# If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?



## Billo_Really (Jul 26, 2013)

If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?

_Adam eating the apple?
The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
The assassination of Lincoln?  Kennedy?
Stop 9/11?
Stop the Celtics from winning the '69 title?
Stop Obama from becoming President?_​You can stop any event you want, but you only get one choice!

What event would prevent from ever happening?

Hitler's mom from ever becoming a heterosexual?


----------



## Politico (Jul 26, 2013)

Stupid people being born. The Earth would be a pretty empty place.


----------



## Michelle420 (Jul 26, 2013)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.....


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 26, 2013)

The U.S. entering WWI.


----------



## Cenere (Jul 26, 2013)

I'd probably have a hard time choosing a number of personal choices, because there's a lot I could take back which would make my life a whole lot easier. As far as world issues. I'd go back and make sure Gore won the election against Bush...just to see how things would be different.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jul 26, 2013)

I think I'd stop Marilyn Monroe from dying, then take my_* "Thank You"*_, like a man!


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 26, 2013)

Sooooo many tragedies to chose from...

The implementation of the Designated Hitter rule ranks pretty high...


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Jul 26, 2013)

The Holocaust.


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 26, 2013)

... the death of John Bonham...


----------



## MikeK (Jul 26, 2013)

The election of Ronald Reagan.

And if that didn't work I would carefully have explained the difference between a .22 and a .357 magnum to John Hinckley.


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 26, 2013)

... the death of the princes at the hands of Richard III ...


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Jul 26, 2013)

MikeK said:


> The election of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> And if that didn't work I would carefully have explained the difference between a .22 and a .357 magnum to John Hinckley.



You're one the reasons why people despise libruls.. You have to insert politics in everything.. Get a life.


----------



## dblack (Jul 26, 2013)

The burning of the Library of Alexandria.


----------



## Gracie (Jul 26, 2013)

I think I will keep it non political and non religious and go with John Lennon not being shot.


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 26, 2013)

... the recording career of Tracy Chapman...


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> The burning of the Library of Alexandria.



All kidding aside, one of the great tragedies in the history of all mankind.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jul 27, 2013)

On second thought, maybe I'd do a George Zimmerman on Lee Harvey Oswald.

I can still remember just how fucked the country was the week after JFK got shot.

I don't ever want to experience that again.


----------



## asaratis (Jul 27, 2013)

The destruction of the Mayans and their historical artifacts.

The politically driven mass murder of 60 million Chinese citizens.

The mass murder of Polish military officers and highly educated professionals.

The advent of communism.


----------



## asaratis (Jul 27, 2013)

...the suppression of Galileo Galilei


----------



## Surfer (Jul 27, 2013)

This was a topic a huge public message place. The overwhelming response was "keep all minorities out of the USA. We would need no security, welfare, or police/prisons!"
My answer would be 9/11. We have never been the same as a country since that tragedy.


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2013)

Are you familiar with the concept of BLOWBACK?


----------



## Billo_Really (Jul 27, 2013)

editec said:


> Are you familiar with the concept of BLOWBACK?


Does this have anything to do with that gay cowboy movie?


----------



## MDiver (Jul 27, 2013)

I would time travel to Mecca and the year 570 A.D. and wipe out all human life there to ensure Muhammad never lives to create the monstrous religion of Islam.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 27, 2013)

The problem with stopping a major historical even such as Hitler or 9/11 is that in each of those events, the actors learn very valuable information.  WWII was going to happen with or without Hitler and if you had managed to stop that one event, the next one might have been worse.  You simply do not know.  

I would like to have stopped 9/11 but I know that such an even would have happened anyway.  If not a nuclear device in a city or another set of planes, an event of that scale would have occurred with another weapon.  In the case of a nuclear device in a city, I shudder to think of the response then.  It would have likely been far worse.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 27, 2013)

Ray Bradbury wrote a story "The Sound of Thunder" about how the death of a butterfly altered world history.

Changing one event has uncountable unintended consequences.

That said, I'd stop the formation of the Federal Reserve.


----------



## asaratis (Jul 27, 2013)

Surfer said:


> This was a topic a huge public message place. The overwhelming response was *"keep all minorities out of the USA. We would need no security, welfare, or police/prisons!"*
> My answer would be 9/11. We have never been the same as a country since that tragedy.



Fantasyland!  I am somewhat puzzled that so many people have no conception of the bell shaped curves that exist for all characteristics of large populations regardless of monoethnicity or multiculturalism.  There will be evil people and kind people, poor people and rich people in all large populations.  Hence there will be a need for welfare (providing basic needs) and law enforcement.  (unless all criminals are executed, there will be detention centers)...even in your hypothetical 'lily white USA'.

I suspect that your 'huge public message place" was Stormfront...a hideously racist forum attractive to arrogant pinheads that believe the perfect nation would be inhabited by white skinned, blond haired, blue eyed, racist clones.  The curves would still exist.  Hence the consensus of your fellow posters is unmitigated poppycock...logically expected of low IQ posters.


----------



## asaratis (Jul 27, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Ray Bradbury wrote a story "The Sound of Thunder" about how the death of a butterfly altered world history.
> 
> Changing one event has uncountable unintended consequences.
> 
> That said, I'd stop the formation of the Federal Reserve.



Exactly!

All animal and plant life is interdependent.  If all the hippopotami died, other species downstream would die off one by one simply because the hippopotami shit in the river.


----------



## Surfer (Jul 27, 2013)

asaratis said:


> I suspect that your 'huge public message place" was Stormfront...a hideously racist forum attractive to arrogant pinheads that believe the perfect nation would be inhabited by white skinned, blond haired, blue eyed, racist clones.  The curves would still exist.  Hence the consensus of your fellow posters is unmitigated poppycock...logically expected of low IQ posters.



I don't care what color anyone is as long as they behave. The problem is Americans have been watching minorities destroy America for years and are fed up with it. I don't read or go to white supremacist sites that hate Jews. Only low-lives hate devout/Godly Jews.


----------



## blackhawk (Jul 27, 2013)

MTV from green lighting Jersey Shore.


----------



## syrenn (Jul 27, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> 
> _Adam eating the apple?
> The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
> ...



it is one thing... but not one event so to speak.


I would stop the birth of every single religion. .....if i HAD to choose ONE religion though, it would be islam.


----------



## Zona (Jul 27, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> 
> _Adam eating the apple?
> The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
> ...



Arm Trevon.  Oh and the hitler mom thing.


