Sunday, July 18, 2010

Is revolution really ahead?

I have a question.

After doing some research online which required my looking at signs the tea partiers put up, after knowing how hard it is to buy ammunition because of the hoarders of such, after knowing how many people feel compelled to buy machine gun type weapons, which now can be purchased easily by anybody, which are being manufactured all across this country, I began to wonder how serious is the threat of the extreme right wing trying to start a revolution?

We read in the newspapers a few months ago about a militia type group plotting to kill a sheriff as a way to trigger a revolution-- or so they thought. We know how many of the militias go into the woods or desert to train for warfare, but this kind of thing has been happening since the 1990s and likely before. How likely is it that if they can't win what they want by voting that they will turn on their own country and try to take it over?

I live out where that kind of thing makes me feel uneasy as we are a long way from routine police patrols. We do have a fair number of militia types who would probably like the idea of taking power locally. If we really had something happen that led to chaos in the nation (huge natural disaster or catastrophic terrorist attack), people like them would at least try take over their own regions and run them as they pleased. Would they show up here demanding what we have that they wanted? It would be naive to not realize that kind of thing has happened in history.

To expect that militia type people are more noble than everybody else is to not know very many militia type people. The reality is they run the gamut from noble to ignoble. Some would use such an opportunity to enrich themselves if they knew there was no force to stop them.

A book fiction series has something happen that really can't but it showed the consequences to the community of suddenly being forced to face feudal times. Dies the Fire is the series I mean and when I read it, it did make me think about what would we do if...

What I wonder is how likely would a violent attempt to overthrow our government be? I guarantee that nobody could stand alone against such people. It would take those who had banded together as communities to stop the chaos from overtaking their neighborhoods. But it's not like most of us would do that if we didn't have to do that. How many of us would choose to buy assault rifles by choice. They are only for the purpose of killing humans, certainly not basic survival gear.

It's not like we haven't had such anarchy threatened before and it didn't happen. Will this be like in the past and maybe a few like Timothy McVeigh or the guy who flew his plane into the IRS office recently, but generally people respect this country and will not turn violent just to get their own way if they cannot win at the ballot box. Are the numbers of those who would do such quite small? There are militias in every state. It won't be lefties if it happens. But should lefties be prepared?

What gets me about this is all the money that goes into the kind of weapons that are only needed if there is war within our country. It reminds me of Third world Country dictatorships. Is this where we are heading? I do not want to think so.

46 comments:

HMBabb said...

These are indeed interesting times and it's a real dilemma. Bearing in mind that we are not dealing with rational responses to real stimuli - because those people really are batshit crazy - do we prepare in the expectation that eventually they will go berserk? How far do we take it?
I'm inclined to carry on as usual. I'm still in a huff that we've altered our lifestyles in response to the terrorist attacks, and have no intention of changing for these crackpots. Easy for me to say because I live in a very small universe.

Ingineer66 said...

These folks have been around since at least the early 80's. Except they used to call them survivalists when they were afraid the Soviets or Reagan were going to start a war or the coming ice age was going to devastate crops.

I do not think it will happen. There are many different groups with crazy ideas in this country and I do not see a violent end. Unless the economy really, really tanks. We need a leader in Washington that really can unite the US. Not somebody that is embarrassed by our nations history or thinks we should appologize to everyone on the planet. W. had his chance. Right after 9/11 most of the country was behind him. Hell even Democrat members of Congress participated in Singing God Bless America on the Capitol steps. But W. blew his chance when he decided Sadam and the UN resolutions were more important than Al Qaida. Obama said he was a uniter, but then did just about everything he could to do the opposite.
Maybe it is time for a US Vladimir Putin. Somebody that doesn't take any shit from anybody and really means it.

Rain said...

Give me a break! You think a dictator can fix this problem in our country??!! You have to be kidding. Whoever is elected, on either side, will try to put through the agenda on which they were elected. With this country divided pretty much in half on what people think should be done,the other side won't have much better results.

