reply to post by Griever666
If/when it reaches those extremes it’s a much more likely scenario they will be actively defending against us and already at war to begin with. The
tyranny that saw the Nazi concentration camps were necessary for a common scapegoat. Once all that collective hate is bundled into one direction,
it’s much easier to steer it where you want it to go.
The method of selection is flawed it the opening comment. The idea of assumption of guilt or superiority because of race is politically incorrect.
Also the lessons of the Nazi camps are recent enough for the post WW2 society. So anything approaching that angle would be met with immediate
Now if you avoid those associations and made it based on lifestyle, wealth, or even a religious minority; sure you could sell it.
Divide and conquer:
Why should the needy be entitled to my money?
Why should only the rich be worthy of tax breaks?
It’s the message that the government is doing something about the class separation in the US, while at the same time protecting the status quo at
all costs and thereby furthering the disparity. The wealthy dictate the laws and the diversion of debating tax breaks makes their servant Uncle Sam,
all the more compassionate towards us, while it sells our freedoms to the highest bidders amongst them.
Of course the consequences of the rich should be blamed on the inability of the poor. If they would just stop being poor, all our financial troubles
would simply evaporate. To even consider depriving the needy of assistance while we toss literally hundreds of billions of dollars at the banking
institutions, seems absurd too me. If there is one thing our national debt has shown, is that there literally isn’t enough money on the planet, that
our politicians couldn’t spend. So the assumption of any money saved denying the needy can’t hold water, any savings gained would be very quickly
First we need to define “wealthy”, “middle class” and “poor”. Once that is established and accepted it’s a small matter of just
gradually lowering the threshold of what’s poor. Thereby eliminating any actual charity given out and raising it between wealthy and middle class.
So it eventually includes all the slaves and none of the masters. Eventually if the tax burden becomes unsustainable and a person’s direct labor
worth more to the government than their taxed wage; will they be required to reside at a work camp until they can pay their share?
Keep in mind,
when this first starts it would be only be the much hated “freeloaders” of society. Eventually what’s considered poor, will be broadened to
include ourselves as well.
It’s a good plan of attack, because the middle class hates footing the bill and needs little incentive for supporting the idea. Eventually though,
when even their wage is considered measly, they will have the same rights as the rest of the “poor” folks and any privileges secured for only the
wealthiest among us. The “trusted traveler”
act is a good indication of where that is headed. If your taxes are delinquent or credit rating
a bust, you’re a terrorist waiting to happen. But hey if you have a good credit rating (like all ten people within the population of the US) and
taxes up to date, you’re no longer considered a threat just walk right on board.
Our freedom is secondary to our safety. For every foolish endeavor that can take place in a free society, some insurance company eventually has to
pay. The less risks you are allowed to take the more money they keep. The ostracism of smokers, drinkers and fast food is no mistake. Sure think of
the lives saved. What’s much more important though, is protecting insurance company profits. If you were to put DUI offenders in a concentration
camp, you think anyone would bat an eye?
Right now we have a very large population of people in prison for marijuana related crimes. It’s not a moral issue. Regardless of how anyone feels
about it, the simple truth is there is way too much money to be made through enforcement, prosecution and detainment for it to end anytime soon.
Certainly the government would love it if we all could just hate pot smokers the way they want us too. Even without intense prejudice, we still have
no problems keeping them in prison.
A lot of effort was spent equating DUI offenders with that of child molesters and rapists. It’s the simple ability to rob them blind, that keeps
them and cigarette smokers out of prison. It also reduces social venues and public gatherings. This internet thing is cute and all, but really it’s
pretty harmless. It’s not like any of us are going to jump from our chairs and run down to some local tavern to rant like Samuel Adams. That’s
where our liberty initially started and we wouldn’t want that to happen again. Keep the cable TV on, the people at home and socially disconnected.
You accomplish that and you can detain anyone you want for whatever reason you see fit. Just make sure that Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen are still
worthy of world news.
Everybody hates Islamic extremists. The problem is it’s such a minority religion, it’s easy to lose the extremists part of the description.
Considering the fanatical cowardice in which we toss away liberty for some false hope of safety, I think Islamic camps are very feasible in the not so
far off future.
No measure of safety will be enough and eventually we will suffer another terrorist attack. So “when”
that happens, not “if”
what will be allowed then? We’re already at presumed guilty, search without probable cause and surveillance without due process. How far of a leap
is discretionary detainment from that?
Fear and hate are the obvious buttons of the manipulators and if we intend to take the rest of the world’s oil, we can’t do that with a free
society. Iraq was an easy spin, but they won’t try to sell the same lame horse twice. So instead they will just forego the will of the people, as if
they haven’t already. But hey it’s not a total disaster, we get to drive huge SUVs and certainly that’s a win.
edit on 8/23/2011 by JakesterL because: Grammar