Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 24th Aug 2018, 22:58
  #15561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,493
Originally Posted by Hempy View Post
Over the age of 50 give or take and we all are.
West Coast is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2018, 23:24
  #15562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
I read that even though his aides have advised not to, Trump is possibly queuing up a pardon for Manafort. Why not? It is part of the performamce art and Manafort is a good man and deserves to walk.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2018, 23:44
  #15563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,675
The minute that congress decided that as a result of being born in, or living in the US one is required by law to pay for health care(somewhere, anywhere), they lost my support. We are literally no longer 'born free'. We are born into a federalist utopia.
Do people feel the same way about the Police, Armed Forces, Coast Guard etc?

Seems odd that paying for security services through central goverment is ok but health care isn't. Or is it the case that only those that can afford to pay for security get it?
TURIN is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2018, 23:58
  #15564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Provide

Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Do people feel the same way about the Police, Armed Forces, Coast Guard etc?

Seems odd that paying for security services through central goverment is ok but health care isn't. Or is it the case that only those that can afford to pay for security get it?
Ē...Provide for the Common Defense...Ē is in the Constitution.

Iíll check on ďLeeches and bloodletting for all...Ē

con
Concours77 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 00:12
  #15565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,675
Ah, I'm beginning to understand now. If the constitution had been written during a time of great leaps in medical science and "...Provide for the Common Health..." had been added then we wouldn't be having this conversation?

So, opposition to universal health care for all has nought to do with socialism but everything to do with historical precedent.

How odd.
TURIN is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 00:51
  #15566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Do people feel the same way about the Police, Armed Forces, Coast Guard etc?

Seems odd that paying for security services through central goverment is ok but health care isn't. Or is it the case that only those that can afford to pay for security get it?
That is the dodge that the SCOTUS carved out when it was decided that what the writers meant when they wrote in the ACA that the premiums would be a "fee" and the court changed it to "Tax", and the enforcement was changed fro the dept of interior(HHS), to the treasury, and collected by the IRS. Because - a fee would be illegal, and a tax could be derived from the just powers of taxation. However - they did not meet the means test of 'equal imposts and excises' but no one has paid attention to that since about 1936 or so. As you can see, all three branches of US govt got in on the machinations to reduce the power of the citizens, and give that power to the congress. One more disgusting step into socialized bondage.

edit: OBTW, the armed forces protect everyone equally. It is the one part of US govt that does not discriminate at all. We protect the rich, poor, black, white, men, women, smart, stupid, etc. As long as one resides within the umbrella of the armed forces defense area, and many significant extension like Korea, Japan, we will protect all of you from enemies foreign and domestic.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 01:02
  #15567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Is it possible that Trump let Putin know? I would not put it past him. I have a feeling though that this is one of those "message sending" articles that has nothing to do with the readership but is
a government to government hint that we know that you know that we know kind of thing.

However....if you were a Kremlin intel source would you trust Trump? I know I would certainly go to ground.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/u...elections.html
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 01:57
  #15568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Turin.

Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Ah, I'm beginning to understand now. If the constitution had been written during a time of great leaps in medical science and "...Provide for the Common Health..." had been added then we wouldn't be having this conversation?

So, opposition to universal health care for all has nought to do with socialism but everything to do with historical precedent.

How odd.
Yes it is. Unless you understand the document sufficient to get that it is limiting of the government, and freeing of the people.
The Powers of the government are enumerated, and if there is one or more not listed, it (or they) do not exist,

One is free to oppose or support any concept one wishes, short of causing harm to another.

It is the individual who is sovereign, not the State. That is implicit in the granting and limiting of the government’s duty in the document itself...

See, you have a mindset that Government’s duty is to provide. That is uniquely European.

The duty to provide belongs to each individual, unto himself.

So It can be as abhorrent to an American that Government provide as it is for it to withhold provision, save for the limited and listed (enumerated) powers.

sumthin like that,

“....for the general welfare...” Are you looking at that? We could discuss that, and perhaps meet in the middle of the mud puddle....

The enabling documents are NOT ideological, they are existential...

Last edited by Concours77; 25th Aug 2018 at 02:07.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 03:01
  #15569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Here's where we've gotten into trouble with; 'provide for the common defense and general welfare'.

When the US was a new nation, we were pretty poor. We'd just fought the Rev war, and didn't have a lot of money in the bank. The words "common defense" are not ambiguous at all. It means quite clearly to defend the commons. In modern days that would mean the states. No one doubted after the Barbary war that the US needed, and was right to have a standing navy, and a navy is provided for in the constitution. the sticky wicket came in with those two next words; 'general welfare'. Obviously, anytime someone writes a law or policy that says 'general' it is open to great interpretation. And further 'welfare' in those days did not mean what it does today. In the time of the new republic, general welfare meant those things that the entire population would find gainful to advancement of a stable society. Roads, bridges, post offices, a library, and courts for determining disputes.

