If we ever fell into dictatorship, it would be willingly. No need for a coup or a president disenfranchising the legislator and judiciary, we the people will demand it. Think Star Wars or Nazi Germany.
If we ever fell into dictatorship, it would be willingly. No need for a coup or a president disenfranchising the legislator and judiciary, we the people will demand it. Think Star Wars or Nazi Germany.
We don't though. We talk a big talk yet we have are hands out the moment the going gets tough and elected the same people every election. If some national disaster occurred and we had a popular president we could easily fall into dictatorship. It's happened once already and led to a 20 year junta, something most Americans try to ignore as it messes with their world view.
Bush actually wanted to be a dictator. His anti-Christ of a VP made it too obvious and then he slipped up and admitted to wanting to be a dictator. Someone like Bush but smarter could of (as has) pulled it off.
Speak for yourself and thank God every day that most people aren't like you. It'll never happen here, there are too many who won't accept it.
And yet it already happened here and elsewhere... I'm sure people never saw the likes of Cromwell or Hitler coming to power until people started starving in the streets desperate for better days. When people lose faith in democracy and someone with a nice smile and soothing words comes along, dictatorship soon follows.
Earlier I wrote, "Originally Posted by misterveritis
Do you realize that no representative was coerced into pledging that he or she would not raise taxes? If they renege it will be to their doom. I will aid their opponents."
To which you replied,
I understand that trust is unimportant to you. For many of us it is central. If your word cannot be trusted then you should declare yourself to be something other than a conservative. If you cannot be trusted to do what you say you will do you can be replaced.
I also wrote, "After Carter destroyed the military (I saw this as a junior Army officer) Reagan spent what it took to both heal us and re-arm, re-equip and retrain us. That does take money. It is also a Constitutional requirement."
To which you replied,
I also wrote,"Can you show me how the Marxist, the One, the Obama has paid for his six trillion dollar increase in the debt?"
To which you replied,
And you dodged the question. I will ask it again. I will remove the stumbling block for you. "Can you show me how the Xxxxist, xxx Xxe, the Obama has paid for his six trillion dollar increase in the debt?"
I also wrote, "We wouldn't want to have representatives we can trust do we? If I sent you a link to the US Constitution would you read it? It appears you never have."
To which you replied,
Maybe you are confused. Those representatives who pledged not to raise taxes are representing everyone. You are saved as much as me when they block the government from seizing our freedom and liberty. The wealth I create is my wealth. It does not belong to the government. It does not belong to you. You do not have the right to plunder me. Nor does the government.
Do you realize that no representative was coerced into pledging that he or she would not raise taxes? If they renege it will be to their doom. I will aid their opponents."
To which you replied,
I understand that trust is unimportant to you. For many of us it is central. If your word cannot be trusted then you should declare yourself to be something other than a conservative. If you cannot be trusted to do what you say you will do you can be replaced.
I also wrote, "After Carter destroyed the military (I saw this as a junior Army officer) Reagan spent what it took to both heal us and re-arm, re-equip and retrain us. That does take money. It is also a Constitutional requirement."
To which you replied,
It seems you lived in an alternative universe. This did not happen in the one I was in.
I also wrote,"Can you show me how the Marxist, the One, the Obama has paid for his six trillion dollar increase in the debt?"
To which you replied,
Of course he is. He is wrecking our capitalist economy, he wants the highest possible effective tax rates so only the government will have money to start new businesses, and he is redistributing wealth. Those are the cornerstone tenets of Marxism.
And you dodged the question. I will ask it again. I will remove the stumbling block for you. "Can you show me how the Xxxxist, xxx Xxe, the Obama has paid for his six trillion dollar increase in the debt?"
I also wrote, "We wouldn't want to have representatives we can trust do we? If I sent you a link to the US Constitution would you read it? It appears you never have."
To which you replied,
You are confusing democratic party talking points for the Constitution. I am beginning to appreciate the magnitude of your problem.