----------



## Zona (Jul 27, 2013)

blackhawk said:


> MTV from green lighting Jersey Shore.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 27, 2013)

I would stop Taylor Swift from being born so she wouldn't have to write so many shitty songs about her multiple breakups.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2013)

The Lincoln assassination. If he had lived reconstruction would have been completely different and I suspect we would not have had 100 years of Jim Crow laws.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 28, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> [...]
> 
> I would like to have stopped 9/11 but I know that such an even would have happened anyway.  If not a nuclear device in a city or another set of planes, an event of that scale would have occurred with another weapon.  In the case of a nuclear device in a city, I shudder to think of the response then.  It would have likely been far worse.


Why are you so sure the 9/11 attack was unavoidably destined?  The fact is it wasn't.  That tragic event was brought about by the brutish arrogance of those whom we trust to competently maintain security while avoiding such disasters -- rather than provoking them.   

When Operation Desert Storm was being planned, George H.W. Bush, via his close friendship with the Saudi Royal Family, arranged to construct an American airbase in Saudi Arabia, in the vicinity of the Islamic holy land, for the purpose of facilitating the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait.  While it was agreed the base would be removed upon completion of that operation it was not removed but in fact had undergone incremental expansion over the years between 1991 and 2001.  

During that same time frame a serious outcry arose from the Palestinians in response to an aggressive expansion of Israeli settlements deep into the Gaza region.  That encroachment would ordinarily have provoked armed resistance by the Palestinians and their Arab supporters but the contingency was rendered impractical by the threat of U.S. military support of Israel.  

Those two situations gave rise to extreme anger on the part of such fanatically militant Islamic organizations as _Al Qaeda,_ which at the time few ordinary Americans, if any, had ever heard of.  While a number of Arab leaders had lodged protests about failure to remove the _bin Sultan_ airbase from their holy land and the encroachment of Israeli settlers into the gaza region, those protests were routinely afforded little attention by the Clinton Administration. 

Upon learning of these protests, PBS Frontline's John Miller made contact with this Al Qaeda organization and arranged to interview its leader, a fellow named Osama bin Laden, which took place in a cave in Afghanistan in May of 1998.  In that interview, bin Laden clearly identifed the objects of his people's protest, the airbase and the Israeli settlements, and he warned that if some action was not taken to correct those situations the U.S. would have cause for regret.

Who Is Bin Laden? - Interview With Osama Bin Laden (in May 1998) | Hunting Bin Laden | FRONTLINE | PBS

That threat apparently was not taken seriously, either by Bill Clinton or by George W. Bush, both of whom ignored it, and on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world came to know who Osama bin Laden was.  But most never knew the reason behind what he did.

What you should know is shortly after that attack George W. Bush quietly removed the _bin Sultan_ airbase from Saudi Arabia and he pressured Israel's President Ariel Sharon to evict the settlers from the disputed Gaza region.  If either Clinton or Bush had acknowledged and acted on the legitimate protests by Al Queda when they first were lodged the level of rage that prompted nineteen healthy young shahids to sacrifice their lives would not have existed and the attack could not have happened.  

The question now is have our leaders learned that the most dangerous weapons in the world are people who are willing to sacrifice their own lives to strike at an offender?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> 
> _Adam eating the apple?
> The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
> ...



Nick Saban's birth


----------



## numan (Jul 28, 2013)

'
Oh, this is a no-brainer !!

I would feel duty bound to prevent the collapse of Western Civilization in 1914 !!

Therefore, on the day that Franz Ferdinand and Sophie visited Sarajevo, I would drop an atomic bomb on the city -- leaving a note that the government of the United States was responsible.

Then the world would have had some warning of the century it was about to enter.

.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> Oh, this is a no brainer !!
> 
> I would feel duty bound to prevent the collapse of Western Civilization in 1914 !!
> ...



No A-Bomb available in 1914.

The significance of this event is way overplayed. The coalitions of nations that had formed in Europe at the time virtually guaranteed all out war at some point. Through most of history Europe has been constantly embroiled in conflict. If Franz Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated - it would have been some other event, touching off a conflict between two nations that quickly grows into war across the continent.


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > The election of Ronald Reagan.
> ...








And it's always the "tolerant" liberals who want to murder people.  Funny how that is....


----------



## S.J. (Jul 28, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> Hitler's mom from ever becoming a heterosexual?


Yeah, one date with you would take care of that.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 28, 2013)

Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jul 28, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Yeah, one date with you would take care of that.


Ouch!


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.











Hundreds of thousands more would die as a result.  There is no doubt the bombs were terrible but there is also no doubt that they saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Allied lives.  There are tons of records that show how the Japanese were going to fight on the beaches and for every foot of ground.  They had tens of thousands of pole bayonets that they were going to give to the civilians.

Madness.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 28, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



Contemplate how many Americans would not be here today. My dad was a paratrooper in the South Pacific theater. He said they were preparing for an invasion of the Japanese mainland, and had that occurred it would have been a fight to the death. MANY more human beings would have died on both sides if that invasion had occurred.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 28, 2013)

I would stop the assassination of President Kennedy. It was the most devastating event in my 6+ decades. IMO, when future historians write the story of the rise and fall of the United States of America, November 22, 1963 will be the zenith.



When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
John Kenneth Galbraith


----------



## Defiant1 (Jul 28, 2013)

I would stop Jefferson from changing "property" to "pursuit of happiness".


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 28, 2013)

Defiant1 said:


> I would stop Jefferson from changing "property" to "pursuit of happiness".



"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter


----------



## Defiant1 (Jul 28, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> > I would stop Jefferson from changing "property" to "pursuit of happiness".
> ...


 

I consider all 3 to be equally important.

Damn, if you had prevented the Kennedy assassination they wouldn't have sent us home from school that day.  I thought you cared about people.


----------



## eflatminor (Jul 28, 2013)

The inclusion, as written, of the 'commerce' and 'general welfare' clauses in the Constitution.

Thereby avoiding my second choice, Wickard v. Filburn, the 1942 Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 28, 2013)

Defiant1 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Defiant1 said:
> ...



Let's see...sending some snotty nosed kid home from school, or saving the lives of 58,000 sons and daughters...tough call...


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 28, 2013)

i would go with lenin...preventing his rise to power

i am surprised no one has taken....roe vs wade


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 28, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> ...



Forget that: contemplate how many JAPANESE wouldn't be here today!


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 28, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



We don't live in a vacuum sonny boy.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 28, 2013)

For me: a Russian expat in Zurich named Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov would be tragically killed by a runaway motorcar around 1915...


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 28, 2013)

Defiant1 said:


> I would stop Jefferson from changing "property" to "pursuit of happiness".



I might have him simply use BOTH!