As we move forward in time, and the US becomes richer, and our form of govt gains more power and expands, the meaning of general welfare also expands. New programs grow up like Social Security. They are paid for by taxes. Finally we reach the modern times and have decided that health care for everyone is covered by the 'general welfare' clause. And - it is a reasonable consideration that as we've agreed, everyone needs health care at some time in their lives. So it could technically fit under the welfare clause, and be justified by the collection of taxes. This is the single payer system. And - believe it or not, I'm not actually against a general welfare that includes health care. But - we go back to the start of the code and it says 'common defense'. Everyone is entitled to common defense by the armed forces. It benefits everyone, and the budget for that is paid by all kinds of taxes, including but not limited to income tax.

Here's where things go off, and why I brought it up a while back. Taxes must be apportioned on a 'uniform basis'. This has never been enforced, and I believe that everyone, no matter their station should be required to pay for these 'common defense and general welfare'. Alternately, define health care as a specific and not a general welfare and let the states operate as they see fit. The problem with the section is that "general welfare" can mean whatever a pol wants it to mean. And as the HR of our govt is elected every two years, and they are the ones responsible for laying and collecting taxes, and apportioning payments, the power of the giveaway has gotten too great to manage.

Which is why I took exception to another poster mentioning that of course the govt should "give" everyone health care. Once they start paying their taxes for it, then they get health care. This is uniform. But if only the wealthy or a certain strata pay for health care, and everyone gets it, we have violated the most important tenet of good govt; All men are created equally.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 03:38
  #15570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Everything you say is true, and fully covered in the Fourteenth Amendment. Without the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no Freedom. It is the icing on the cake of Liberty.

Unfortunately, the majority can act very stupid. Now comes the Declaration, which I believe is a part of the Constitution.

”Certain Unalienable Rights.” This protects us from the kind of stupid that might lead us down the path to ruin.

”Unalienable”, in eighteenth century English means: unassailable, “cannot be sold, given away, or taken...” more modern definition: “property was being alienated, “sold” “

Each time we try to give away our Liberty, for “security”, benefits, or money, we are stopped by this document. We cannot give away our Rights even if we insist.... no Law, flowing from any authority that allows the extinguishment of Rights, is Law.

Knowing this, the Government is in perpetual violation of the Constitution. The Government steals our Liberty, and then “rents” it back to us when we pay taxes, fees, honor punitive regulations, etc. “Waters of the US,” “Federal Land”, “Building permit”, “Patents”, fiat money, etc. etc.

Last edited by Concours77; 25th Aug 2018 at 03:53.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 04:26
  #15571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Cherchez la femme! Duncan Hunter was a Marine?

I understand. He is presumed innocent and of course it was all a left-wing frame up, but the gent is blaming his wife for all the alleged misdeeds?

Seriously? He was a United States Marine and the reputation of the Corps is esteemed the world around (even by inveterate foes of the U.S.) for its call for personal inegrity and honour.

He allegedly bought things and then charged them as Wounded Warrior expenses? For a gent that saw duty in Iraq and Afghanistan that is beyond the pale. His comrades in arms who came back grievously wounded did not remain on his mind long enough to keep him from using them as an excuse for self-enrichment? Now where is the nearest yard-arm?

I would think blaming his sad sack situation on his wife would pretty much invite the disdain of his fellow Marines to come raining down on him. What a piece of work.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 04:36
  #15572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,493
If, again if he is found guilty it will be a blemish on my beloved Marine Corps. Marines after they leave AD tend to go on and become pillars of the civilian community, not criminals.
West Coast is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 04:51
  #15573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
If, again if he is found guilty it will be a blemish on my beloved Marine Corps. Marines after they leave AD tend to go on and become pillars of the civilian community, not criminals.
I agree with you on this one Westy. I have had the opportunity over the years to meet a former (although I am told one is never "former.") U.S. Marine or two and they were impressive folk with a distinct bearing and underlying ethos of honour--the kind of chaps you want on your side when it starts to get tough. That is why it is surprising that Hunter went off the rails as he did.

I don't delight in anyone's downfall (well, perhaps Trump's if it were to come and through the ballot box naturally), but I latched onto this story as the Wounded Warrior aspect of what Hunter did is beyond odious. I can imagine that a goodly number of you are wishing, should these allegations prove true, that one could "step round the back of barracks for a brief chat" with this fellow.

Last edited by Uncle Fred; 25th Aug 2018 at 05:18.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 05:42
  #15574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Uncle Sam's Misguided Children ....

