It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Civilian Reserve Corps: Threat or Fantasy?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

To the best of my knowledge, none of the labor disputes that occurred during the Second World War - or in its immediate aftermath - was of a scope, scale, or magnitude to provoke a radical youth movement. It's true that there was a lot of strike busting, but no real social backlash came from those incidents. [Edited by Don W]



Errata? There were almost no labor disputes during War 2. First of all, the US Government was vocally and earnestly pro labor. It was essential to the war effort. Money to give away we had, workers on strike we did not need. Management cared not a whit, as most Defense contracts were on a cost plus basis. There were several major strikes after War 2, especially in the UMW of A organized coal fields. HST had his famous encounter with the steel industry in 1951. I wonder how AG Gonzales has dismissed this one in his version of the Commander in Chief’’s inherent powers?

There were many violent strikes during the organizing period of the 1930s, AFTER the New Deal had passed the Wagner Act which legalized strikes. I say “legalized” strikes. The problem over legality arose with the judiciary, not the legislative branch. Our courts held that a strike was a “common law conspiracy” to withhold labor legally protected by law or contract, either written or implied. The “Common Law” of England was not written in one place and was not necessarily a statute but instead, it was the “generally accepted” practices in a community, hence, the term “common law.” Thus, the “common law” was expandable to meet the needs or demands of a community. Such new judicial undertakings might prove popular and spread, or an unpopular extension of jurisdiction might ultimately die in its place of origin. All American states are “common law” states except Louisiana, which is Napoleonic Code. However, being subject to the US Constitution which is mostly English in origin, Louisiana does not look much like France. Note: Most American states have superseded the common law with codes and so are now, code states. Maybe no pure common state remains?

In the 1930s organizing period, several dozen workers were killed at Ford and GM plants. Scores of workers were killed in the coal fields of PA, WV, KY and maybe VA and OH. There were many other strikes too, in the mid-1930s and 1940s prior to Pearl Harbor, but none that come to mind as outstanding as those I’ve mentioned.



Anti-Communist films from the 1950's suggest to me that then and only then was the American political establishment aware of the power of cadres. It's quite possible that some organizers during the 1960's came to understand the power that could be at their disposal . . “



Communism was always the American bogey man. Under a new paradigm and a catchy name, Radical Islamic Terrorism, we are frightened of this strange ideology. There were 2 large unions that fell under control of real communists. I’m not sure how much value the Soviet’s put on them - Gus Hall was a maverick - American first, Communist second - but it was enough for the print media to scare the heck out of millions of American just waiting to be scared about something. California’s ambitious new congressman Dick Nixon eagerly maneuvered a seat on the 80th GOP Congress’ House Un-American Activities Committee of John Wayne fame, and then was followed by Joe McCarthy, of Wisconsin and so on. The largest union, the Teamsters - always under questionable leadership - posed the major (perceived) “threat” to the dominance by our capitalist overlords, as in GE, GM, IBM, RCA, US Steel and all the other Forbes 1000.



Those modern state sponsored cadres that still exist provide their governments and bureaucracies considerable power over the populations of their respective countries. That's because they represent a loyalist voting block that will almost always be guaranteed to steer the official vote tallies in whatever direction the elites most desire. As Federal power continues to centralize, I have few doubts that U.S. leaders will rethink their use of cadres. [Edited by Don W]



Are you thinking of Mexico or the United States? The American psyche seems to me to hold a considerable amount of inertia against a revived CCC without mentioning the ideological opposition of the GOP. I’d say such leaders as you mentioned are at best, “conflicted” over this issue. They’d certainly like the added influence that could be realized with such a group, but OTOH, it is hard to imagine how they could assure control of the youths such a group would likely attract. I mean, all the 1960s black rioters in Michigan never burned one house in Grosse Point.

It’s easy enough to raise up a mob, and easy to get them to burn a Blockbuster or Pizza Hut, but rioters seem to confine their violence to their own neighborhoods. To have political power through such groups one would need to be able to burn down some gated subdivisions. That I do not see. My crystal ball is too cloudy for me to see what comes next.

