- Location
- Wasatch Range
Big picture, Tom.....big picture. Governmental deceit and corruption, condoning, enabling and rewarding illegal entry into the US, granting amnesty to illegals.
Last edited:
Socialist Playbook-this isn't about politics, it's about overthrowing the USA.
- Thread starter XJEEPER
- Start date
Big picture, Tom.....big picture. Governmental deceit and corruption, condoning, enabling and rewarding illegal entry into the US, granting amnesty to illegals.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
Gays may already be serving (there were a couple that we "suspected and one we knew for sure when I was in), but the Coast Guard is a bit different from the Marine Corps, particularly the grunts. An openly gay servicemember could be at a higher risk of abuse, be it mocking, ostracizing, or even violence. That's the big concern for myself and most of those I've spoken to about this. Add in the idea of having an openly gay roommate when you're a devout Christian/Catholic/Muslim, and bad things happen. Where would you house them? A lot of heteros would be uncomfortable. Can't put them together because then you've just made a potential love connection, part of the reason men and women aren't housed together. Can't put them with opposite sex roommates because then you have people claiming to be gay to get into room with a female, and gay or straight, men and women still have different parts.
Don't ask don't tell is about a lot more than just "gay rights". There's a lot at play in this scenario and it involves people's lives.
My solution for children brought/born here illegally? Deport them and their parents. Let them come back through the proper channels. Bam! If they really want to attend an American university or join the military, they can apply for the proper visas and come back. I went through combat training with a Marine who was a non-citizen. Good guy. I have no problem with the idea of people serving who aren't citizens. But I believe, and they likely do as well, that you should do things properly if you truly want to serve our country.
Oh, and the topic of the DREAM act being attached, what does it have to do with defense? When are these people going to learn that a big part of the image we have of sneaky, lying politicians comes from these maneuvers? Sticking an unrelated controversial act to a bill that is likely to pass just to try and force it through, or cause the bill to fail so you can point at it later and say, "See, so and so doesn't support the troops" is despicable.
Don't ask don't tell is about a lot more than just "gay rights". There's a lot at play in this scenario and it involves people's lives.
My solution for children brought/born here illegally? Deport them and their parents. Let them come back through the proper channels. Bam! If they really want to attend an American university or join the military, they can apply for the proper visas and come back. I went through combat training with a Marine who was a non-citizen. Good guy. I have no problem with the idea of people serving who aren't citizens. But I believe, and they likely do as well, that you should do things properly if you truly want to serve our country.
Oh, and the topic of the DREAM act being attached, what does it have to do with defense? When are these people going to learn that a big part of the image we have of sneaky, lying politicians comes from these maneuvers? Sticking an unrelated controversial act to a bill that is likely to pass just to try and force it through, or cause the bill to fail so you can point at it later and say, "See, so and so doesn't support the troops" is despicable.
Last edited:
- Location
- Wasatch Range
White House Office of Science and Technology Director -John P. Holdren
Direct quotes from John Holdren's book-Ecoscience
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.
To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children
If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Page 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas.
Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the "tragedy of the commons," wherein the "commons" is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.
Thank you, Karl Marx
For those of you who still think Obama is not a Socialist.......please explain why he would choose employ John Holdren to help shape policy and laws for the United States of America?
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.
To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
...
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
...
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children
If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Page 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas.
Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the "tragedy of the commons," wherein the "commons" is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.
Thank you, Karl Marx
For those of you who still think Obama is not a Socialist.......please explain why he would choose employ John Holdren to help shape policy and laws for the United States of America?
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
Darky,
Understand the differences in the services. Your argument is the same thing said about African Americans when the services were integrated just after WWII. The I ain't sleepin with no...mentality, you get the picture. Is there still racism in the services, yep, is that the services or the walks of life the members came from?
Understand the differences in the services. Your argument is the same thing said about African Americans when the services were integrated just after WWII. The I ain't sleepin with no...mentality, you get the picture. Is there still racism in the services, yep, is that the services or the walks of life the members came from?
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
See, though I can't really compare race and sexual orientation. Even leaving out the choice vs born with it argument, I think very few white people thought that blacks might try to look at their wiener in the shower, molest them in their sleep, or whatever. I'm not saying these things are likely, but these are things that would go through the heads of a lot of people.
