Comments by "Colonel K" (@Paladin1873) on "TimeGhost History"
channel.
-
2
-
@J Thorsson Orientals are the most xenophobic people I've run across. The Japanese top the list. By the way, the word Oriental is no more offensive than the word Occidental, so if anyone doesn't like it, please explain why. Most Americans are not xenophobic. If we were, we would not be made up of so many different cultures and nationalities, all blended into e pluribus unum. What we are is nationalistic. These days the words nationalist and xenophobe are reviled and purposely misinterpreted to mean the same thing. A nationalist loves his country; a xenophobe fears foreigners. The terms are mutually exclusive. America was built on a simple idea that when you immigrate here, you bring the best your culture has to offer and you accept what the American culture offers - freedom of opportunity, independence (self-reliance), and a republican federalist form of government. All of this is taught to you so you can gain your citizenship. You also must learn English, not because we're xenophobic or nationalistic, but because it's practical and allows you to get ahead in our society. I admire and envy people who are multilingual. I've studied four other languages myself, but have mastered none of them. However, remaining rooted in your native tongue and refusing to blend into our culture is an invitation to isolation and control by others who have much to gain from keeping you down. America welcomes all legal immigrants, but we do not tolerate those who cheat, lie, and steal to be here. They subvert the system and become a drain on our limited resources. Enough illegal immigrants are here now that there is a significant political block that supports them, despite the harm they cause. The vast majority of illegal aliens come from Mexico, followed by Central and South America. They have few, if any, skills we can use, so they become trapped in a permanent subculture that does not reflect American values and lifestyles. Another group of immigrants who have been brought here are from the Middle East. Most of them came in through a dubious immigration program. Their cultures and beliefs are quite anathema to ours. Why we have allowed so many of them in is a puzzlement to me. The majority refuse to blend with us and many openly defy our laws and insult our traditions. For Europe it is a far greater problem and it is fast approaching a point where it can no longer be contained. What will happen next in Europe is unknown, but I am concerned it may become very ugly (if history is any guide). To sum up, I understand your concerns and your conflicts. I see nothing unusual about them; you just need to reason them through, not apologize for them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tunner, not Turner. Unlike Britain's 'Bomber' Harris, who firebombed German cities largely for the terror effect, LeMay's firebombing campaign was aimed primarily at dispersed Japanese war production. It was the Japanese leadership who purposely distributed military manufacturing into heavily populated civilian areas. According to a late friend of mine who served under LeMay in WWII, the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan had already been made a US general in the Pacific, and not by Truman, even though the history books claimed it was Truman who gave the orders. This notion dovetails with Indy's comments about the need for tighter control of nukes. It would be an interesting point to research and clarify. As for nukes, LeMay viewed them as just one more weapon for winning a war. I doubt it matters to the people who die in a war just how they are killed.
LeMay definitely had a well earned reputation as one hard, tough, no-nonsense SOB, so much so, that as a brand new 2nd Lieutenant in 1978 I saw him at a BBQ sitting alone at a picnic table. He had long since retired from the USAF, but like everyone else, I was too intimidated to approach him, much less join him at his table. You may think he was dick, but his actions saved thousands, perhaps millions of lives, which explains why SAC's motto was "Peace is Our Profession". Those were dangerous times, and we were dealing with the likes of Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin. It takes a warrior, not a saint, to stand up to such levels of evil.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Nazism do share one very critical trait, a desire to concentrate power in the state at the cost of the individual. They go about it in different ways and to different degrees, but the end result tends to be the same - incarceration, torture, or death for all perceived enemies of the people. Terms such as left wing, right wing, and alt right have unclear meanings, so I try to avoid them as much as possible. This is particularly true when trying to comprehend the European vs. American use of these words. When our Constitution was written, our forefathers, well educated on the potential dangers of any form of government, sought to create one in which the consolidation of power was made extremely difficult. Indeed, it was the decentralization of power which was foremost on their minds and a cornerstone of our republic. Yet if any of them were alive today, they would be gravely disappointed to see how far we have drifted from their ideal. I suppose it is to be expected. Human nature can be as predictable as the actions of a moth drawn to a flame. Perhaps that is why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance (yes, I know this is a paraphrase).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@J Thorsson It's a fairly common belief in the USA, but because libertarians hold so many different views, it is impossible to classify them. Essentially, they want limited government involvement in their lives. This ongoing pandemic presents more of a quandary for libertarians and traditional conservatives (people who prefer smaller, weaker government) than it does for liberals (people who favor stronger, more involved government). Whatever their political persuasion, we have not seen city, state, or federal authorities assume this much control since 911. For now most Americans are going along with it because we understand the potential danger, but this cannot last for more than a few weeks or we risk economic collapse. That would cause more damage than the pandemic. I imagine it's the same everywhere. Since China is slowly returning to work, I expect other countries will cautiously follow suit in the near future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spartacus-olsson It is not a false trope; it is a critical distinction. In a democracy the people vote directly on all matters. The majority rules. This is akin to mob rule. In a republic the people elect representatives to run the government. Our republic operates under a set of rules established by our Constitution. At the federal level there is no mechanism by which the people can vote directly on an issue. Our government was crafted this way to prevent a simple majority from dominating the minority. As a society we have become quite lazy and cavalier over the years with regard to these important distinctions, and we do so at the peril of losing our republic.