[edit on 3/10/2007 by donwhite]




posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
The actual "threat of cadre" we face will be founded in the bureaucratic traditions often exploited by other centralized regimes. As you know, my thesis is that over Federal government will (in the near future) beccome so powerful that our elected leaders will 'break' the Constitution. I do fully expect a sitting President to overstep their Constitutional authorities more than they have by 2014.

The most long-lived cadres in the various centralized regimes exploit the loyaltiy of large numbers by guaranteeing employment in troubled times. I'm just one of many on ATS who see an economic downturn coming in our near future. That's why I don't have a thread on that topic in this forum. I'm sticking to my specialization as best I can.

My concern is that the Civilian Reserve Corps, should it ever exist, will develope in to a very large voting block of unflinching government loyalists who could tip the balance in any election. In some respects, you can see that happening in today's Federal civil service. What they lack in numbers, they make up for in obedience.

The next step in power acquisition for the ruling elites, after they've survived the early Constitutional crisis, will be to foster loyalty among the most active voters. They don't dare do away with voting altogether, and they they can't risk party-based restrictions of the kind found in so many hardline States. Knowing that the Constitutional crisis will be preceded and followed by great economic turmoils, they've got one easy option that solves a lot of their problems. The cadre. It may very well appeal to young and old alike.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Reserve of What?


This should be the quesition we're all asking. A reserve is a backup for something. Our military already has reserve forces in existance. These armed forces are mobalized when the "Active Duty" forces aren't enought to do the Job. There is in fact a whole back up network for our military including emergency Command and Control capibility.

Hey, take a look at this link on the topic: The President's Civil Reserve

This seems veigly like some kind of Covert Special Forces type stuff. It almost reminds me of the old Office of Stategic Sevices (OSS) from world war 2. (For some of our newer members the OSS was a predecessor of the CIA).

Tim



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   


posted by Ghost01

Reserve of What?
This should be the question we're all asking. A reserve is a backup for something. Our military already has reserve forces in existence. These armed forces are mobilized when the "Active Duty" forces aren't enough to do the Job. This seems vaguely like some kind of Covert Special Forces type stuff. It almost reminds me of the old Office of Strategic Services (OSS) from World War 2. Tim [Edited by Don W]



J/O is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Let me say what I think J/O was saying about a Civilian Reserve Corps first mentioned by Pres. Bush in his '07 State of the Union speech. By the term “Civilian” J/O meant to take the discussion away from any military or naval (or Special Ops) concept.

He reminisced over the mid-1930s Civilian Conservation Corps under the New Deal which was part of the effort to reverse the Great Depression. Briefly, the New Deal CCC was for young men (sorry, no girls allowed) and from urban centers. (Country boys stay home.) In part it was to take these young men - full of energy - off the streets and direct their boundless energy towards constructive enterprises. If you ever go to a National Park you most likely will encounter work done by the CCC. All those many years ago. The pay was $30 a month, but $25 had to be sent home. $5 was kept by the young men. Uniforms, housing, food and health care was all furnished as in the military. Basic facilities were constructed first, and then the young men spent lots of time in the forests of America cleaning the underbrush, making trails, pathways, barbecue pits, shelters, rest rooms and lookouts.

I think J/O was worried that if the Federal government created another CCC by whatever name, and expanded it to include 10s of 1000s of young people - now boys and girls - that this group would be susceptible both to propaganda and coercion to vote in a certain way or to do other ever worse things as directed by the higher ups. He was worried it might be a 21st century American counterpart to Germany’s pre-War 2 SA.

We adults need to have constructive things for our children to do, in every city, town and hamlet. It is the biggest shortfall in our society, IMO. We owe it to our children. Children are out future. They are our guests. Not one child asked to be here. We owe them, they do not owe us. We repay that debt by leaving the world a better place than we found it.

[edit on 3/14/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Don is quite right in everytying he said. He and I are just old enough to remember some things that may not be common knowledge for young people today. For our respective generations, the specter of Nazi Germany is still quite real.

In their day, the German National Socialist Worker's pary (NAZI, for short) developed a cadre called "the brown shirts." The SA, as they were known, developed a reputation for brutality. They were also a mobilized political grouping. Each time their members went to the polls, Adolf Hitler came one step closer to power.

