The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Ah, now I remember why I got away from discussing anything with you. You twist what other people say and misrepresent their arguments. Yes, our founding fathers were imperfect people but tearing them down is nothing but an attempt to belittle our constitution.

 

he is usually sensible, but it just goes on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on on and on and on

 

 

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

As they should be.

 

There are a very small amount of people who are unable to work and provide for themselves.

 

The overwhelming majority of individuals on public assistance are there because they choose not to be productive, and have made a series of very poor decisions because the system in place has enabled them to do so.

 

With the removal of the welfare state private charities are more than able to service the needs of those who would remain behind.

 

The system, as it exists, manufactures intergenerational poverty by creating a culture of normalized dependence.  This is an extreme cruelty, and it is purposeful, as this reality:  soft slavery under the guise of “help”, is a necessary part of the elite’s ploy to keep common man subjugated under their yoke.

 

 

I'm not just talking about the poor.

Consider the US Military. It spent almost $700 billion this year. That's over $2000 per person in the US.

 

Do you honestly think 330 million people will each spend $2000 per person? The average family of 4 living in a democrat controlled urban city is going to shell out $8500? Not a chance.

 

I imagine military spending would be cut in half if not more. As would be the case for pretty much every public service.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

16 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Sounds like I hit the strawman where it hurt.

I wouldn’t know.

 

You’re the one who concocted him, and implied that broad federal power fosters community.

 

If you’d like to argue against my position, feel free, but you haven’t done so yet.

[Whatnot78]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Im visiting Harpers Ferry Friday. John Brown, freedom fighter or terrorist? @DC Tom

 

I choose option 3: AFC WR leader in yards

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

I'm not just talking about the poor.

Consider the US Military. It spent almost $700 billion this year. That's over $2000 per person in the US.

 

Do you honestly think 330 million people will each spend $2000 per person? The average family of 4 living in a democrat controlled urban city is going to shell out $8500? Not a chance.

 

I imagine military spending would be cut in half if not more. As would be the case for pretty much every public service.  

It should be.

 

The primary purpose of our military in the year 2019 is to funnel resources towards the global elites.  There is absolutely no reason for our military budget to be as large as it is.

[row_33]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It should be.

 

The primary purpose of our military in the year 2019 is to funnel resources towards the global elites.  There is absolutely no reason for our military budget to be as large as it is.

 

 

it provides a life and career, and education, for many who wouldn't have one otherwise

[Foxx]

51 minutes ago, John Adams said:

... I would like teachers to teach my child how to think, not what to think. ...

cognitive skills are not the main 'objective' in 'schooling' (of which, is, the main objective).

 

18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Ah, now I remember why I got away from discussing anything with you. You twist what other people say and misrepresent their arguments. Yes, our founding fathers were imperfect people but tearing them down is nothing but an attempt to belittle our constitution.

he often has trouble focusing and/or moving goalposts to fit the narrative within his head.

[jrober38]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It should be.

 

The primary purpose of our military in the year 2019 is to funnel resources towards the global elites.  There is absolutely no reason for our military budget to be as large as it is.

 

Fine. I don't disagree. 

 

But the result in this lack of spending on social services, bridges, roads, etc, will be the loss of millions of jobs. There will be no enforcement of laws because police forces will be gutted, there will be no rule of law because the courts will be gutted, and ultimately there will be no one to incarcerate criminals who are convicted because the prison system will be gutted.

 

Society will resemble the wild west. The economy would likely also collapse. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by jrober38

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Im visiting Harpers Ferry Friday. John Brown, freedom fighter or terrorist? @DC Tom

 

Terrorist.

 

Remember: he wasn't trying to free blacks.  He was trying to incite genocide.  And he, more than any other single person, was responsible for the Civil War.

[Foxx]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Fine. I don't disagree. The US Military is a colossal waste of money and should have it's budget slashed considerably. 

 

But the result in this lack of spending on social services, bridges, roads, etc, will be the loss of millions of jobs. There will be no enforcement of laws because police forces will be gutted, there will be no rule of law because the courts will be gutted, and ultimately there will be no one to incarcerate criminals who are convicted because the prison system will be gutted.

 

Society will resemble the wild west. The economy would likely also collapse. 

the bigger waste is bureaucracy. eliminate the graft and waste there, and we would have more than enough for social programs and infrastructure.

[row_33]

i would have and still support putting him down by military or noose

 

[jrober38]

6 minutes ago, Foxx said:

the bigger waste is bureaucracy. eliminate the graft and waste there, and we would have more than enough for social programs and infrastructure.

 

I totally agree, I just think the notion that the public will step in and cover the cost of all the social programs and services that would be gutted is ridiculous.

 

American society would fall apart without income taxes. 