I will give you a specific example of the threat we face. The people elect the President, not by popular vote, but through an electoral college whose composition is based on the number of members of Congress from each state. Since every state has two senators, regardless of size, this provides some counterbalancing safeguard for the smaller states. Currently there is an effort afoot in some states to undermine this process by assigning all of the state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the majority of the nationwide votes, regardless of how the citizens in that state voted. This has the potential to invalidate the votes of the majority within that state.
Another safeguard which has already been eroded is the election of senators. Prior to the 17th amendment being added to the Constitution in 1913, the people in each state voting district were provided a voice in Congress through the direct election of their member of the House of Representatives, while each state government was given a voice through the selection of senators by their state legislative bodies. The 17th amendment changed the selection process of senators to direct election by the citizens of the state. This change removed the state governments from having direct representation in Congress. The wisdom of this choice has been debated ever since, partly because it meant states with one or more large population centers tended to dominate the selection of senators without regard for the needs and desires of voters in the rest of the state. Regardless, the change was achieved thorough a constitutionally correct process and remains the law of the land. For this reason it will remain valid until it is rescinded.
When it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the people have virtually no direct say in its membership or composition. The President nominates a potential justice and the Senate approves or disapproves the selection by simple majority vote. There are no qualifications for being a justice, so anyone can be nominated. There is no set size for the SCOTUS; it is set by Congress. There is an inherent risk in this arrangement because if one party controls the Senate and the Presidency, collectively they can shrink the court, expand it, or impeach justices (following a recommendation by the House of Representatives). Though rare, all three have been accomplished, except the lone impeachment trial of Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 ended with an acquittal and the looming impeachment of Justice Abe Fortas led to him resigning from the court in 1969.
With regard to your comment about common law and civil law, our Constitution limits the power and scope of the federal government, and under the 10th Amendment it specifies that all other powers belong to the states or the people. The issue of abortion is not addressed in the Constitution, therefore it is left to the states to regulate. If a state does not regulate it, then the choice is left to the individual. In 1973 the SCOTUS disregarded the Constitution and struck down both Texas and Georgia criminal laws that made certain abortions illegal. This ruling was then applied to all states. The reasoning provided by the court was that a woman's right to privacy was being violated. The problem is that the Constitution does not address any such right. In so doing, the SCOTUS exceeded its constitutional authority. If the pending SCOTUS decision reverses Roe v. Wade and its corollary, Doe v. Bolton, it will be restoring the court to its proper role of interpreting law in accordance with the Constitution, not creating it. Whatever follows is up to the states and to the people.
1
-
@milamber319 When discussing the Constitution, people often omit the Declaration of Independence, which is the founding document from which the Constitution ultimately arises. The Declaration of Independence specifically address three inalienable rights, meaning rights conferred by our Creator. These include, but are not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These particular rights are listed precisely because that they are not granted by government. They are deemed to be natural rights of all human beings and not subject to government restriction or abolishment. The government recognizes these rights and is supposed to operate within their framework. When drafting the Constitution, the framers were focused on developing rules under which a federal government would function and how this government would relate to the states and to the people. The word "right" appears only once in the body of the Constitution. The word "privilege" appears but three times. This was not an oversight; it was done on purpose because it was assumed the existing state constitutions adequately covered them. However, there was enough fear of future centralized federal power that the Constitution could not get ratified until it contained amendments that fully recognized other natural and civil rights, along with the authority that was reserved for the states and for the people. The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War to ensure the states did not "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and to ensure no person was deprived "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". It also guaranteed "equal protection of the laws."
What the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill Rights, and all subsequent amendments to date do not address is the definition of life. I find this curious. How can we deny a life by abortion if we first do not define the beginning of life? In the current environment I have seen arguments for abortion ranging from conception to postpartum infanticide. Excepting cases where both mother and child are doomed to die, where do we draw the line or do we draw a line? Isn't it only appropriate that someone speak for the unborn child? If not, are we any better than those who endorsed slavery or genocide? Until we come to some consensus on the definition of life, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and return to state determination of the legality of abortion. This will not prevent abortion, legal or otherwise, but it is consistent with our Constitution. To do otherwise is to tacitly admit the federal government can legally control whatever aspect of our lives it desires. It reduces the state governments to mere vassals of the federal government - the very thing the founders feared most (as should we).
With regard to rights, for something to be an inalienable right, it must apply equally to everyone without encumbrance. If it does not, then it is a privilege or possibly a civil right (ex: the right to vote at 18). Therefore you cannot have the right be free from want or free from fear, despite what Roosevelt claimed in his four freedoms speech. These are lofty goals, but they are not freedoms for the simple fact that if someone is to be free from want, it can only occur if something is taken from another and given to him. One cannot be free from fear unless someone is ordered to protect him even at the risk of his own life. There cannot be a fundamental right to abortion because the rights of the unborn child are abrogated. It can only be a privilege or civil right granted to the mother when we have written laws stating the unborn child is not a human life.