In the 21st century world, cadres still exist. They can be found in the Chinese communist party. They are the norm in North Korea. During the Cold War, Soviet cadres were common and they did play a role in keeping the leadership in power. The modern American cadre, if it should be allowed to exist, may take the form of a civil service organization that is more political than military.

The issues Tim brings up are related to government or party paramilitary groups. That's another subject that I am still researching. When I've got enough to justify my thoughts, I will bring them to this forum.

Having such a large loyalist group in our midst that owes its allegience to the government could be dangerous. You'd see Democrats and Republicans alike in this corps. Their members would eventually come to have greater power inside the traditional Federal civil service hierarchy. Their ability to force a work stoppage or use other tactics associated iwth labor unions could be formidable.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Thanks for the replies!

I keep an eye out for that forthcoming thread!

Tim



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
They door is always open. Please feel free to share more of your thoughts as they occurr.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Having such a large loyalist group in our midst that owes its allegience to the government could be dangerous. You'd see Democrats and Republicans alike in this corps. Their members would eventually come to have greater power inside the traditional Federal civil service hierarchy. Their ability to force a work stoppage or use other tactics associated iwth labor unions could be formidable.


Oh! I was tired and missed this peice last night when I posted.

You're talking about concentrating Political power in a corrupt form. If you know how to manipulate people, you can pull the strings of power without having to employ fighting forces. This is kind of like those times where we seen voters shift the balance of political power to one extreem or the other.

What role do you think this will play in the overall scheme of things?

Tim



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
When they come, I suspect the cadres will play a role in the solidification of Federal power. If it does come to a revolt or civil war, I do think this loyalist population will send their sons and daughters in to the pro-government military to fight.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   


posted by Ghost01


posted by J/O - Having such a large loyalist group in our midst that owes its allegiance to the government could be dangerous. You'd see Democrats and Republicans alike in this corps. Their members would eventually come to have greater power inside the traditional Federal civil service hierarchy. Their ability to force a work stoppage or use other tactics associated with labor unions could be formidable.


I missed this piece last night. You're talking about concentrating political power in a corrupt form. If you know how to manipulate people, you can pull the strings of power without having to employ fighting forces. This is kind of like those times where we seen voters shift the balance of political power to one extreme or the other. What role do you think this will play in the overall scheme of things? Tim [Edited by Don W]



J/O could be right about the potential for abuse any large cadre of people assembled under the pretext of fighting poverty or street crimes and so on. My vision is different. I do not see the size or number of people likely to be attracted to be all that many. My vision is probably 200-300,000 would like the idea. Work. Real work. With sweat. With callouses. Sore backs. Not all that many will want the opportunity to do real work.

I use 300 m. divided by 70 to get my rough and ready demographics. That puts the 17-24 year old population at 30 odd million. My estimates of those interested are a small fraction of those eligible. I’m thinking of a 2 year contract, renewable one time. M-F, 8 AM to 5 PM, Sat. 9 AM to 1 PM. Sundays, national holidays and either July or August off. Food, clothes, quarters and health care furnished.

Pay, $300 a month, $700 sent to the family, and $500 a month held back by the Government until he or she is discharged. If the person signs over, then double the US hold back for the second 2 years. Match the money, and pay 6% interest. By my calculations, that would mean $24,000 + interest at the end of 2 years, and $72,000 + interest at the end of 4 years. That’s good incentive to follow orders and stay out of trouble.

Monthly drug screening and quarterly polygraphing. No gambling. No stealing. 2 strikes and you’re out. The young person is doing things constructive - not destructive - and should learn a lot of self-control. At the end of 4 years, there would be enough money for tech school or junior college. Or a grand trip around the world on QE2. To encourage a more prudent use of the savings, I’d suggest the government match that money in tuition payments or in going into business. That’s my vision of a public service corp for young persons.

[edit on 3/15/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
If this splits the country, a civil war could be the very ugly resault. The American Civil War had over 600'000 dead. when you account for the fact that we fight with much deadlier weapons today. We're looking at a war the likes of which noone alive has seen.

No Offense Justin, but I hope your wrong about where this will end. I would prefer Not to see so many people killed. But I fear you could be right.