----------



## Sunshine (Jul 28, 2013)

I would prevent the Kennedy assassination.  I liked Camelot.  His assassination had a profound effect on me as a young person.  I remember coming in off the school bus that day to find my mother crying.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 28, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



If that was intended to make sense, it failed utterly.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 28, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



Then you are not very smart. 

The first atomic bomb, dropped on Hiroshima, killed roughly 70,000 people immediately. Japan refused to surrender. Perhaps they reasoned that America had only one bomb, and could not make more.

The second atomic bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, killed roughly 40,000 to 70,000 people immediately.

Together, the two atomic bombs were responsible for the immediate and over-time deaths of around 140,000 people.

Awed and stunned by this raw power  and perhaps suddenly realizing that the soft Americans were actually willing to use such power  the hard-hearted Japanese leaders were forced to unconditionally surrender.

Compare this to the cost in lives for a conventional military invasion of Japan.

In just the Battle of Okinawa alone, the invasion and securing of the tiny islands cost over 90,000 Japanese military deaths, close to 50,000 Allied deaths, and from 75,000 to 140,000 civilians dead or missing.

Thats a total of around 280,000 lives lost to secure just a foothold from which to invade the main Japanese islands.

Okinawa had a pre-invasion population of about 500,000. That means that up to a third of the entire civilian population was killed in the World War II invasion of the islands. Add to that military deaths equal to another one third of Okinawas civilian population.

Part of the reason for this was the fanatical bushido code of the soldiers, who encouraged or forced civilians to hold out to the death against the Allies  or even commit mass suicide rather than surrender and lose face.

And meanwhile in the homeland of Japan, the Shosango and later Ketsugo war policies were being implemented to encourage every single man, woman and child to fight the Allies to the death Even if they had only bamboo to use as a weapon. (I, Scott, saw footage of such World War II Japanese women undergoing bamboo spear combat drills.)
















If the main Japanese islands had been invaded, a bloody massacre far more grueling and drawn out than Okinawa could be expected.

In 1945, Japan as a whole had a population of around 52 million Roughly 100 times as many people as Okinawa had.

If the Japanese had not been forced to surrender by the atomic bombs, a conventional invasion might have incurred a similar casualty ratio as Okinawa had.

That would be *roughly 35 million lives lost*, half of those being Japanese civilians forced or propagandized into fighting to the death.

Im not conjecturing out of thin air here  the official Allied plans for invading Japan if it refused to surrender predicted a cost of 1 million American and 10 million Japanese lives. Even after the two bombs were dropped, the military planners were unsure as to whether the stubborn Japanese leaders would keep on fighting tooth and claw.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 28, 2013)

I would have prevented the importation of slaves to North America.


----------



## Granny (Jul 28, 2013)

I think I'd have to go with Vietnam and the mindset of the times of our young people. Not only for the unnecessary loss of so many lives, but it is in my mind the era of the beginning of the end of civility and unity in America.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 28, 2013)

Granny said:


> I think I'd have to go with Vietnam and the mindset of the times of our young people. Not only for the unnecessary loss of so many lives, but it is in my mind the era of the beginning of the end of civility and unity in America.



There would have been no Americanization of that war had Kennedy lived.


 Vietnam was another growing source of tension within the Kennedy Administration. Once again, Washington hard-liners pushed for an escalation of the war, seeking the full-scale military confrontation with the communist enemy that J.F.K. had denied them in Cuba and other cold war battlegrounds. But Kennedy's troop commitment topped out at only 16,000 servicemen. And, as he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell.

Fearing a backlash from his generals and the rightunder the feisty leadership of Barry Goldwater, his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential raceKennedy never made his Vietnam plans public. And, in true Kennedy fashion, his statements on the Southeast Asian conflict were a blur of ambiguity. Surrounded by national-security advisers bent on escalation and trying to prevent a public split within his Administration, Kennedy operated on "multiple levels of deception" in his Vietnam decision making, in the words of historian Gareth Porter.

Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, McNamara says today, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 28, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Yes, yes, I'm aware of all that...which is *exactly the point I was making!*  What is your PROBLEM?!


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 28, 2013)

Oh horsefeathers, no invasion or nuke bombing was necessary. Zero means to produce energy + a total blockaid combined with most of her young men dead or prisoner, and no means to reproduce the military equals capitulation within a year.

Japan was nuked to prove that we could.


----------



## numan (Jul 28, 2013)

'

Blow up the Continental Congress when both Washington and Hancock were there, and get rid of that nest of traitorous terrorists for good.

.


----------



## numan (Jul 28, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> Oh horsefeathers, no invasion or nuke bombing was necessary. Zero means to produce energy + a total blockaid combined with most of her young men dead or prisoner, and no means to reproduce the military equals capitulation within a year.
> 
> Japan was nuked to prove that we could.


Once more, Americans are incapable of distinguishing propaganda hype from reality.

You are quite right, JW. Moreover, looking past the Japanese propaganda for domestic consumption, the Japanese leaders were desperate to get a negotiated settlement. That is historic fact. 

The Americans were determined to test out their new toy bombs. The proof is that (apart from Kyoto) they left only two Japanese cities unbombed and undamaged -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- one to test the uranium bomb and one to test the plutonium bomb.

Many high-ranking American political and military figures were appalled by such callous and barbaric evil (that was when there were still a few decent Americans in govt.) and left a public record of their opposition.

.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 28, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> Oh horsefeathers, no invasion or nuke bombing was necessary. Zero means to produce energy + a total blockaid combined with most of her young men dead or prisoner, and no means to reproduce the military equals capitulation within a year.
> 
> Japan was nuked to prove that we could.



Actually, it probably means...

Soviet occupation of Korea and a big chunk of China.
A possible Soviet occupation of Hokkaido, which would be a bloodbath, equal parts Okinawa and Stalingrad.
Millions of Japanese deaths due to a mass famine. (Even with US occupation and food supplies, 1945-46 was a very lean winter.)

There is also the fact that there was a very real chance that anyone in Japan pushing for a surrender would be assassinated!  They really DID mean to fight to the last man, woman, and child!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 28, 2013)

numan said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > Oh horsefeathers, no invasion or nuke bombing was necessary. Zero means to produce energy + a total blockaid combined with most of her young men dead or prisoner, and no means to reproduce the military equals capitulation within a year.
> ...



You are dumb as toast, kid.  Note: the CONVENTIONAL bombing of Tokyo killed more than both atomic bombs COMBINED.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 28, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> ...





You are confused. There is no law of nature that says if you don't drop an atomic bomb and kill 100,000 people you have to go get 1,000,000 of your own people killed.