Regarding the super majority you mentioned, it does not exist. If it did, then it would be very easy for Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment defining life, then get it ratified by the states. Failing that, each state could easily pass a law granting abortion under whatever specified standards it deems appropriate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@milamber319 Our republic was designed to prevent simple majority rule by giving the minority some counterbalancing power. This does not mean a single person or small group of people can squash the will of a much larger group. It does mean that a significant minority can thwart the wishes of a larger group. This is important because it helps deter radical change and contributes to to a negotiated compromise when necessary. If we applied a simple majority rule to all voting, we will disenfranchise the minority and likely fracture the nation. I would no more want to see this happen than I would want to face a jury trial where a 7-to-5 vote could send me to the death chamber or life in prison.
The filibuster is not an endless tool; it is a delaying tactic. If only one senator is filibustering, the best he can hope to accomplish is to bring attention to his concerns for a limited period of time. The longest single protest on record was 24 hours by Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond when he opposed the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It subsequently passed. The longest group filibuster was 60 days and was conducted by a six southern Democrats (Richard Russell (GA), Strom Thurmond (SC), Robert Byrd (WV), William Fulbright (AR), and Sam Ervin (NC)) to protest the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964. This filibuster concluded when enough senators of both parties voted to end it. The Act subsequently passed. Since the filibuster is an internal senate rule, there are only two legal ways to end the practice. The Senate can vote to eliminate it or a constitutional amendment can be passed to prevent it. The latter seems doubtful because it would require the overwhelming support of the Senate. I cannot envision the Senate ever allowing itself to be controlled in such a manner. The Senate has from time to time changed the rules for ending a filibuster. It used to require a 2/3 vote of the Senate, was later reduced to 60 votes, and now is 51 votes on certain issues such as the appointment of executive branch nominees, federal judges, and Supreme Court justices. This raises an interesting question. Is it wise to place such nominees in powerful positions without significant support from the Senate, or is a simple 51-to-50 majority vote sufficient?
Your concern about gerrymandering is partly correct. It is an attempt to preserve a party's political power by carving out districts in such a manner that their party stands an excellent chance of winning. It also is an attempt to weaken the opposing party by either lumping most its voters in a single district (packing) or dividing them into multiple districts where they have no influence on the vote (cracking). Generally speaking, the party in power gets to decide district layout, hence it is a tool of suppression by the majority, not the minority. The affected party can challenge gerrymandering in court, but there is no guarantee of a favorable outcome. The court could just as easily conclude no gerrymandering took place.
I'm not sure you grasp the significance of the electoral college. it is to ensure that a few heavily populated states do not alone determine the outcome of a presidential election. Under the electoral college system in 48 states, the electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the popular vote, thus the voters in each state do decide which presidential candidate gets their support. Nebraska and Maine appoint individual electors based on the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional district. The remaining two electors are assigned to the overall winner of the state-wide popular vote. I'm not sure how this would work in a three-way split where no candidate receives a majority of the popular vote. Their approach, while somewhat novel, dilutes their influence on the election outcome, which might explain why they are the only two states to adopt it. I already live in a state which many politicians and political pundits derisively call flyover country, meaning they don't care about us or our concerns. Elimination of the electoral college would dilute the power of smaller states such as mine, so what would be the incentive for a state to remain loyal to the union if its residents believed they can be run roughshod over by a federal government controlled by the voters in the biggest states?
The will of the states is the will of the people. The people in the states vote for their own state legislators, governor, members of Congress, and electors for the presidential race.
It is easier to change the constitution of Australia than it is that of the USA. That which is made easy to change is easy to change again and again and again. Our process is slow and cumbersome, but it provides stability and allows for thoughtful deliberation. This is why it so rarely changes - not only because it is difficult, but because debate reveals the potential pitfalls of change. In my state we can change the state constitution almost on a whim by a simple majority of those voting. As a result we have added amendments that garnered far less than half of the voting public's support. It is not a practice I recommend. Few voters ever educate themselves on a topic before voting, assuming they even bother to vote. This destabilizes the system when bad law is so easily made.
I do not know what state tyranny you are talking about, but I presume you would prefer all the states behave alike. This is not what the founders intended - and for good reason. Nobody has a handle on the best path forward, but with 50 states you have 50 laboratories in which to experiment. Each state is free to learn and adapt the practices or avoid the mistakes of other states. If you do not like the laws of your state, you are free to try to change them or else move to another state that better fits your values. Anything less is tyranny.
On your last point I will only say the government closest to you is most responsive to you. It is where you will have the most direct influence. As you move further up the governmental chain from city to county to state to nation, your ability to influence change is diminished. As former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill liked to say, "All politics is local".
1