Best Reguards,

Tim



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I'd like very much to be wrong. Especially in this case. Any civilian cadre that takes root in the American political system will dominate our society, no matter how well intended their actions might be. If it comes to a revolt or a civil war--which are two different things--we might not like the outcomes.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Now that we see this threat coming, do you think there is a way to stop it before we wind up with lots of people getting killed?

If there is a way to stop it, how can we help?

Tim



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
If historical precedent is any indication, the answer is "no." It's likely that the average American will be taken by surprise. I think the politicos are counting on it.

In the mean time, we can still do a lot. Books and essay of the kind that I'm known for can go a long way towards sparking a badly needed discussion There simply aren't enough people talking about these issues. I am proof that literally anyone at all can start people talking about these and other issues that can and will change the future of our nation.

When you get right down to it, there are two paths. We as a people can accept our fate, or we can choose to vote in reformers. The jury is still out. The voters don't seem to think that the situation is bad enough to warrant going to the polls in large enough numbers to be heard.

Write your own essays. Write your own books. Talk to anyone who will listen. Make your case. When enough of us do this ,we'll have a chance of making a better future. Ballots instead of bullets. As things stand now, a revolt is likely to fail. It may take a decade to crush it, but the long-term potential for success appears to be limited at this time. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing. Like the Spartans at Thermopyle, sometimes good people need to die to make a point.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

(1) When you get down to it, there are two paths. We can accept our fate, or we can choose reformers. The jury is still out. The voters don't seem to think that the situation is bad enough to warrant going to the polls in large enough numbers to be heard. I am proof that anyone can start people talking about these and other issues that can and will change the future of our nation.

(2) Ballots instead of bullets. As things stand now, a revolt is likely to fail. It may take a decade to crush it, but the long-term potential for success appears to be limited at this time. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing. Like the Spartans at Thermopylae, sometimes good people need to die to make a point. If historical precedent is any indication, it's likely that the average American will be taken by surprise. I think the politicos are counting on it. [Edited by Don W]



1) Voter passivity? I tend to lay blame for voter non-participation on the oft repeated critique that there is no real difference between the 2 major parties. That it’s 6 of one, a half dozen of the other. Up to the Reagan era that was also my experience. Truman to Eisenhower, samo samo. To lapse into some of my 1950s Korean. Johnson to Nixon, again, who could tell the difference? But Reagan did bring about a “revolution.” Actually, it was more a look backwards than forward. Reactionary. A Hollywood-esque trip to Nostalgia Land.

Except for the slow-down during the Clinton interval, this has been the constant theme of the ruling GOP class. The Reagan-Bush movement has been sold to the public on “de-regulation” and “tax cuts.” Add to that the quieter rush to privatize government and you have real regression on your hands.

Bush43 was finally stopped when he tried to kill Social Security by turning its vast trillions of dollars over to the scavengers lurking along Wall Street. I was listening to a critic of the current spate of so-called financial advisers who remarked in passing that the avenge time for ownership of shares is 1 year. He suggested that was unsound as an investment tactic, and it ought to be more like 5 years between buy-sell.

2) I’ve given a lot of thought about a revolt in America. First, the US Army is being trained to fight in urban warfare. Although we are presently limiting its action to the Middle East, it would take only a Dept of Def order to return the soldiers to the US and task them to “restore” order to Los Angeles, Chicago or Detroit. Protect the status quo, in other words. This is where the all-volunteer Army causes me serious concerns. Will they be loyal to a scrap of paper 1000s of miles away - The Constitution - or to the men who sign their paychecks and hold their economic future in their hands? You choose.

The only identifiable group capable of offering sustained resistance to a US Government gone berserk - say Bush43, Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, renditions, enemy combatant status, secret Executive Orders, etc - are our very own long suffering African Americans. Well steeped in the brutality a regime can be capable of inflicting on its under-class, they have managed to survive despite the harshest of conditions. Until a large group of people undergoes this’ baptism by fire’ they will not have the savy to hide or protect the small groups of fighters needed to resist the occupying power. This was proven in Vietnam, it is being proved in Iraq. Guerllia warefare, in other words, requires a sympathetic group's support even if mostly non-activist.

