Politics - How long do we have?

[w30wcf]

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

This was sent to me in an email and I wanted to share it with my fellow levergun enthusiasts.

"This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming."

"I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it."

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage"

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...". Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE.
______________________________________________________

w30wcf

[Old Ironsights]

Like I posted on the last thread that reprinted the same quote...

We have until 2010.

Maybe 2012.

The historical precident over the past 400 years is very clear on this point.

Any time between 2008 & 2012 is the point in the generational archetype/paradigm that calls for societal restructuring.

It's like clockwork.

[El Chivo]

2008 isn't that far away...hey, it's already here!

I doubt it could happen all at once in this country, the country is too big. There's too much gridlock in Washington. It would take an awful lot of will and resources to repress everyone.

I think you'll see the rot spread from the big cities outward. California is a good example, but even here, once you get out of the city things are almost normal.

Two generations maybe, but not two years. But, it depends on what your definition is. National gun control? National health insurance? Tattoo barcodes for each citizen?

Supposedly we won't even have Social Security, so, how are we going to become dependent on government if we're not getting anything from them?

[Sixgun]

Jack,
It has already begun. It will hit the fan this winter for sure if the price of heating oil is what it is, or more, especially if the winter is a cold one. How many people out there can afford to pay a thousand dollars every month to fill up their tank.

I personally know several owner/operators of trucks who tell me they are barely making their truck payments, let along making enough to live on. They are putting necessities on credit cards. That can only last so long.

Like I said in another post, lock and load, and make sure you have food and water.---------------Sixgun

[Old Ironsights]

Control the Fuel. (Distribution of food)

Control the Firearms. (Farmers don't like being told what to do, don't let them fight back.)

Control the Food. (See above)

Control the population.

You don't need any more fancy steps than that.

Put a Chicagoan (any Urban sleaseball) in the Whitehouse and war on Rural America is inevetable.

They have the Votes. We Grow their Food. Who do you think is more scared AND has the political power to "win"?

[Blaine]

If the Gubment was scared when thugs started burning out their own homes and city centers.....Well, I don't think the Gubment has a clue what's going to happen if they screw with "us".......

[Old Ironsights]

The point is, they aren't scared "when thugs started burning out their own homes and city centers". That's just Urban Renewal.

That's why they are focusing on guns that are, by in large, NOT being used in urban centers by urban thugs, but ARE being held by lots of Rural Folks who know that an AR is a good Varmint Rifle... 2 or 4 legged.

[PaulB]

That quote by "Alexander Tyler" is fictitious. Or at any rate, he didn't say it.

But someone said it, obviously. And it seems to have a lot of validity.

Your question, how long do we have, depends. For what? I suppose you mean, when is this entire nation going completely to the dogs. Pretty soon I think. As soon as people (starting with those overseas) stop taking dollars for payment. Then we have no economy except for barter. That's a pretty good prescription for going to the dogs. I give it two years.

[Blaine]

Red Herring

The point is, they aren't scared "when thugs started burning out their own homes and city centers". That's just Urban Renewal.

Sure they were, they wouldn't even go in...the shop owners were on their own and the Koreans with Social Tools kept their stuff safe......

[JohnnyReb]

That quote by "Alexander Tyler" is fictitious. Or at any rate, he didn't say it.

But someone said it, obviously. And it seems to have a lot of validity.

Your question, how long do we have, depends. For what? I suppose you mean, when is this entire nation going completely to the dogs. Pretty soon I think. As soon as people (starting with those overseas) stop taking dollars for payment. Then we have no economy except for barter. That's a pretty good prescription for going to the dogs. I give it two years.

The quote is from Alexis DeTocqueville as written in "Democracy in America" early to mid 1800's. He came here to study the grand experiment of America.

[Old Time Hunter]

Unfortunately we lost what we really perceived to be our rights of freedom quite some time ago. And it was not sudden, it was slow and methodical, it marched in with the industrial revolution and after studying the effects that technology has had on society, which has caused governments more draconian efforts to control, I would say what we perceived to be the nation of the United States of America pretty much went away in the mid to late '60s. They have just been tying up loose ends ever since.

[JP_TX]

It's my opinion that what the American Socialist Party, AKA the Democrat party want is to return to the good old days. The 40 Fat Years of Democrat control of Congress following FDR. With respect to those that may feel that FDR was one of the Greatest Presidents in our history, a clear headed reading of history shows that is not correct.

Be that as it may, the Dem's ruled for 40 years after the great depression. They gave us a 90% maximum tax rate. (Lowered by a Dem, BTW. JFK.) For you young'ens that is not an exageration. Look it up. It took decades from the end of WW II for the stock market to get above a Dow at 500. When Reagan was elected after JImmy Carter very nearly destroyed the economy (Dow 750), The Dow broke a 1000 pts. That was 1980! 28 years ago. In that time the Dow has gone from 1000 points to 13000 pts. I mention that mearly as a measure of how much our economy has expanded under more conservative government and a policy of lower taxes.

And yet many, many people believe the negative propaganda of the left that this is the worst economy in since Clinton, of course. Those people who ignorantly believe what they read or watch in the daily news and listen hypnotized as Obama promises to raise their taxes for a better tomorrow will vote for him in droves.

The years beginnning with Regan to the present, that was good news for the economy and the country and the Dems did poorly.

Now isn't it interesting that today the Democrat power players solutions sound good to those that want government to be their weapon to punish the rich and near rich and and probably you and me so they can redistribute the wealth to the less fortunate.

So it is that what is bad for the Country is good for Democrats. Why don't they want to do anything about increasing the supply of US oil production? That would be good for the US, but bad for the Democrat play book. Nope lets Nationilize the US Oil Industry. Lower Taxes. They want to put a stop to that, they want to get the rates up to at least 70% for the rich. They can afford it. Expanding economy from global marketing, can't have that. They want to isolate us.

