for your service. Better than the rest because of it? No, but better able to comment than those that have not served and post comments like great armchair generals.

I'd say considerably more brash that any general I've witnessed. I don't find great joy in disagreeing with government policies. In fact, I find it quite troubling that more people don't try to make a positive contribution rather than shouting about death and destruction as a virtue.

[gngsquared]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

I didn't say it was a concerted effort to shoot "civies". However, that is nonetheless what happened in the end, isn't it? It goes to show how thin the line becomes when the pressure is on and the guns are loaded.

No, you used Kent State as an example of the military, following orders, fired on the civies. It wasn't. I will agree that tempers and bullets don't mix.

Originally Posted by BusaDave

Mostly I was addressing the sense of absurdity of the citizenry overwhelming the military outside of the existence of a military coup using small arms. The thought that the military would fail to return fire when fired upon is simply not realistic.

Of course, for the military to be involved to begin with would take a ground shift from the current state. Posse Comotatus for instance would need to be repealed among others. Can a band of 'freedom fighters' overwhelm the US armed forces? Of course not. If however the 101st is called out to put down an insurection in Atlanta, then all bets are off.

Originally Posted by BusaDave

I wasn't attempting to have that debate. Again, this was addressing the notion that the military would not fire upon armed citizens if ordered to do so, being addressed by one of the people bent out of shape about a soldier who failed to follow orders. Just seems mildly inconsistent to me.

What is inconsistant? The LT in the story refused a lawful order to move with his unit. There was no lawful order given for the Ohio National Guard to open fire. Guess that is why they stress 'following lawful orders of my superiors'.

Originally Posted by BusaDave

I'd say considerably more brash that any general I've witnessed. I don't find great joy in disagreeing with government policies. In fact, I find it quite troubling that more people don't try to make a positive contribution rather than shouting about death and destruction as a virtue.

I don't even know what this means.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by gngsquared

No, you used Kent State as an example of the military, following orders, fired on the civies. It wasn't. I will agree that tempers and bullets don't mix.

You're welcome to read what I posted again carefully if you wish.

The point of the post was a memory jog for those who believe the military would never engage or fire upon citizens.

There's no particular need for you to understand or agree with my sense of irony from the opinions around the two examples. I believe it's there just the same.

Of course, for the military to be involved to begin with would take a ground shift from the current state. Posse Comotatus for instance would need to be repealed among others. Can a band of 'freedom fighters' overwhelm the US armed forces? Of course not. If however the 101st is called out to put down an insurection in Atlanta, then all bets are off.

Right. All bets are off. It depends somewhat on how the insurrection is presented

What is inconsistant? The LT in the story refused a lawful order to move with his unit. There was no lawful order given for the Ohio National Guard to open fire. Guess that is why they stress 'following lawful orders of my superiors'.

Like I said, no need to understand or agree.

I don't even know what this means.

It's unrelated to your point and an intentionally vague reference. I'm guessing one or two will get it.

[Fargin_Bastige]

As fractured as this country is politcally and with the abject apathy that people are expressing to what is the biggest big government ever, I would find it very hard to believe that people would rise up.

No one gives a crap anymore. They want goverment to legislate morality, tell them they are safe from terrorists and, in return, they will roll over and let the politicians rub their bellys, like any good dog would.

[bush]

Originally Posted by Fargin_Bastige

No one gives a crap anymore. They want goverment to legislate morality, tell them they are safe from terrorists and, in return, they will roll over and let the politicians rub their bellys, like any good dog would.

I give a crap. Does that make me insane, or dellusional?

[Fargin_Bastige]

Originally Posted by bush

I give a crap. Does that make me insane, or dellusional?

It makes you someone beating your head against a wall of ignorance. Welcome to the club, here's your helmet.