It is obvious to me what is happening in America. Just listen to the ever smaller number of people owning ever more of America. That is the crucial number. We are already using - comfortably - the 1/10th of 1% number. Can you imagine the social significance of that? We’re talking 300,000 people. Out of 300 million. That leaves 299,700,000 of us. Since Ronald Reagan took power, their income has risen more than 2,000%! Inflation accounts for about 60% of the increase. GOP policies account for the remainder. Both numbers are my calculations.

Q. Can you define fascism?

(Without describing America in 2007?)

[edit on 3/16/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I've got my own thoughts on just how the 'resistence' would unfold, assuming that the event happens in any measurable fashion. The racial and ethnic factors that Don mentions are valid, but they're only one small part of a larger social reaction. Before I put anyone to sleep with my own theory, what's yours? How do YOU see the resistence developing?



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
How do YOU see the resistence developing?


I would think it's through small networks and one-to-one contact mostly. However, I think some internet forms such as Above Top Secret serve as communication hubs by allowing people to exchange ideas and insight just as we're doing right now.

Tim



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
As the domestic economy begins to sour, we will see a gradual rise in national crime statistics. Then, we'll begin to see an increase in the sophistication of gang violence. Acts of domestic terrorism will then become recognizeable for what they are as various hate groups begin to make increasngly successful attacks.

Before legitimate patriotic groups are smeared by the media, they'll be questioned by our political leaders. The FBI and other agencies will go behind closed doors to make their case to a nervous Congress for the infiltration of civic groups and those organizations alleged to be terrorists.

This trend will be marked by key legislative actions on the part of the government. The extent of public surviellance will be increased. The National I.D. card will be the norm, so tracking of an individual's activities will only become more "routine." Bonfide terror groups will cite these behaviors as reasons to act which will motivate new recruits.

Legitimate militias will feel the need to go underground. Many will become secretive and covertly hostile. A few groups will actually gain some traction and begin to set up chapters in several States. Others will transition from actual militias to what we now think of as advocacy groups. The largest of these groups will be infiltrated and exploited by pro-government agents.

During these early stages of unrest, it'll be hard to tell the difference between the good, the bad, and the truely seditious. Random searches will become common. Expect all known forms of communication to be montiored. Publishing of books on certain subjects (such as the kind I'm know for) will become a thing of the past. Or, it'll be forced underground.

Resistence, as it begins to emerge, will be localized. Expect area sweeps by government forces and State law enforcement to irradicate weapons chaches, illegal printing operations, and social networks. In this atmosphere of uncertainty, the mainstream media will characterize any dissent as disloyalty.

That's how it...starts.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
J/O
I've got my thoughts on how the 'resistence' would unfold, assuming that event happens in any measurable fashion. The racial and ethnic factors that Don mentions are valid, but they're only one small part of a larger social reaction.

Don W
The only time in our country’s history when a genuine widespread revolt was plausible, was during the Great Depression. Huey “The Kingfish” Long, was the popular exponent of a “collectivized redistribution of wealth.” He was assassinated (in 1936) over unrelated Louisiana state issues. In the electoral sea change year of 1932, Gus Hall of the CP polled not over 150,000 votes and Norman Thomas, perennial Socialist Party candidate, polled just over 600,000, his peak. Out of more than 30 million votes cast. By the bye, it would be interesting to learn what percent of turnout there was in 1932 and 1936.

Ghost01
I would think it's through small networks and one-to-one contact mostly. However, I think some internet forms such as Above Top Secret serve as communication hubs by allowing people to exchange ideas and insight just as we're doing right now. Tim

Don W
Yes. I have said, half in jest, half serious, that half the people buying and selling illicit drugs on the street are either undercover cops or informants. We think we know the NSA has 50-60,000 employees and a dozen or more Cray supercomputers. Supposedly, those computers are run by software that looks for words, phrases, names, phone numbers, and other virtual data kept secret from us. When such a red flag event occurs, the human agent is alerted to look at the intercepted message. I suppose again, without knowing, that the NSA is monitoring all the electronic communications around the world, all the time. Everything, everybody, everywhere. “Your tax dollars at work.”