Japan was already defeated when we dropped the atomic bomb. Most Japanese cities already looked like they'd been hit by A-bombs. The purpose of dropping those bombs was to impress the Soviets, not to save American lives.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 29, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Please provide the American causality count for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I will be waiting...


----------



## eflatminor (Jul 29, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> Blow up the Continental Congress when both Washington and Hancock were there, and get rid of that nest of traitorous terrorists for good.
> 
> .


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 29, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...


Makes perfect sense from a Tory/anti-secessionist point of view.....


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 29, 2013)

If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?

The day I lost my virginity!  Second time around, I would have done it sober.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jul 29, 2013)

that one cat 

the one the road stripe painters painted a white line over 

he surely deserved to live 

i would go back in time and fix that


----------



## Sallow (Jul 29, 2013)

ladygunslinger said:


> the holocaust.



+1


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 29, 2013)

Lucy pulling the damn football away just as Charlie Brown was about to kick it!

Without that single event, feminism would never happen and whenever I wanted a sandwich , by god I would get one!


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 29, 2013)

So, no comments on my post #59?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 29, 2013)

MikeK said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



And change those specific circumstances and 9/11 does not happen BUT the underlying causes STILL EXIST.  IOW, 9/11 specifically would not have occurred but a terrorist attack of that scale (or larger) would have happened.

The specifics in that case are not the point but rather the general attitudes and structures that allowed it to happen are.  They would still be in place and we would eventually be attacked.  You act like Bin Laden is the only one that wants to do such things to America.  We have a long list of insane people that want to see Americans dead.  Without a shortage of enemies, someone would have breached our lax security.


----------



## MeNonPartisan (Jul 29, 2013)

hair loss?


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 29, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



So you would do an invasion of Japan and cause many more deaths as a result?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jul 29, 2013)

High_Gravity said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> ...



Or you could do neither.


----------



## numan (Jul 29, 2013)

'
And, with astonishing serendipity, last night I was watching the 1945 film version of Agatha Cristie's _"Ten Little Indians"_ -- in the Special Features was included a 1945 year-end news review of Castle films _"News Parade."_

It included a clip of the mushroom cloud rising up from Nagasaki, while the news reader intoned, quote ---

*"The Japs were trying to surrender when the atom bomb leveled Nagasaki."*

Clearly, the American government and Brainwashing Machine had not got their lies straight by the end of 1945 !!!

· · · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 · · · · 
.


----------



## numan (Jul 29, 2013)

'
*Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki*
*The bombings as war crimes*



> Szilard, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:
> 
> *"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"*
> 
> ...


emphasis added
.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 29, 2013)

Maybe the day numan discovered how to cut and paste?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 29, 2013)

The day he was conceived!


----------



## numan (Jul 30, 2013)

'
Is that the best you supporters of murder and militarism can do when confronted by the truth?

Here is some more for you apologists for the Satanic evils of the United States government :

In the documentary *The Fog of War*, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalls that General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, said, *"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."*

*"And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"*
_----Robert S. McNamara_

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir *The White House Years* :

*"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression, and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."*

*LINK*

.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 30, 2013)

Ok numan, here goes, hold on to that pointy hat of yours and get ready for a butt kickin of a life time...

Had Lucy never have pulled that damn football from Charlie Brown JUST as he was going to kick it, then he may have gone on to college, been the first Kicker ever to win the Heisman, join the Cleveland Browns, helped them win the Super Bowl, thus allowing me to win the $20 we bet in 9th grade, money I would have spent on a nice present for my Mom making her really really happy!

Got it numan!

Now go take a nap!


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 30, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> I would have prevented the importation of slaves to North America.



This is absolutely brilliant. The changes in this nation would be incredible.

Would we have had a civil war? 

Would Lincoln have been elected?

Fast forward

No civil rights riots, would Michael Jordon or OJ Simpson, rap or Motown have ever existed?

The list goes on and on.

I gotta say, I think Ernie really nailed this!


----------



## Toro (Jul 30, 2013)

When Cindy Crawford said she wouldn't have sex with me. 

I'd go back and reverse that.


----------



## numan (Jul 31, 2013)

Pop23 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > I would have prevented the importation of slaves to North America.
> ...


Don't be silly, the United States simply would not have existed !!

The original English colonists were either too lazy to work, or too incompetent to be able to work intelligently. Just look at all the people who starved to death both in Virginia and Massachusetts in the first year there -- with plentious food all around them that they were too stupid to recognize!!

Then there was the fact that so many of the people who came over were ignorant, uneducated, mentally incompetent and/or convicted criminals.

No slaves -- certainly no colonies that would have survived ! 

Well, they might have survived in the North -- but under French rule !!
_________________________________

*P.S.* There would have been no Civil War if the Insurrectionary Terrorists had been instantly crushed, and been unable to persuade the French to attack and defeat the legitimate government.

.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 31, 2013)

You really ARE stupid.  Does it hurt to be THAT FUCKING STUPID?


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 31, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> You really ARE stupid.  Does it hurt to be THAT FUCKING STUPID?



FYI: you just insulted the word stupid

Just sayin


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 31, 2013)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



And freeze and starve millions of Japanese.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 1, 2013)

My mother lighting her first cigarette.

That is what I would prevent.


----------



## numan (Aug 1, 2013)

'
*"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."*
_----Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet_

*"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."*
_----Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman_

.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 1, 2013)

I wouldn't change anything, I watch too much Doctor Who. You change one major event and everything as you know it might change.


----------



## numan (Aug 1, 2013)

'
I think the people responsible for this crime were much worse than ravening, blood-thirsty monsters.

They were cold-hearted, pityless, inhuman practitioners of *Realpolitik* and scientific vivisection.

They had two bombs, one uranium and the other plutonium, and they were not going to pass up the opportunity to test the differential effects on two, undamaged, cities. The human cost to civilians was a matter of indifference to them.

There was also the bonus effect that it would scare Stalin and the Soviets.

I regard the inhumanity and evil of these American "leaders" to be no different than the worst of what Hitler and Stalin were capable.

The inability of many Americans to see these simple facts of history I regard as childishness, and indicates to me how unsuitable such people are to be leaders on the world stage.

.


----------



## Meister (Aug 1, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> I think the people responsible for this crime were much worse than ravening, blood-thirsty monsters.
> 
> They were cold-hearted, pityless, inhuman practitioners of *Realpolitik* and scientific vivisection.
> ...



It's a shame that the bombs were used, but the war was going to have to be waged in Japan. Aprox. a half of a million lives were going to be lost by the allies fighting on Japan soil.  I feel Truman had to do what he did, and glad they haven't been used since.
I know you see America as an evil in this world and never miss an opportunity because that is the chic thing to do these days.