Years ago I read a book I liked very much about 7 effective habits. The point that stuck with me the most was when you are involved in a disagreement, you have to aim for a win/win as win/ lose always ends up bad even if you are the one winning. That's how it is right now. One side wins. The other loses and either way the battle goes on. I don't know if there is a possible win/win in any of this. That is what is so disappointing.

wally said...

I think the real danger of a revolution is with the Christian right wing. There are many Christian officers in the military that adhere to the Christian Domininionist ideology and think that it is their god ordained duty to return our nation to it's Christian roots (in spite of the fact that most of our founding fathers were deists not Christians)even if it requires a military coup. I know that sounds crazy, but do some research and you will be amazed at how many politicians have connections to that movement. If they succeed they will make the Taliban look like boy scouts and they will move the world toward another God mandated goal: Armageddon.
I'm kinda embarrassed to have written that paragraph it sound so loony, but someone Google this stuff and give me your take on it.

Rain said...

Well I don't think it's loony or would not have brought up the topic. I don't know what the likelihood is but one would have to be ignorant of history to not know that these things do happen. We have now in this country a 30,000 person militia basically under the auspice of Xe (which used to be Blackwater). They serve to help our military... for now but they are very much from the Christianist mindset or so is what I have read. There is another group who are in the military but promise to disobey if orders go against what they believe should be done. And then you have articles like this-- extremist Christians aim to create armed militias against godless federal government

I don't really know the likelihood of such being a real risk but if it happens, it won't end up suiting a lot of people who right now may be cheering it on. It will lead to chaos, rule of the most brutal, and the end of the life we have known probably for a long time to come. If someone though is primarily a believer first and foremost and not a believer in our country, they then are open to such an event.

I don't believe in being paranoid but I do believe in paying attention to what is going on.

Rain said...

In a comment to another blog, I wrote about something I saw in Eastern Oregon. It was a pond that one end was a hot springs. Frogs lived there and at the hot spring end, there were dead frogs floating on the water. I actually took photos of it because I saw it as very apropos for how it can be with us. We have this comfortable world where it's easy and soft. I see this with the border. Cheaper labor. Who cares if the border is porous if people come up illegally, it makes our life easier... It seems that way with the frogs too until out comes a burst of extremely hot water and cooks them.

Greybeard said...

One thing I know for sure...
If this ball gets rollin', I may have to move to Arizona!
Know any good, reasonably priced real estate around Tucson, Rain?

Rain said...

Arizona is actually pretty reasonably priced but not sure it'd be any safer. I look at this as Islamic extremists who want to kill us, those from south of the border who want what we have had, and the home grown types who through either religion or just a desire for their own power would do things like McVeigh. To me it has the potential to be a difficult time ahead whether we self destruct, are attacked, or just overrun. And most of us sit here fat and happy watching our dumb reality shows...

I do not though lie awake at night worrying about it. I do that when I hear a lamb crying out over and over again and realize even though it's totally dark, even though I am nearsighted and night vision is not that great for me, I am going to have to go out there to see what the heck happened. That's enough for me to lose sleep over.

But... I have been wondering if we need to buy an assault rifle and relocate somewhere that would be easier to defend *imagine a big Sarah Palin wink here*

Greybeard said...

A big Sarah Palin wink?
Now there's a pleasant thought!

If you're thinking of buying a more powerful rifle Rain, I'd so it sooner rather than later.
Since they've been unable to do it in the normal fashion, this administration, in conjunction with the first steps taken by the Clinton administration, is still trying to CIRCUMVENT our Constitution by regulating firearms and ammunition via International treaty. So if you think you might need that rifle, join me and the ranks of millions by buying it right away. Get yourself several hundred rounds for it as soon as possible, too.
(Then we may have to consider hiding them so these jackbooted thugs won't take them away.)

Think that sounds loony enough Wally? ;>)
Good.

wally said...

Greybeard: I already own a rifle and have owned guns since I was a kid with my first Daisy Red Ryder.

Greybeard said...

Then buy BB's Wally!