Plus, comparing it to blacks still leaves the question of where to house them unanswered. It could still be an uncomfortable situation and one ripe for sexual harassment accusations if hetero and gay live in the same room involuntarily. Still can't put gay men in a room with women, and can't really put gays in rooms together for the same reasons we can't put straight men in a room with women. The only solution I could see for housing would be for people to volunteer that they are comfortable with having a gay roommate, and then you run the risk of reprisals against those who aren't comfortable. In all honesty, the current scenario seems to be working just fine to me. I've known those who have been gay and everyone knew it, but they were allowed to continue to serve.
- Location
- Houston, Tx
But Obama depends on these people as voters... .
mcantar18c
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Fayettnam
We need another Reagan
http://www.hulu.com/watch/179102/fo...aks-out-against-socialized-medicine-the-album
http://www.hulu.com/watch/179102/fo...aks-out-against-socialized-medicine-the-album
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
Taken from your link...
Sound familiar? Obama faces a similar situation. He and other liberals can claim that it's Bush's fault.
Anyone remember Carter???
Is this thread still going on?
Oh, and wasn't Reagan famous for his trickle down economics?
IMO, both parties are liberal with money. The Democrats love giving money to the Poor, and the Republicans love giving it to the Rich. The only difference is that every country has way more poor than rich folks, so helping the poor will always cost more; thereby making that party look more wasteful (and socialist) at face value.
Oh, and wasn't Reagan famous for his trickle down economics?
IMO, both parties are liberal with money. The Democrats love giving money to the Poor, and the Republicans love giving it to the Rich. The only difference is that every country has way more poor than rich folks, so helping the poor will always cost more; thereby making that party look more wasteful (and socialist) at face value.
mcantar18c
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Fayettnam
Fixed
Fixed
Although that's not a fair Fix since rich folks ain't too proud to beg to Republicans, and Democrats seldom kick lobbists out of bed.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Thread is still here, Socialism is becoming more exposed in US politics.
Agreed. Both parties have become too casual in spending money they don't have.....which is not "their" money to begin with. It is taken from We the People.
There you go again, confusing charity and Socialism......charity should never be confused with welfare entitlement programs that incentivise one to not work and not to be responsible and held accoutable for ones own actions.
Forcing one to be "charitable" is wealth redistribution......a ideology that is Marxist and clearly supported by the self-proclaimed Socialists currently in power in Washington, not to mention California and several other states that are wallowing in massive debt.
Socialists also believed in a corruption/abuse-free utopia (kinda like your above post). In reality, however, their utopia turned into a cafeteria-style form of governance. (kinda how you defend the first amendment in one post/ find ways to exploit the second amendment in another post).
But anyways, back to the topic of spending other people's money. I say let's get rid of everything. Let's get rid of the police, I can deal with people intruding on my property (cops, K9s, cars and choppers cost money - my money). I can put out my own fires too, so we don't need a pricey fire department either. School funding's for suckers with kids; since I don't have kids those little a-holes can fend for themselves without the benefit of my money. As for roads... let the guy with the corvette worry about them - I drive a Jeep. All the above mentioned services are forcing me to be "charitable"... and that's wealth redistribution too. Who cares if those services are municipal, state, or federal; they're costing me money. If we get rid of everything than there won't be anything for anyone to abuse.
People should be responsible and held accountable for their own actions: they shouldn't commit crimes, cause inadvertent fires, drive cars that require smooth pavement, get a subsidized education, get sick, die slowly requiring assistance, lose their job, or fall down on their luck for whatever reason (who gives a DARN anyways.. what's mine is mine). They're a drain on society, and they should be put to work in gulags.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Like teaching a blind dog to fetch.......:confused1
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Perfect. You should never find yourself lost.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
The Communist Party USA is working with Obama to organize the One Nation Rally next month.
http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleview/1903/1/6/
Organizations also supporting and encouraging attendance to the One Nation rally:
Democratic Socialists of America
International Socialist Organization
War Resisters League
National Council of La Raza
NAACP
AFL-CIO
SEIU
National Education Association
American Federation of Government Employees
United Auto Workers
United Mine Workers
Stalinist ANSWER Coalition
Code Pink
United for Peace and Justice
Karl Marx would be pleased.
http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleview/1903/1/6/
Organizations also supporting and encouraging attendance to the One Nation rally:
Democratic Socialists of America
International Socialist Organization
War Resisters League
National Council of La Raza
NAACP
AFL-CIO
SEIU
National Education Association
American Federation of Government Employees
United Auto Workers
United Mine Workers
Stalinist ANSWER Coalition
Code Pink
United for Peace and Justice
Karl Marx would be pleased.
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
I may have to go.