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 1, 2013)

Getting involved in Afghanistan, I would have let the Russians cut the Afghans dicks off.


----------



## numan (Aug 1, 2013)

Meister said:


> It's a shame that the bombs were used, but the war was going to have to be waged in Japan. Aprox. a half of a million lives were going to be lost by the allies fighting on Japan soil.


*NONSENSE!!!*

The fact that you can continue to post such utter crap, after reading the evidence against it, simply shows that your mind is hermetically sealed against truth.

But then, you _are_ an American.

.


----------



## Meister (Aug 1, 2013)

numan said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > It's a shame that the bombs were used, but the war was going to have to be waged in Japan. Aprox. a half of a million lives were going to be lost by the allies fighting on Japan soil.
> ...



So we all should believe you because............you said, "nonsense"?
I see 

*The Bomb Saved American Lives*

Field Marshall Hisaichi Terauchi had ordered that all 100,000 Allied prisoners of war be executed if the Americans invaded.

there was real concern in Washington that the Japanese had made a determination to fight literally to the death. The Japanese saw suicide as an honorable alternative to surrender.   It was the same rationale for their use of the so-called banzai charges employed early in the war.

For American military commanders, determining the strength of Japanese forces and anticipating the level of civilian resistance were the keys to preparing casualty projections.  Numerous studies were conducted, with widely varying results. Some of the studies estimated American casualties for just the first 30 days of Operation Torch. Such a study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties.
Studies estimating total U.S. casualties were equally varied and no less grim.  One by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945 resulted in an estimate of 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities. Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief, estimated 268,000 casualties (35%).  Former President Herbert Hoover sent a memorandum to President Truman and Secretary of War Stimson, with &#8220;conservative&#8221; estimates of 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities. A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated the costs at 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities.
General Charles Willoughby, revised the estimate and predicted American casualties on Kyushu alone (Operation Torch) would be 500,000, or ten times what they had been on Okinawa.
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: Arguments in Support

By the way....looks like that Japanese lives were saved having used the bombs.  Civilian Japanese were trained to fight to the bitter end.

Numan, you are an American hating asshole.  
You could care less about American lives, so I expect no less from you.
But, son, you've had your ass handed to you.


----------



## westwall (Aug 1, 2013)

numan said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > It's a shame that the bombs were used, but the war was going to have to be waged in Japan. Aprox. a half of a million lives were going to be lost by the allies fighting on Japan soil.
> ...









And a damned good one.  You though, you are a disappointment to the human race...of that there is *NO* doubt.


----------



## Stashman (Aug 2, 2013)

*Without a doubt I would stop Adam and Eve from eating the apple.
 If that had not of happened I would not have to work, and get to run around naked with all the sexy ladies.​*


----------



## Pop23 (Aug 2, 2013)

Stashman said:


> *Without a doubt I would stop Adam and Eve from eating the apple.
> If that had not of happened I would not have to work, and get to run around naked with all the sexy ladies.​*



Then again, without the apple there are no naughty thoughts. 

No naughty thought, no slam - bam - thank ya ma'am.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 2, 2013)

Even the atomic bombs did not discourage the militeristic powers in Japan, who tried to stage a coup and isolate the emperor in the emperial palace before his surrender recording was released to the radio for the Japanese public.

My step-father was scheduled for deployment in the Japanese invasion, after Okinawa. He felt like this chnace of survival was maybe 75%-80%, or 50% chance that he would be a casuality of some sort. He was also aware that they were going to have to kill a LOT of civilians...even children, who were being trained to resist with spears.

But the fact is that on March 9, alone, just one of Curtis LeMay's incentiary raids killed over 100,000 Japanese, almost all of whom were civilians, and these raids continued for the rest of the war. The atomic bombs did not kill as many as LeMay's raids did, but they did put a swift end to the war. BTW, the Japanese were still on the offensive in China, until the Russians entered the war in the last few days. In those few days, the Russians killed 100,000 Japanese.

Finally, it would be a big mistake to ignore the threat of the kamakasi attacks of the invasion fleet. They were deadly, and devastating.

Last, but not least, America was war weary, and the money to continue to wage it was running out. The 7th bond drive was pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel. Truman knew that if word got out at any point that he had failed to use a weapon that could have ended the war, he would have been impeached.

We did what we had to do, and we saved the Japanese nation from themselves, by doing it.


----------



## alan1 (Aug 2, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> 
> _Adam eating the apple?
> The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
> ...


Lincolns prevention of the second declaration of independence.


----------



## Zona (Aug 2, 2013)

I would arm Trevon.  Tell him to shoot that fat fuck as soon as he went for his gun ...or better yet, have trevon shoot him and say "he reached for something".


----------



## Meister (Aug 2, 2013)

Zona said:


> I would arm Trevon.  Tell him to shoot that fat fuck as soon as he went for his gun ...or better yet, have trevon shoot him and say "he reached for something".



Seems like it's the black man always sticking up for the black man with you.
There wasn't enough evidence, but you just don't need no stinkin' evidence.


----------



## Pop23 (Aug 2, 2013)

Zona said:


> I would arm Trevon.  Tell him to shoot that fat fuck as soon as he went for his gun ...or better yet, have trevon shoot him and say "he reached for something".



Why not have him dial the police instead of his girlfriend?

Strange


----------



## Locke11_21 (Aug 2, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> 
> _Adam eating the apple?
> The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
> ...




If I could go back in time, it would be to perform an abortion on Moses Hess, the demented, satanic, diabolical bastard who raped the minds of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. A sick minded hateful turd whose political ideology has lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people, and brainwashed billions of others


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 2, 2013)

I would still have prevented the importation of black slaves into north America. I mentioned it early in the thread but got no discussion.


----------



## American_Jihad (Aug 3, 2013)

Get rid of Hagar before Ishmael is born...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Aug 3, 2013)

I would never have stepped in to that elevator in Dallas in the Fall of 1971, in which was standing the woman who would later become my wife.....


----------



## numan (Aug 3, 2013)

Meister said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Not at all -- you should pay attention and respect to the considered judgments of 

*----Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
----Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman
----leo Szilard
----Paul Nitze
----General Curtis LeMay
----Robert S. McNamara
----Dwight D. Eisenhower*

and many other  persons whose knowledge is much more worthy of consideration than the incompetent opinions of a dumb fuck like you.
.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 3, 2013)

Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.


----------



## JWBooth (Aug 3, 2013)

Philadelphia Convention of 1787


----------



## editec (Aug 3, 2013)

I've actually spent a few days thinking about this question:



> If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0714IbwC3HA]Let It Be - The Beatles - Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 3, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> I would still have prevented the importation of black slaves into north America. I mentioned it early in the thread but got no discussion.