Ingineer66 said...

First off Rain, I do not mean a dictator. I mean a strong and charismatic leader that will arouse Nationalist support from a strong majority of the people.

Wally, really? There are also many Muslim officers in the military. Do you think they pose an armed threat to our society? I mean other than the one that has already killed a bunch of people.

Xe also serves the military of many other nations. They are in it for the money. Pretty much that what mercenaries do. That is how we won the Revolutionary War. We convinced more of the German mercenaries to fight for our paycheck instead of the British paycheck. They weren't in it for God and Country.

Greybeard said...

C'mon Ingineer...
Wally knows Islam is "The religion of peace."
It's those loony Christians like Sarah Palin (wink) we have to be terrified of.
As an example, look at all those batty "Christians" down at Waco, TX and how that ended!
What?
Oh.
(Gilda Radner voice...)
Nevermind.

Rain said...

fundamentalism is something to fear wherever you see it and in any religion, and Palin is a fundamentalist. Surprisingly they have a lot more in common with each other than those like me who don't follow a religion.

Palin shows her fundamentalism through her talk and actions where she values those who come to their church to drive out demons (we have all seen the YouTube by now). Odd that you guys worry so much about who Obama listened to in a church but about her, not so much! Often those people don't actually live what might be considered Christian lifestyles (not saying that is the case with her as I don't know her but we've seen plenty of examples in the last few years) but they do know how to talk the talk and she is good at it. Actually I know how to talk the talk too having heard it enough years.

As for Wally, how do you know him, Greybeard? My knowledge of him is he is a very logical person, not a weakling, haven't heard him say Islam wasn't anything to worry about, and he speaks his mind even when it leads to attacks.

The one thing I had hoped for here was that right and left could speak their minds, see ourselves as people not so much different in who we are, and we'd see we might not have so much between us as we think. Sometimes I still hope that...

Ingineer66 said...

Well I think we all agree here that guns are an important part of our culture and lifestyle here in the US. Is that a start?

Rain said...

Well you have my agreement and nobody better try to take mine from me either. I just walked in from outside carrying it and as hot as it is, I wasn't doing that for fun.

Rain said...

The ones in Waco were not Christians from anything that I know of Christianity. It was a cult but the government did wrong with how they dealt with it. Koresh was no innocent in it all either. There is still debate over how the building caught fire. It could as well have been him or his followers as anyone outside. Right about then, the ATF did a lot of questionable things like Randy Weaver which was even more wrong from what I heard. A group like ATF can sometimes be as much outlaw in how they operate as any outlaw bunch. I think Reno and the Clintons blew it but they were new to it. Not that that excuses it as all they had to do was wait it out.

There are certain events I remember when I saw them happen. That was one and back in the day before cable but I happened to have the TV on and it was heartbreaking to watch.

Greybeard said...

Women and children.
I don't give a flip if they were Scientologists.
They'd be alive if they hadn't been considered "loony".
Clinton/Reno killed those kids.

Greybeard said...

And Rain, read this before you invest in GM.
(Or make a sucker bet on them.)

Rain said...

We happen to own a Silverado and consider it to be an excellent farm truck. I had heard about the TARP shuffle in the spring and it wasn't what i was referring to. Time will tell on whether GM can pull it together. I don't think any of us should rejoice if the US stops making its own vehicles although many foreign ones are manufactured here also.

I don't care who those in Waco were either in terms of religion but that was set up before Clinton took office and happened very fast and early on. It was wrong as I said. You don't protect children from sexual abuse by what they did but I also think it's quite possible that Koresh set the fires and explosives. He was nutty enough to do it. The obvious fact though is that they could have arrested him away from the compound and they didn't which set in motion the tragedy. It was ATF with the blessing of Reno. ATF has many things to account for back in that era and for all I know they are waiting for similar opportunities today.

Dion said...

The revolution may eventually came but not from the left or right. Instead it will be the poor. It won't be political ideology that triggers the violence. It will be a desperate rampage of the newly crowned indigent living in a bankrupt, capitalist America. Earning a living wage for many Americans will evaporate like the glaciers. I still have not bought a gun but I've given it some thought.