Show me the "honor" in the way Khe Sanh was run, please. You guys slobbering over the Marines are looking at the Corps through rose-tinted glasses. Have another read of Dispatches by Michael Herr, and follow that up with reading the accounts of how that truck bombing in Beirut came to pass. The Corps is a powerful killing machine, sure, but a lot of those who get killed by it are Marines.

The Corps is just another branch of the US military, but one with a really superior PR machine. "Marines in combat: one shooting, one looting, and two taking pictures," and how do you suppose that joke ever came to be?

It's "former Marine" instead of "ex-Marine" because, supposedly, the Corps breaks you down and turns you into a Marine, when you never turn back. I am an ex-G.I., for example, just a civilian who had once been a soldier in the US Army. Even when I was in I suppose you could have called me a heavily-armed civilian, someone with a mindset very far from that of most Marines.

"Sergeant Chuks! Charge that enemy machine gun, screaming!"

"Say what?"

It takes not just motivation but some powerful indoctrination to get a guy to do that sort of thing, the kind of indoctrination the Corps puts on its recruits. There's a method in that madness, sure, but it can be a bit wasteful of life. My mother had been a flight nurse in the Navy, and she told me about young Marines, still teenagers, who were missing limbs but who merely felt bad because they had not killed their share of Japs. The Corps ... it's not for everybody, no.
chuks is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 06:03
  #15575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 997
Sorry, but that is just the cheapest of shots Chuks. I don't have a dog in the fight, but I really thought better of you than that.
porch monkey is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 06:08
  #15576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by porch monkey View Post
Sorry, but that is just the cheapest of shots Chuks. I don't have a dog in the fight, but I really thought better of you than that.
Maybe he'd like to come on down and have a little chat with me. I've been out of active duty for > 30 years. Should make things fun. Easy to be a keyboard commando.

Since 1954, the Marines have been mis-cast, repeatedly. There's nothing we can do about the decisions made in the weird shaped building.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 06:24
  #15577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Chuks,

I will have to leave it to you and Westy to fight it out regarding the history and legacy of your nation's armed forces as I am not qualified to comment beyond what I did. I do, however, appreciate having ideals in life to which to aspire and personal honour is a good place to start.

Not all of us are born fully formed and a little encouragement from both peers and authority figures/leaders can (and please note the subjunctive implication) be a good thing to steer one toward goals, responsibilty, etc and military service has done this for many--myself included. The handful of U.S. Marines that I have encountered were doing a spot on job of being productive citizens and family members so a doff of the hat to them.

That horrors have been perpetrated on all sides and by combatants who profess their cause just and worthy is as old as humankind. I am sure you agree that great responsibilty rests upon the leaders that put young combatants into distopyian situations in which all humanity is stripped from one's soul. God bless the soldier who was, as you referenced one time, in Vietnam only having to repair the ice-cream making machine rather than having to do what many of you did every day out on the line in making decisions where you are caught between Scylla and Charybdis

My point though was but rather to highlight Mr. Duncan's past service in an organization that places merit on direct unit leadership. Drawing this point to the conclusion that I would think Mr. Duncan's fellow service members would like to, if I might borrow an American expression, open a can of Whiskey Alpha on him whilst the batallion Sergeant is off having a cuppa.

Btw Chuks, I always appreciate your comments and the erudition you bring but I disagree with you over The New Yorker's use of the diaeresis. I enjoy their writing but this habit is annoying.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 06:59
  #15578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Kindly tell us where the "cheap shot" was in what I wrote about the Corps. I don't see one.

One of the best stories about the Corps that I ever heard was from a friend who had been a young Marine officer faced with the choice of which branch to go into during the Vietnam War. Infantry was what the Corps wanted him to choose, so that he was shown the war movie "The Sands of Iwo Jima" as a way of motivating him to make that choice.

It's worth watching, that film. Real-life draft-dodger John Wayne plays Sergeant Stryker, a real hard-ass Marine unafraid to use brutal methods even on his own men. Stryker takes his group of raw recruits through training, molding them into Marines, and then leads them in combat on Iwo Jima. The battle won, a happy-happy Stryker, hard-ass persona cast aside, offers everyone cigarettes, only to be fatally shot in the very next second by a dirty Jap sniper. Then a tear-jerking letter to his estranged son is extracted from his pocket and read over sad-sad music. Awww ....

Movie over, my man was asked if that did not make him want to sign up for a career full of rah-rah Semper Fi, when he asked if they had somehow missed the fact that Stryker dies at the end. Then he signed up for Transport. My kind of guy!

Ooh! Make way! We got a hard-ass here! Ethical Conundrum, not so hot at words, now wants me to engage in, what, fisticuffs? No, wait, it's Texas, isn't it? Must be, to bluster in such a way .... So, shootin' irons?

I will have you know, EC, that I shot Expert with the M-14 not long ago. That was just back in, back in ... 1966? Hmm, time flies .... Anyway, trained killer, me. Go stand about 100 meters off and make like a cardboard target, please.