All of their solutions have been shown to be bad for a expanding economy, so why do they want them. A bad economy will lead to much higher unemployment, higher welfare payments, and a general breakdown of society. Who would want that as a plan to rule a country?

The answer is that they want the maximum number of citizens dependent on the Government as possible. It gave them the country in the Great Depression. So why not recreate a terrible economy.

And, If Obama is elected with a Democrat majority in the house and senate, they will knock the wheels of the US economy in the name of the environment in the name of fairness in the name of equality of outcomes just as fast as they can. Because they want another 40 years of control.

But thats just an old guys opinion.
JP

[bunklocoempire]

JP, please consider,

Taxes- Both dems and repubs use them, any tax either of 'em get is misused by both.

Economy- The economy did climb in the post WW2 years, slow and steady, the U.S. was manufacturing and tangible items were the key . In '71 it started it's amazing rise (with a few hiccups) after switching off the gold standard, incredible rise due to make believe interest rates and a dollar that was no longer based on goods but assigned value by a club of bankers.

A false economy, not defined by real goods, but now, real goods + contrived dollars. The measure of real inflation has also been progessivley fudged by each administration since '71.

Dems and Repubs both gain with the ability to print money on demand, dems with their typical social agenda, repubs with their typical business agenda. They each have less reasons to balance a budget when they can sell out our future and print money at will.

More social programs and more business means more taxes collected, government wins.

Both dems and repubs have no interest in isolating the U.S., Bush Sr. touted a new world order, Clinton embraced China, Bush Jr. continues the deficit tradeing and they all love Mexico. These countries are an excellent venue to spread a dollar we can print at will, as well as our oil buddies in the mid east. Trade is good, but not when it involves a dollar with no solid value, comes back to bite us real quick. 30+ years or so.

US oil production is a hot topic, but there is no law that says US oil produced at home has to be sold at home, there is an ever expanding market (China/others) that would buy it at a fair price, and all the better if they could buy it with something other than the U.S. dollar. We are at the mercy of those around the globe who continue to use our dollar, and the fact that many across the globe hold our debt means it is in their best interest to continue using the dollar -for now. Many are dumping the inflated dollar on advice from the Federal Reserve.

As crazy as it sounds, the Federal Reserve is creating inflation one place and hampering inflation in another place at the same time trying to control what they obviously cannot.

Sad truth, increased U.S. oil production will not significantly lower oil bought with the U.S. dollar. We've heard many takes on this from congress and the media. When have they mentioned the falling dollar? Once that I've heard (very briefly), and then quickly on to the next suspect.


-Knocking the wheels off the U.S. economy in the name of climate/enviroment.
The wheels are off, dems and repubs are embracing this carbon credit scam because it is another way to bolster the dollar, we've run out of real goods and now they're going to further the use of carbon credits, basically a made up trade item -another piece of worthless paper.



Remember, Republicans and Democrats are both government.

Un-Constitutional behavior (treason) by Repubs and Dems is the main problem.


Thanks, Bunkloco

[winchester1886]

Just thought I would put in this fellows opinion.


You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wager earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

[Griff]

Just thought I would put in this fellows opinion.


You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wager earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

Pretty good quote, as befitting a Republican. I want to hear just ONE Democrat state something similar. Well, besides, JFK.

[bunklocoempire]

Mmmm.... 4 trillion new dollars created out of thin air in the past 3 years.... How long do we have? Caution: Dr. Paul content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6V5ym9kx_8

Bunkloco

[Old Savage]

We are in 4,5,6 and they are working hard on 7.

[bee-weg]

According to Snopes, neither of the two professors mentioned in the OP, Tytler or Olson, ever said these things. And some of the statistics are wrong as well, such as the murder rates.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

And the Lincoln quote is not really Lincoln either. I believe it was a preacher in the early 1900's.

It seems like the majority of these things that make the rounds on email are fabricated.

[oldmax]

I don't care who wrote it..
IT"S DEAD ON TARGET

[O.S.O.K.]

Well just maybe the SCOTUS - at least the 5 that held the majority on the Heller v DC actually understood where we were and wanted to be sure that we at least had a way to avoid dictatorship.

And I think that we are on such fragile ground economically that things very easily could come crashing down in a matter of days.

Think on this: our national debt is equivalent to $500,000 for every man, woman and child legally living in this country right now. If we collectively sold all of the realestate (land and buildings) that currently exist in our country, this debt would not be paid in full. How are we going to sink that debt? Or more precisely, how are we going to sink this debt by spending like drunken sailors? Remember, we are paying interest on this... to China and others.

That one fact alone is extremely scary.

Add to that all of the other problems that we have and you begin to see just how possible or probable the likelyhood of an overnight catastrophic failure is.

Can it be prevented? Yes, I think it can - but nothing is being done.

[JP_TX]

bunklocoempire,

I respect your counterpoints and the passion and worry that you feel for the country. We share that completely. I don't disagree that both of the ruling parties gave us poor government. Both are greedy and self-interested. Both are elected by the money that is provided by the special interests that support them for special priveledges.

All these points are unarguable as far as I am conserned and I believe you think the same.

I will say that that given that each man views the world through the prisim of his own life, my opinion is that liberals/Democrats have an interest in reducing personal freedom and regulating society as a whole that is simply a matter of record. While Republican, who have a record of being pro bidness, seem to me to be less interested in controlling the individual citizen.

Given that many transgressions on the Constitution are commited by both, that which I notice most it the reduction in freedom. That is the most important thing to me. As someone said, If the rights of the individual are removed, can the enslavement of the group be far behind. I'm not quoting because I'm sure I am paraphrasing.

I rale against any government that reduces freedom. Lately it has been the Dems.