Rain said...

I have related this before in my blog, but that's what my father said before he died in 1980. He said there'd come a time when the have-nots would kill people just because they could and had nothing to lose. They would shoot from afar and it'd be impossible to protect from the chaos of it. He believed it would be a war of the have and have-nots. You can see some of the rich probably do believe that as they have moved into gated communities where they feel more secure but nobody can stay in such places.

When we rent our home in Tucson, some aren't comfortable when they find out it's not behind big walls with a guard. It is what they feel makes them safe from the desert and maybe from 'others.'

Dion said...

To be clear as crystal, Rain, I have no intentions of killing another human. Self-defense would be my only aim if I were to actually take up arms. Oh yes, I'm so principled now, before the hardships that are sure to come down the pike. How will I be when my family is starving? How will anyone be at that point? That's something that we don't know until it happens to us.

Ingineer66 said...

When do you think we will get some have-nots in the US? The closest thing we have now are the Illegals that are coming in and most of them have it so much better here than they did at home they do not want any part of Revolution.

If you are talking about the so called have-nots that get a check in the mail on the 1st and the 15th and have plenty of money for cell phones and $100 sneakers then I don't really expect a revolution from them. We proved that during the Rodney King Riots. After a few days of looting and burning it was getting close to the first of the month and the US Postal Service said they were not going to be able to deliver the mail and miraculously the riots stopped.

Rain said...

Wow, you know different poor people than I do, ingineer. Think that might be more a California thing than many other states where hunger is still a problem in many families let alone the expensive things you are listing. Since I don't know any poor like you do, I can't say much about it. I don't think though that the concern is riots but more killings, home invasions, car jackings, etc. Riots don't really accomplish much anyway and make the rioters easier to circle and arrest.

I don't really know that it'll be haves vs have nots though. I just asked the question of whether civil war is coming as some would think it'd be great if it did. Opportunity knocks

Rain said...

Here is something on Oregon's problem and some of this is we don't have the number of social programs that some states might. Some think it also might be high meth use in some of these situations which you can say bad parents but that still leaves poor children: Oregon's shocking hunger stats. A lot of the worse victims of poverty are the children where really they didn't ask to be born where they are but they also cannot do anything about it until they grow up if they have learned different rules than their parents lived by. This is one reason I favor giving good to families, not blank checks; but I realize they could still trade that away if they wanted to buy drugs. Not all families though caught in such situations are doing drugs and some it's a series of bad luck with no family behind them to help when health or other things go wrong. Logging families suffer a lot of this as it's hard labor and if they get hurt, the family is in big trouble.

Rain said...

typo which i guess is obvious but food, not good...

Greybeard said...

Well, the original question was, "Is revolution really ahead?"
And my answer is yes, because liberals want to deny me my freedoms, and at some point that will become unbearable.
(And there's also the fact, as I've repeatedly pointed out...
Many liberals are just NASTY and hateful.)

If we don't truly get CHANGE it's gonna happen, sooner or later.

Rain said...

That is ugly and the very idea that the government would shut down a media they don't like should be an offense against left and right. Not to mention wishing bad things for anybody is just plain wrong-- and tends to backfire in terms of the damage it does to ourselves.

If people can discuss the issues, that is the only way I think there can be meeting ground. As soon as it gets into personalities, it explodes into disagreement and anger.

What freedoms do you think lefties want to take from you? I mentioned earlier the desire to block people from buying vitamins or supplements and that was attempted under the Bush administration with the idea we would adopt Europe's view of them.

It's not like either side won't take freedoms. The difference is only in which ones.

And I would limit some freedoms myself if I had the power; so I can understand how people think that's a good thing. I'd limit the ability to buy assault rifles at the least only to those people who could pass the requirements to get a concealed weapon permit. We have had too many killings by a psycho for me to not want controls on who can buy such. To be honest, I'd stop everyone from it but that won't happen and maybe there can't even be restrictions. Some who have done the mass killings in the past likely would have passed such barriers. Still anytime I am in a mall, I do keep my ears open for loud noises and I suspect many Americans do likewise.