I think that is because you have come up with one of the very few good ideas up to this point.  Not much to say really.


----------



## Meister (Aug 3, 2013)

numan said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


Just disregard everything else that was in my post, numan?  Typical 
There was no surrender on the table....period.  Not even after the first bomb was used,.....but there sure was one after the second one was used. But, don't let the facts slap you in the face.


----------



## Ropey (Aug 3, 2013)

Meister said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



And Japan did not (officially) surrender until September 2, 1945.

http://totallyhistory.com/surrender-of-japan/


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 3, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.



Now if we could just find a way to go back and keep the racists out.......... 

I'd go back and poke holes in Christoper Columbus's boats before they ever started out, keep all you war mongering, genocidal Europeans out of the western hemisphere.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 3, 2013)

Of course, everyone here realizes that the vast majority of these ideas would make us all cease to exist, right???


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 3, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Of course, everyone here realizes that the vast majority of these ideas would make us all cease to exist, right???



Part of me would still be here......... I'd be a half the man I am today.......... literally........


----------



## Bill Angel (Aug 3, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Of course, everyone here realizes that the vast majority of these ideas would make us all cease to exist, right???



If some altered historical event would have resulted in my parents never meeting and therefore in my not being born, that's OK with me. Their DNA would have been passed on in slightly different form through the offspring of the different partners that they likely would have selected. One's individual birth (or non-birth) has no effect on the gene pool.

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 3, 2013)

Bill Angel said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, everyone here realizes that the vast majority of these ideas would make us all cease to exist, right???
> ...



No it does not but it certainly has a MAJOR effect on ME!!!!  Who gives a whit about the gene pool.  I am looking out for nemero uno here 

LOL.

I like living.  It appears we have a lot of people here who do not care either way!  Scary.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 3, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Even the atomic bombs did not discourage the militeristic powers in Japan, who tried to stage a coup and isolate the emperor in the emperial palace before his surrender recording was released to the radio for the Japanese public.
> 
> My step-father was scheduled for deployment in the Japanese invasion, after Okinawa. He felt like this chnace of survival was maybe 75%-80%, or 50% chance that he would be a casuality of some sort. He was also aware that they were going to have to kill a LOT of civilians...even children, who were being trained to resist with spears.



Yes: and the invasion force would have lost its biggest advantage in late summer: the monsoons would have grounded the US aircraft!



> But the fact is that on March 9, alone, just one of Curtis LeMay's incendiary raids killed over 100,000 Japanese, almost all of whom were civilians, and these raids continued for the rest of the war. The atomic bombs did not kill as many as LeMay's raids did, but they did put a swift end to the war. BTW, the Japanese were still on the offensive in China, until the Russians entered the war in the last few days. In those few days, the Russians killed 100,000 Japanese.
> 
> Finally, it would be a big mistake to ignore the threat of the kamakasi attacks of the invasion fleet. They were deadly, and devastating.



True: the Japanese had stockpiled thousands upon thousands of suicide planes (including twin-engine bombers packed with 5000+lbs of explosives), rocket-bombs (2000+lb warheads...imagine what THAT would do hitting a troop ship!), suicide boats, and midget submarines (basically: manned torpedoes).  Also, the Japanese would have a big advantage: they would know EXACTLY where the invasion would be. (There are only a couple of places on Honshu where an invasion is practical.)



> Last, but not least, America was war weary, and the money to continue to wage it was running out. The 7th bond drive was pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel. Truman knew that if word got out at any point that he had failed to use a weapon that could have ended the war, he would have been impeached.



Yep, that too!



> We did what we had to do, and we saved the Japanese nation from themselves, by doing it.



Spot on.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 3, 2013)

Zona said:


> I would arm Trevon.  Tell him to shoot that fat fuck as soon as he went for his gun ...or better yet, have trevon shoot him and say "he reached for something".



Then Martin (if he connected) would go down for murder.  Note: *he could not legally carry a gun!*


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 3, 2013)

I'd smother Rosie Perez so that someone that could talk, would get that bit part in White men can't jump


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 3, 2013)

on a serious note

I'd prevent the spread of progressivism by keeping it's great leaders from achieving anything beyond digging the best ditches ever dug.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 3, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Of course, everyone here realizes that the vast majority of these ideas would make us all cease to exist, right???



Thank you Mr. Spock.


Are you that asshole that talks during time travel movies about how this and that can't happen?

If so, please find a mirror, yell at yourself to shut the fuck up, then smack yourself across the mouth.

b/c you know you had that coming.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2013)

I'm with Two Thumbs but in the spirit of the challenge of the OP, I would have stopped Teddy Roosevelt from turning the Constitution on its head and thereby giving modern liberalism/progressivism a foothold in this country.   Instead he would have strengthened the Constitution as the Founders intended it.


----------



## numan (Aug 3, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out
> ...


Now, that is an excellent suggestion -- and one I admit I hadn't thought of !!

Unfortunately, one would need to go on poking hole after hole in ship after ship, _ad infinitum_ -- there were just so many greedy, cruel, starving dog Europeans on the make by 1500. 

I am afraid it was just an unstoppable flood of ignorant barbarism exploding out of the western extremity of Eurasia.

,


----------



## numan (Aug 3, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Of course, everyone here realizes that the vast majority of these ideas would make us all cease to exist, right???


Thank you for mentioning that additional positive benefit resulting from these ideas.

.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 3, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I'm with Two Thumbs but in the spirit of the challenge of the OP, I would have stopped Teddy Roosevelt from turning the Constitution on its head and thereby giving modern liberalism/progressivism a foothold in this country.   Instead he would have strengthened the Constitution as the Founders intended it.



The progressive movement was a BI-partisan ground swell in direct response to what America had BECOME. It was no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people. America had become an aristocracy, a ruling hierarchy had all the power. 

So at least we are able to put to rest the bullshit you keep trying to stuff down our throats in every post. Your wish is consistent with right wing conservatism that is NOT classical liberalism.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 3, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> I'd smother Rosie Perez so that someone that could talk, would get that bit part in White men can't jump



Dude...the movie sucked, but Rosie Perez was (and is) HOT!

PS: See an audiologist.  Her accent (half Puerto Rico, half Brooklyn) was easy to understand.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 3, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Even the atomic bombs did not discourage the militeristic powers in Japan, who tried to stage a coup and isolate the emperor in the emperial palace before his surrender recording was released to the radio for the Japanese public.
> ...



One other seminal point needs to be made. America was not the only country working on an a-bomb and more devastating weapons.