No, just kidding there, aside from that I really did shoot Expert. I got into a tiff with a Brit once when he told us that he was a trained killer. (This tiff involved alcohol.) I told him that I was an untrained killer, so that this was going to be slow, painful and messy. Then we resumed drinking, when peace and amity was restored.

Fred, I think you are missing the point. The diaeresis is meant to annoy. That's style, just like drinking tea from a porcelain cup with your pinkie upraised. That's my guess, anyway. You might get the odd dummy who thinks it's pronounced "cooper-ate," like making barrels or something, but nobody else really needs a diaeresis nowadays to tell them it's pronounced "co-operate," do they?

We lost the battle over "like" for "as" a long time ago so, please, let us keep the diaeresis as a fragment to shore up our ruins.

Last edited by chuks; 25th Aug 2018 at 07:22.
chuks is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 07:01
  #15579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,493
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
Chuks,

I will have to leave it to you and Westy to fight it out regarding the history and legacy of your nation's armed forces as I am not qualified to comment beyond what I did. I do, however, appreciate having ideals in life to which to aspire and personal honour is a good place to start.

Not all of us are born fully formed and a little encouragement from both peers and authority figures/leaders can (and please note the subjunctive implication) be a good thing to steer one toward goals, responsibilty, etc and military service has done this for many--myself included. The handful of U.S. Marines that I have encountered were doing a spot on job of being productive citizens and family members so a doff of the hat to them.

That horrors have been perpetrated on all sides and by combatants who profess their cause just and worthy is as old as humankind. I am sure you agree that great responsibilty rests upon the leaders that put young combatants into distopyian situations in which all humanity is stripped from one's soul. God bless the soldier who was, as you referenced one time, in Vietnam only having to repair the ice-cream making machine rather than having to do what many of you did every day out on the line in making decisions where you are caught between Scylla and Charybdis

My point though was but rather to highlight Mr. Duncan's past service in an organization that places merit on direct unit leadership. Drawing this point to the conclusion that I would think Mr. Duncan's fellow service members would like to, if I might borrow an American expression, open a can of Whiskey Alpha on him whilst the batallion Sergeant is off having a cuppa.

Btw Chuks, I always appreciate your comments and the erudition you bring but I disagree with you over The New Yorker's use of the diaeresis. I enjoy their writing but this habit is annoying.
Thank you Fred. Iíll let the Marine Corps reputation speak for itself. I wonít disparage the Army even though I think that may be his objective as Iíve known many outstanding soldiers over the years. He is right, the Marine Corps isnít for everyone, though most who donít get it simply keep their mouth closed. Heís also right that thereís an indoctrination and a singular mindset that places mission accomplishment above all. Wouldn't have it any other way.
West Coast is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2018, 10:35
  #15580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Sometimes "honor" gets thrown overboard.

For a perfect example of how this business of Marines all being some weird combination of steely-eyed killer and Boy Scout is nonsense, uniquely being honorable among the members of our armed forces, we need look no further than to what happened to Florida Representative Frederica Wilson at the hands of Marine Corps General (retired) John F. Kelly.

Wilson is a bit of a kook, favoring as she does spangly cowboy hats. She got into it with Trump after he'd hurt the feelings of the widow of a guy who was killed in somewhat unknown circumstances in an ambush in Mali, telling her that this what what he'd signed up for. (Coming home in a box? I don't remember my Army recruiter mentioning that! Yeah, it happens, but who chooses that outcome?)

Anyway, Kelly chimed in then to support Trump, denouncing Wilson for having done self-aggrandizement at an earlier ceremony dedicating a new law enforcement center down in her district in Florida. Later, of course, videotape of that event was shown that completely disproved what Kelly had said about this. Wilson actually had made a very respectful address then that had no element of what Kelly had claimed she had done.

The ball was now in Kelly's court to man up and apologize for having lied about what Wilson had done. That would have been the honorable thing for him to have done, I think, as a man, and especially as a former Marine (assuming that "honor" is the big deal with Marines that some here claim it is).

Kelly did give an interview with right-wing harpy Laura Ingraham where he said that he stood by the story he told about Wilson, and that he would never apologize for it. That's not very honorable if we consider that his comments were lies. On the other hand, Kelly was then, and still is, Trump's Chief of Staff, so that perhaps he put "honor" aside to behave just as his clumsy and dishonorable, lying boss Trump does, thus supporting him 100%. It's hard to say what went on there with a guy who'd come from a straight-shooting Irish Catholic working-class background, one where black-clad nuns will beat the pee-whappy out of you with a brass-edged wooden ruler if they catch you in a mere fib, let alone the sort of whopper that Kelly told then. Anyway, his conduct there was dishonorable, not honorable.
chuks is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.