Greybeard said...

If I could, Rain, I'd limit the freedom of folks like you to take away other's freedoms!
(And I think I'll get started about November.)

Rain said...

Good for you, Greybeard. That is the American way to do that. Give money to those candidates you believe in, help their campaigns.

But understand something, I see what they would do will limit my freedoms-- things like limiting early term abortions, blocking gay marriage, keeping don't ask don't tell, leaving hungry to go without food, allowing corporations to run roughshod over our environment as us-- in other words, to live in the kind of world I think is morally right.

Whichever side gets in, they will limit freedoms. It seems to be the way of power. And, of course, some freedoms are limited by necessity for public safety like not letting someone drive 100 mph on a highway.

We just have to pick and choose which upset us the most and settle it at the ballot box which means we do believe in that Constitution we claim we value so highly-- the Constitution that allows some freedoms to be limited but not others and a court in each generation can decide what that means...

Greybeard said...

See, this is where you and I have a basic disagreement, Rain.
I think our rights and freedoms are God-given.
You think they're provided by government, and you think more is better.
Horse plop.

Ingineer66 said...

Why can't I drive 100 mph on a highway if it is appropriate to do so? Oregon used to not have a day time speed limit on many highways, Montana too. I think there are some places it is an appropriate speed. And 100 is about as fast as I would drive if there were no speed limit anyway. Faster than that aerodynamics start playing a much larger role in car behavior. But we can't drive that fast because we have turned into a pansy shadow of our former greatness. We want no consequences for our actions. We want the government to bail us out of any scrape we get in. Nobody wants to take care of themselves.

Rain said...

You can't drive that fast, ingineer, because the majority of people decided it wasn't safe and that yahoos who were driving that fast had more accidents and endangered people other than themselves. What you apparently want is total anarchy where every man decides rules for himself. That doesn't even work well in the wilderness whenever other folks come along. Might makes right and who cares about the rules. Someone who thinks like that should avoid people at all cost.

In general, even when the first settlers came west, one of the first things they did was set up their communities and the rules they would live by. Those who would not follow those rules got killed or driven out.

If we are facing revolution in this country, you righties, who hate rules so much, will find it wouldn't be the world you think if you could end all those nasty rules. Well just the ones you don't make up.

Rain said...

And Greybeard, I don't think our rights are god given. I don't think god intervenes in what goes on. I have seen too much horrible stuff, read plenty of it from the Bible to think it's anything but a man's idea of rules that suit his gaining of power. Whether a religion makes the rules or a government, it is men behind that curtain. The goal of people should be that the rules (religious or otherwise) make life better for as many as possible.

Government is just a tool. People make the rules and use the majority as a way to do it when it's a democratic system and otherwise a dictator rolls them out. Some use god as their justification but they manipulate what that would be using sometimes pieces out of holy writings that they take out of context or mangle. Blaming god is not fair for what people are doing.

I will always print disagreeing thinking here but not insults. It just ends conversations before they begin.

Rain said...

I do not necessarily think more laws are better. But you have to look at the things that the right wants rules regarding which would be what I can do in a bedroom and with whom and then what the left would do more to control like financial regulations and tell me that they don't both want the laws-- just different ones. The right would dictate my moral behavior and limit my freedoms to for instance marry a woman if that's who I was wanting to have a family with; while the left might regulate my bank so it cannot overcharge me with interest or what it could do with my money. The left would regulate pollution which the right says that takes away the right of the businesses and it then is my right to breathe polluted air... And on it goes.

Rain said...