----------



## Spoonman (Aug 3, 2013)

Locke11_21 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> ...



I thought it would have been bill buckners dropped ball in the 1986 world series


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2013)

It would be easy to say stop WWII, but if there had been no WWII would there still be a Nazi Germany, a Facist Italy, an Imperial Japan, a Soviet Empire, all the with the bomb and no reason not to use it?

It would be easy to say stop the bomb, but where.  With whom?  Once the idea, the information is out there, the technology has been developed, it can't be undone.  Much better that honorable men have it as well as evil ones.

We can't stop all progress.  We can't stop ideas. 

But we could have stopped Teddy Roosevelt from destroying the intent of the Constitution and stopped him from opening the door to the entitlement mentality, the ever larger and more bloated and more all encompassing government overrreach, the gradual return to servitude of political powers, the neocon power trip, and the slow but sure destruction of the America culture to the point we no longer even challenge a corrupt and ever more grasping and coercive government.


----------



## Pop23 (Aug 3, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Locke11_21 said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



He'll never live that down!


----------



## numan (Aug 3, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> One other seminal point needs to be made. America was not the only country working on an a-bomb and more devastating weapons.


Amidst all the lust for mass-murder, willful ignorance of history and incoherent thinking exhibited on this thread, what does that have to do with the criminal atom bombing of Japan? 

All other enemies were defeated, Japan was frantic to surrender, and no one else was even close to developing atom bombs.

.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 3, 2013)

numan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > One other seminal point needs to be made. America was not the only country working on an a-bomb and more devastating weapons.
> ...



If that is the event in history you would have stopped, fine.

Otherwise it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the OP.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 3, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> It would be easy to say stop WWII, but if there had been no WWII would there still be a Nazi Germany, a Facist Italy, an Imperial Japan, a Soviet Empire, all the with the bomb and no reason not to use it?
> 
> It would be easy to say stop the bomb, but where.  With whom?  Once the idea, the information is out there, the technology has been developed, it can't be undone.  Much better that honorable men have it as well as evil ones.
> 
> ...



You know FF, you need to stop having your head filled with shit from morons like Glenn Beck. Our founding fathers created an entity to address gross malfeasance of power by factions like the robber barons...

I will give you a hint...it is 10 letters and begins with a G.

The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 3, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > I'd smother Rosie Perez so that someone that could talk, would get that bit part in White men can't jump
> ...



I would never say she wasn't hot, but hollywood is full of hot chicks that don't sound like nails down a chalk board when speaking.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 3, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> It would be easy to say stop WWII, but if there had been no WWII would there still be a Nazi Germany, a Facist Italy, an Imperial Japan, a Soviet Empire, all the with the bomb and no reason not to use it?
> 
> It would be easy to say stop the bomb, but where.  With whom?  Once the idea, the information is out there, the technology has been developed, it can't be undone.  Much better that honorable men have it as well as evil ones.
> 
> ...


Which is why I answered the way I did.  As you may have noted, many people think that altering the past will alter us, and affect how we all are, some of us may not even be alive.

In addition, one cannot stop death, but My mother died of emphysema from smoking and if she had never smoked, she may have had an additional 10 to 15 years.  Which means she would be alive today and her not smoking would not affect anyone but Me, and definitely not affect My existence. 

The rest is really just a 'what if'.  Kind of like, what would you do if you won a 300 million dollar power-ball lottery....A fun exercise, but really, nothing more than a pipe dream.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 4, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, everyone here realizes that the vast majority of these ideas would make us all cease to exist, right???
> ...



Self-pretentious assholes do NOT look in mirrors much less smack themselves across the mouth


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It would be easy to say stop WWII, but if there had been no WWII would there still be a Nazi Germany, a Facist Italy, an Imperial Japan, a Soviet Empire, all the with the bomb and no reason not to use it?
> ...



You know Bfgrn, you need to stop assuming that everyone you speak to that does not agree with your assertions that their heads are filled with ditto heads and devoid of original or rational thought.  I dont know if FF listens to Beck but tbh, I highly doubt it and I do know that FFs thoughts are not made by others.  She is a rational thinking person.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Bump, b/c that post should get more pos reps.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 4, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.
> ...




Lol, why so the indigenous people could continue to live in caves, huts and hide tents and continue to make war on each other, sacrifice virgins and basically live like cavemen?


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 4, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



And just who the fuck are you again asshole, the referee? FF is semi rational at times, but you don't know where she gets her ideas. And she is certainly parroting the blather and bluster of moral-less MORONS like Glenn Beck, who is a menace to society.

To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.
Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 4, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...


Sounds like a plan.  When do we start?


----------



## Surfer (Aug 4, 2013)

Just get most of the minorities out. You won't need much security, police, neighborhood watch, locks etc. Your neighborhoods won't go bad. Crime will drop way off. Your schools and hospitals will be better. The billions we pay in welfare and trying to educate them can be spent on making the country better and defending us from Muslimes.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 4, 2013)

westwall said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, on a serious note, I would take back the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> ...



History also shows that Japan was on the point of a total collapse at that point in the war. The government was divided and there was a revolt formenting amongst the junior ranks of the army. The smart move would have been to blockade all of the ports and wait for the Japanese to come to the table. But hindsight is 20-20. If the bombs weren't used then they would have been used in Korea instead.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 4, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Just get most of the minorities out. You won't need much security, police, neighborhood watch, locks etc. Your neighborhoods won't go bad. Crime will drop way off. Your schools and hospitals will be better. The billions we pay in welfare and trying to educate them can be spent on making the country better and defending us from Muslimes.



Hahaha......  You were joking.... right?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> And just who the fuck are you again asshole, the referee? FF is semi rational at times, but you don't know where she gets her ideas. And she is certainly parroting the blather and bluster of moral-less MORONS like Glenn Beck, who is a menace to society.
> 
> To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.
> Theodore Roosevelt




And here you prove that you are the parrot.  I have yet to see an original thought from you.  All that you are doing is reflecting.  Just because you need marching orders does not mean the rest of us are like that.  The instant degradation to name-calling is enough to highlight that for the whole board.

It is also of worthy not that I never claimed to know where her ideas came from.  YOU are the psychic that made that claim.  Not the referee here, just pointing out your obvious hypocrisy and idiocy (not that it needs pointing out).  Continue to rage though; it bolsters your statements so well.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > And just who the fuck are you again asshole, the referee? FF is semi rational at times, but you don't know where she gets her ideas. And she is certainly parroting the blather and bluster of moral-less MORONS like Glenn Beck, who is a menace to society.
> ...