J/O
As the domestic economy begins to sour, we will see a gradual rise in national crime statistics. Then, we'll begin to see an increase in the sophistication of gang violence. Acts of domestic terrorism will then become recognizable for what they are as various hate groups begin to make increasingly successful attacks.

Before legitimate patriotic groups are smeared by the media, they'll be questioned by our political leaders. The FBI and other agencies will go behind closed doors to make their case to a nervous Congress for the infiltration of civic groups and those organizations alleged to be terrorists.

Don W
Heck, J/O, J Edgar Hoover was doing this in the late 1940s and early 1950s. You’re talking old stuff for the FBI. We even named the world’s most expensive building after him! Now we’ve purposely blurred the line between the FBI, CIA, foreign and domestic. Supposedly there are 16 Intel agencies under the new Admiral McConnell, the DNI.

Aside: do you think Bush43 kicked Negroponte “upstairs” because he would not go along to get along on fudging on Intel? At first I thought he was Condo Rice’s shortly to be announced replacement, but now, I’m thinking this is more an Intel problem solved the Bush43 way.

J/O, you sound a lot like the successor to Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451?

J/O
“ . . public surveillance will be increased. The National I.D. card will be the norm, so tracking of an individual's activities will only become more "routine." Bonafide terror groups will cite these behaviors as reasons to act which will motivate new recruits.

Don W
What about a required RFID under the skin? Assigning every person his or her own bar code. Isn’t ir ironic that the ‘Law and Order’ Republicans seem more likely to be the perpetrators of this new security initiative ?

J/O
Legitimate militias will feel the need to go underground. Many will become secretive and covertly hostile. A few groups will actually gain some traction and begin to set up chapters in several States. During these early stages of unrest, it'll be hard to tell the difference between the good, the bad, and the truly seditious. Random searches will become common. Expect all known forms of communication to be monitored. Publishing of books on certain subjects (such as the kind I'm know for) will become a thing of the past. Or, it'll be forced underground.

[Armed and violent] resistence will be localized. Expect area sweeps by government forces and State law enforcement to eradicate weapons caches, illegal printing operations, and social networks. In this atmosphere of uncertainty, the mainstream media will characterize any dissent as disloyalty. That's how it . . starts.

Don W
Speaking of “eradicating” If I’m there, I will suggest the same criteria as was used in the French Revolution of 1789. Eradicate the R&Fs. The Rich and Famous. The Movers and Shakers. The people who put us in that mess. All their property over $500 would be confiscated. They would be sent to “social rehabilitation” camps as in Vietnam post 1975. 10 years “study” for any under age 50, 5 years for those over 50 and their womenfolk. Doing hard work. Road building by hand. And etc. anybody who secrets wealth or who does not assist in recouping wealth stashed abroad would be dealt with harshly. And etc.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Speaking of “eradicating” If I’m there, I will suggest the same criteria as was used in the French Revolution of 1789. Eradicate the R&Fs. The Rich and Famous. The Movers and Shakers. The people who put us in that mess. All their property over $500 would be confiscated. They would be sent to “social rehabilitation” camps as in Vietnam post 1975. 10 years “study” for any under age 50, 5 years for those over 50 and their womenfolk. Doing hard work. Road building by hand. And etc. anybody who secrets wealth or who does not assist in recouping wealth stashed abroad would be dealt with harshly. And etc.

With all due respect, you may get your wish. I'm not sure that it'll come down as you so graphically suggest, but your point...makes my point. I feel reasonably certain that what you suggest is motivated by a desire for social justice...but...it's important to remember that these 'pograms' you're advocating would be carried out by the cadres that I warn against.

We'll need to agree to disagree on this one. I thought long and had before putting up this thread. Now, I see that I did the right thing. The conspiracy taking place under our noses today is very much driven by people who already plan to do some of these things, for their own reasons.

Social justice need s to be meated out by the governed. When we allow it to be dished out by the people who govern, we risk becoming the targets of our own laws and that ultimately tempts the people in power to overstep the boundaries we set for them. this is why our votes matter so much. This why we are at such a crucial moment in our history.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Justin Oldham]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join