This popular talk from the right about god given rights is rather interesting all in itself as they say it a lot but haven't paid a lot of attention to what that might be based on Old Testament rules or what Jesus said. If God wanted to enforce a set or rules, he could and would have. Mankind has used that to control people but I don't buy that a god has been doing this. Even the 10 Commandments gave the most detail to what Moses said God expected from that particular people. Only two relate to our legal laws in this country despite all the hype. Might be you should respect your parents and it's a good thing but we don't stone children who don't nor are there any laws dictating it. Jesus explained it anyway to say it was all about love. He did not encourage breaking laws even when they were a conquered people.

Sometime I might write more on this topic as religion and politics is definitely one of my interests, but right now I am in the midst of getting ready for a family outing to Klamath Lake for canoeing, swimming, kid time, which means I won't be here for comments after Friday and today is packing.

Ingineer66 said...

Rain I know how the rules work and I would never drive too fast if there were other people around. But there are some roads out there, like US 95 where you could do 100mph for a long time and never see another car. Believe me I do not want anarchy. I want reasonable rules that are made for a purpose. Not because some bleeding heart politician is trying to curry favor with some small special group.

And I do not want violent revolution. I do not want the United States to become Afghanistan. And that is what it would become if we had a violent revolution. Especially the way we are being splintered right now.

Rain said...

First of all you can drive 100 anywhere you want but you just might pay with a ticket unless the lawman thinks you were reckless and then it might go higher. I have seen a lot doing 90 on freeways. In the middle of Nevada, not too many people are there to patrol; but what you are saying is rather than a law, you want this to be decided by individual good judgment. Are you the same guy who is so distrusting of the people for voting? But deciding how fast to go, that's different?

When I drive 80, it seems to me as fast as is safe and a lot of states now have 75 for a limit which means 80 is not likely to get a ticket anyway. When you are going 100 you are pointing, not controlling as the wind, a bump in the road, many things can throw you off the road.

It's not just lefties that have set rules in place to make for more safety. Some are furious at the limits in Oregon on smoking inside bars. Well the people who work there were getting that secondhand smoke and they didn't have the option of going outside. These are things often decided by majority vote (so it has been in Oregon) and if you believe in democracy, you aren't against that. If you don't believe in democracy, good luck with that dictator you are hoping for...

cj said...

Late to the party but here's a question for you, Rain -

The government recently shut down something like 74,000 blogs because of unlisted 'abuses'.

Are you going to stand up and fight against a similar move if the government shuts down Pitchpull or my blog?

If you understand history, if you understand the road to serfdom and how governments move to control the masses you should be afraid of what's coming.

cjh

Rain said...

Beings you are the guy who builds or at least makes sure our bridges and highways are safe, what's your opinion on rules for standards on concrete or how much pressure something must take or a lot of other rules you work with every day? You know that before there were those rules, in countries where there are not, one little earthquake sends the bridges and buildings right down. Rules okay with you there? My point is that what you consider a rule that has validity, someone else might not.

Rain said...

What grounds did they use? Were they porn sites or what? But if is something like pitchpull puts out and although i only vaguely remember your blog, the same way-- I would and will speak out if someone tried to shut them down. I would see it a threat against myself also.

There is a lot of pressure on the internet for controls and I don't like any of that. I don't want radio equal time and don't want anybody monitoring cable for fairness. Fox isn't supposed to be fair although it claims it is. It is a viewpoint and to me it has every right to have one. I believe in different opinions being presented to people and it's why I have tried to encourage the right and left to post here. There aren't many places that both do and I can see why as it makes everybody furious and I don't know if it helps.

But unless someone is abusing children in a blog site or something that is illegal, like setting up a bombing site, I am not for blocking anybody.

Incidentally a few years back I went to Yahoo chat, put up a picture of myself, and thought I'd give it a try in the flower and garden area to find like-minded folks. As soon as I'd get there, I would find a few men from Pakistan or other countries over there. Within 5 minutes or less, I would be inundated with many more coming there to hit on me. I had a feeling those guys were using Yahoo as a place to come together for something other than hitting on American women. I told someone who had some connections about my concern and whether anybody checked it out, I don't know but it was something I felt that those guys weren't interested in gardening nor were they there just to hit on old women. They were using it and I didn't trust for what.