 

EDIT: I understand all the arguments against income taxes, I'm strictly speaking about short term effects if they were eliminated. I also understand this is ultimately a reason social programs are so challenging to remove once they're in place. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by jrober38

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Fine. I don't disagree. 

 

But the result in this lack of spending on social services, bridges, roads, etc, will be the loss of millions of jobs. There will be no enforcement of laws because police forces will be gutted, there will be no rule of law because the courts will be gutted, and ultimately there will be no one to incarcerate criminals who are convicted because the prison system will be gutted.

 

Society will resemble the wild west. The economy would likely also collapse. 

There was a rule of law before the income tax.

 

What there was an absence of, however, is a war on drugs which accounts for more than half our prison population.  There were no militarized police forces.  
 

Would a return to community based policing in which only truly violent offenders and those engaging in actual property crimes were incarcerated be a bad thing?

 

Wouldn’t it be desirable to put an end to the “high school to prison pipeline” which assists so many in our inner cities into intergenerational poverty and turns kids into violent criminals?

 

As to roads and infrastructure, people value these things, and businesses require them in order to operate.

 

These repairs and improvements would be made at the local level, largely paid for by the businesses which need them in order to exist.  This is, in fact, how things used to operate.
 

These improvements would be made more rapidly, and much cheaper, because the graft would be removed.

 

Society would not break down, but rather would grow closer, because true communities would re-emerge as existed as recently as the early 1980’s.

 

The economy would grow stronger due to larger work force participation in the private sector, as the unproductive, bureaucratic government sector would shrink. 

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

There was a rule of law before the income tax.

 

What there was an absence of, however, is a war on drugs which accounts for more than half our prison population.  There were no militarized police forces.  
 

Would a return to community based policing in which only truly violent offenders and those engaging in actual property crimes were incarcerated be a bad thing?

 

Wouldn’t it be desirable to put an end to the “high school to prison pipeline” which assists so many in our inner cities into intergenerational poverty and turns kids into violent criminals?

 

As to roads and infrastructure, people value these things, and businesses require them in order to operate.

 

These repairs and improvements would be made at the local level, largely paid for by the businesses which need them in order to exist.  This is, in fact, how things used to operate.
 

These improvements would be made more rapidly, and much cheaper, because the graft would be removed.

 

Society would not break down, but rather would grow closer, because true communities would re-emerge as existed as recently as the early 1980’s.

 

The economy would grow stronger due to larger work force participation in the private sector, as the unproductive, bureaucratic government sector would shrink. 

 

I disagree.

 

There are almost 400 million firearms in the US. 100+ years ago firearms were still somewhat primitive. Rifles, some revolvers, no AR-15s, not semi automatic high capacity hand guns, etc. If you slashed policing in half, America would be a disaster. Criminals wouldn't be opposed, and to combat them I imagine there would be a rise in local militias, and as I said the country would operate similar to the wild west in the late 1800s and early 1900s when the frontier operated in this manor. 

 

The US is much more connected than it was 100 years ago. The highways, airports, ports are all crucial parts of the country and would need maintenance. Key trade routes might be taken care of, but anywhere there isn't a factory or distribution network would likely see it's access points fall into disrepair. 

 

The US had any hardly standing army before WW1. Having that military might not be necessary but getting rid of it would result in millions of unemployed, either directly through the military or indirectly through the communities that service its bases. 

 

Things may recover eventually and I'd love if your ideas were realistic, but I think the short term effect of laying off millions of people and gutting the military and police forces and removing the ability to enforce the rule of law would result in the downfall of American society. 

 

Too many people, too many guns, too much existing poverty, and way too many people who rely on the government either as a job or through assistance. 

 

Pulling the carpet out from under all that would be a complete disaster. 

[3rdnlng]

44 minutes ago, Foxx said:

cognitive skills are not the main 'objective' in 'schooling' (of which, is, the main objective).

 

he often has trouble focusing and/or moving goalposts to fit the narrative within his head.

He should be able to easily move goalposts around that empty skull.

[DC Tom]

19 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I disagree.

 

There are almost 400 million firearms in the US. 100+ years ago firearms were still somewhat primitive. Rifles, some revolvers, no AR-15s, not semi automatic high capacity hand guns, etc.

 

Hard to argue with this level of ignorance.  You've never heard of Browning or Thompson?  

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Hard to argue with this level of ignorance.  You've never heard of Browning or Thompson?  

The first Thompson Submachine gun wasn’t used in a crime until about 1927. I read that in a book on John Dillinger. 

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Hard to argue with this level of ignorance.  You've never heard of Browning or Thompson?  

 

I did a double take when I read that.  

 

*************************

 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I did a double take when I read that.  

 

 

I like how he said "100+" years, which I interpreted as "100 years," even though I know it meant "as far back as I have to go before semi-automatic magazine-fed rifles didn't exist yet."  Which is...145 years.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

As expected.