Maybe you are confused. Those representatives who pledged not to raise taxes are representing everyone. You are saved as much as me when they block the government from seizing our freedom and liberty. The wealth I create is my wealth. It does not belong to the government. It does not belong to you. You do not have the right to plunder me. Nor does the government.
The Left is all about power for themselves and collective serfdom for the rest of us.
The conservative right is all about individual liberty and freedom. A move away from this can only mean a move toward tyranny.
Is this logical? Abandoned Four murdered because of potential future cuts
Earlier I wrote, "If you think you feel abandoned how do you think the Abandoned Four felt just before participating in Obama's Benghazi Massacre?"
To which you made this irrelevant reply for reasons known only to you.
Is it your contention that the Abandoned Four were abandoned by the Obama regime because of potential future budget cuts?
Is it your contention that the Obama regime failed to act to protect US citizens because of potential future budget cuts?
Earlier I wrote, "If you think you feel abandoned how do you think the Abandoned Four felt just before participating in Obama's Benghazi Massacre?"
To which you made this irrelevant reply for reasons known only to you.
Is it your contention that the Abandoned Four were abandoned by the Obama regime because of potential future budget cuts?
Is it your contention that the Obama regime failed to act to protect US citizens because of potential future budget cuts?
Is tyranny fine with you as long as we describe it as getting "something accomplished"?
Earlier I wrote, "Really? Being for low taxes is misleading? Awesome. And dishonest as well. You are a leftist then correct?" to which you replied,
Good. We have one point of agreement. Being the party that stands for lower effective tax rates for everyone is not dishonest.
Are you taking it all back when you followed that with this?
Well, there you go again. Of course you took it all back.
Who has controlled the House?
FDR/legacy 1933-1953
Democrats: 9 terms (18 years)
Republicans: 1 term (2 years)
Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon (1953-1973)
Democrats: 9 terms (18 years)
Republicans: 1 term (2 years)
Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush (1973-1993)
Democrats: 10 terms (20 years)
Republicans: 0 terms (0 years)
Clinton-Bush-Obama (1993-2012)
Democrats: 3 terms (6 years)
Republicans: 7 terms (14 years)
So from 1933 to 2012
Democrats: 31 terms (62 years)
Republicans: 9 terms (18 years)
The legislation that has proved to be so damaging to the United States goes back to FDR. Over the last 80 years the Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives for 62 of those years. Republicans controlled the House in 18 of those years.
The massive growth of the federal government began under FDR.
But you do have a point (even though you did not make it) and that point is that Republicans spent like lightweight Democrats during a portion of those 18 years.
Now is the time to hold the line. And that is not dishonest.
Good. We have one point of agreement. Being the party that stands for lower effective tax rates for everyone is not dishonest.
Are you taking it all back when you followed that with this?
Well, there you go again. Of course you took it all back.
Who has controlled the House?
FDR/legacy 1933-1953
Democrats: 9 terms (18 years)
Republicans: 1 term (2 years)
Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon (1953-1973)
Democrats: 9 terms (18 years)
Republicans: 1 term (2 years)
Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush (1973-1993)
Democrats: 10 terms (20 years)
Republicans: 0 terms (0 years)
Clinton-Bush-Obama (1993-2012)
Democrats: 3 terms (6 years)
Republicans: 7 terms (14 years)
So from 1933 to 2012
Democrats: 31 terms (62 years)
Republicans: 9 terms (18 years)
The legislation that has proved to be so damaging to the United States goes back to FDR. Over the last 80 years the Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives for 62 of those years. Republicans controlled the House in 18 of those years.
The massive growth of the federal government began under FDR.
But you do have a point (even though you did not make it) and that point is that Republicans spent like lightweight Democrats during a portion of those 18 years.
Now is the time to hold the line. And that is not dishonest.
That is a reasonable question. Leftists are those people who tip the balance scales in favor of the growth of the state over the freedom and liberty of the individual.
Similar threads