So, yes, leftie that I am, if someone was trying to put together terrorist groups, domestic or otherwise on such sites, I'd be all for putting them down.

BUT if it was like pitchpull, expressing his concerns for this country, bringing up areas he feels Obama is dangerously wrong, then I don't feel it should be blocked at all. It's healthy.

Rain said...

On the last comment I made, I saw something more on it after I had written it. The shutdown was a server that had according to the FBI many sites with bomb making instructions and what they saw as terrorist sites. They shut down it all but most will be back up as they were not part of the concern. Time will tell, of course, and left and right will obviously see this differently and would if it was Bush as president also only in reverse.

Ingineer66 said...

Rain, I was saying what I would like. Not what I expect to see in regards to speed limits. And yes there are rules for them. The people that drive on the road decide what the speed limit is. It is called the 85th percentile. 15 percent of drivers are deemed to be unreasonable and drive too fast. A speed survey is performed and the speed at which 85% of the drivers are doing less than is the speed limit. Except in Residential and School areas and places like that where it is always a certain number like 25mph. But the politicians at the city, county, state or federal level all think they know more than traffic engineers and the public and they come up with artificial limits like the national 55mph limit that Carter set.

Primarily in the wide open west that created disdain for unreasonable laws and many otherwise law abiding citizens disobeyed the speed limit. Even the state of Nevada did when they said anything less than 70 was an environmental infraction punishable by a $5 fine payable straight to the officer. So when we get hundreds of new laws every year and many of them are just silly, as a people we lose respect for the law. And that is what leads to anarchy not giving people freedom to make some of there own choices.
Back in the old days just because a speed limit was 70 or 75 or 80 did not mean that you had to drive that fast. You could go slower and many states had minimum speeds on major highways like 45mph.

I guess I believe in a small but meaningful government presence in our lives. Not a huge overbearing presence that stifles freedom.

Ingineer66 said...

PS I agree with the indoor smoking ban in bars. They can go outside and puff away all they want. I don't spit my drink all over the other people in the bar they can keep their smoke to themselves.

Rain said...

So would you have any government regulations on say banks, corporations like when the government stepped back on regulating the oil rigs during the Bush administration, let them tell them whether they were safe or not, would that be good in this smaller government?

How about things like birth control for women or abortion, would government stay out of that also? Should government block the ability of two men or two women to get marriage licenses? And death with dignity or marijuana for individuals to buy, would government do anything about that? Meat safety standards or would we trust all meat packing plants would want to use safe standards? Could people buy a tank if they had the money or a bomb, no government rules? Where would you say it was meaningful and where is it intrusive?

Likely your answers will be more of a mix than an extreme right winger would give but the issue is that what they consider intrusive, I consider sensible and what I consider intrusive, like government blocking gays from marrying, I consider common sense.

A lot of the people protesting taxes benefit from them in ways they don't even know. I am sure there is waste. I don't see why Congress people should retire at full salaries. I don't see why they need the huge staffs that we pay for. But a lot of that is because of the lobbying that is done where the money and numbers are far greater than what we put out for staffs.

To me we have a corrupted system but I don't see it as all being about Democrats or Republicans; but the emphasis from the right i sit is all the fault of people like me for wanting the rules I want while they will say the rules they want are morally right. That's where we are and I am tired of having people blaming me when I restrain from saying the other side is wrong too. Logic in government isn't happening on either side

I appreciate you sticking with this as the only real hope we have is for right and left to listen to each other and believe me I know how hard that is for either side. It's a lot easier to just listen to those with whom we already agree but it's gotten us where we are today with a certain group of people eager to pull the trigger to get their way. I think they won't get it or even know what will come next if they start such a time of violence, but then who am I to them... a ... I won't say it but we both know what it is. Well to me they are just as dangerous with what they want. And that's where real conversations usually end without ever getting to which issues we can discuss and maybe agree eventually on a way to move forward on them. It's not happening as what is happening is more extremes and where that will lead is why I brought up this topic...