Thanks FA but I long ago stopped taking Bfgn seriously about anything.  When all he has is to accuse others for what he presumes they think, his opinion of why they think that way, what he wants to have informed them, but has yet to actually articulate  a concept that was not ad hominem or personally insulting, it just isn't worth the time to argue with him.  I sometimes give in and  give it a shot, but each time  it turns out to be just as tedious and boring as all the other times.  Which is why I am ignoring him this time.

The topic itself is an interesting one to me.  And I am encouraged that it is also interesting to one or two others.  Sometimes I think there might be hope for us after all.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It would be easy to say stop WWII, but if there had been no WWII would there still be a Nazi Germany, a Facist Italy, an Imperial Japan, a Soviet Empire, all the with the bomb and no reason not to use it?
> ...



The exercise itself is of course rhetorical, but it really is a useful exercise to teach or analyze cause and effect.  And we won't know what difference might have been made or what lives might have been changed had your mom (or mine who also succumbed too early most likely as a result of smoking) lived that extra 10 or 15 years?   We can't even really speculate on that.

The movie "It's a Wonderful Life", is about George Bailey's ordinary life and the difference it would have made had he not ever lived.  He had no idea.  I doubt any of us either know what difference we may have made in our lifetime.

But an event in history.  What diference did it make whether we bombed Japan or just crippled them and then let them collapse in on themselves as the Soviet Empire did?   How long would it have taken?  Would they now be one of our strongest allies and trading partners?  Or still a bitter enemy?  Forcing them into unconditional surrender and requiring them to form a peaceful government was a very good thng for Japan over the long haul.  I doubt even the Japanese, at least the honest and thoughtful ones, would argue with that.

WWII in itself made the world a better place for awhile by beating back the most ambitious and ruthless merchants of war and imperialism.   It made friends of a lot of enemies.  But oh my, the cost was so high.

But bringing it all closer to home, to single out one event I would change, I would still have Teddy Roosevelt honor and strengthen the Constitution that the Founders gave us.   I don't really care WHY he did what he did.  He probably had the best of intentions.  He was one of the most popular presidents ever, but the people had no way to look ahead 100 years to see the legacy that he was creating.  A legacy that almost certainly would have horrified him and them.   That legacy has reaped whirlwinds of negative consequences  in recent decades, and the current Administration uses many of the same tactics and is even doubling down on them.


----------



## Pop23 (Aug 4, 2013)

There is really only real answer to the question. Every other answer is nonsense

The day Buddy Holly's plane crashed

End of story


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 4, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > And just who the fuck are you again asshole, the referee? FF is semi rational at times, but you don't know where she gets her ideas. And she is certainly parroting the blather and bluster of moral-less MORONS like Glenn Beck, who is a menace to society.
> ...



It ironic you use words like 'hypocrisy', 'idiocy' and 'original thought'. I went back and read all your posts on this thread...'original thought'...ZERO. Plenty of 'degradation' of others, plenty of pontificating and plenty of 'refereeing'


----------



## Surfer (Aug 4, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> > Just get most of the minorities out. You won't need much security, police, neighborhood watch, locks etc. Your neighborhoods won't go bad. Crime will drop way off. Your schools and hospitals will be better. The billions we pay in welfare and trying to educate them can be spent on making the country better and defending us from Muslimes.
> ...



No. All true.


----------



## Pop23 (Aug 4, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



Minorities would still have come, but not as slaves. That solves a multitude of problems.

But Buddy Holly's death is still the one day that should never have happened.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



We are a nation of immigrants.  Chances are 99.9% of us are descended from immigrants or were immigrants ourselves.  But most of us are descended from immigrants who arrived here with little or nothing and expected or hoped for nothing other than the opportunity to forge out a piece of the American dream for themselves.  And the unique concept that is America provided them the ability to do that.

The difference now is that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are now too often additional strain on an overburdened welfare system and entitlement mentality that keeps far more people poor than those it helps achieve a piece of the American dream.  It leaches the lifeblood from the economy and potential.

And THAT is a legacy invented and put into motion by the Teddy Roosevelt administration, a legacy he never saw coming.  And that is why THAT is what I would choose to change if I could.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 4, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



Sure thing there Sparky......  What planet did you say you lived on?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Ironic post of the week.

considering you get your talking points from the lowest of lifes on msn


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



He's from one of the moon of Uranus.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 4, 2013)

I wouldn't change anything.

I used to think I would change the day my Dad was killed but then I most likely wouldn't have the life I have now.  I would not have met my wife and I can't imagine my life without her now.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 4, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



MLB Network is considered msn? Because that is all that is on my TV 24/7...


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



you watch re-runs of baseball in the off season.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



I understand your ideological 'theory', but it is manufactured bullshit. The FACTS don't support your theory. 

If there is a citizenry on this planet that does NOT have an entitlement mentality, it is the American people. American workers take less vacation time than any other people. American workers take pride in the quality of their work and their work ethic. 

What Romney said during the campaign is a gross insult and reveals a dangerous mindset. He reeks of contempt for middle class working people and the poor.

Who are the 47%?

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households.  People who are neither elderly nor disabled  and do not live in a working household  received only 9 percent of the benefits. 

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession. Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families. ref ref

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America." 
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## hjmick (Aug 4, 2013)

> If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?




You joining USMB...


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

hjmick said:


> > If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 off topic

He said historic.

Do try to keep up, mmkay


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Aug 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



Since you responded to his thread, you do realize that Surfer was talking about MINORITIES, not IMMIGRANTS, right?  They're not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> I wouldn't change anything.
> 
> I used to think I would change the day my Dad was killed but then I most likely wouldn't have the life I have now.  I would not have met my wife and I can't imagine my life without her now.



Perhaps that is why we are not given the omniscience to know the consequences of what we might change.

I do a lot of public speaking and like to use movie themes and concepts and/or characters to illustrate the point.  Those with the interest and ability to understand generally get the point that way without insisting on making it too literal.

But one provocative theme was in the movie "Final Countdown."  The concept was the modern aircraft carrier Nimitz going through a time warp and emerging December 6, 1941, in a position to intercept the approaching Japanese fleet.

Once they figured out the situation, the debate between the officers and one civilian observor on board, was provocative.   There was enough fire power aboard the Nimitz to destroy the entire Japanese strike force and fleet, but unable to communicate with Washington, and a President who had been dead for decades, did they unilaterally take action to prevent an event that hadn't happened yet and only they knew was about to happen?   Unilaterally start a war that hadn't started yet?   Communication with other authorities was futile because the Nimitz didn't exist in 1941 and nobody would believe them.   But they were officers sworn to do their duty against all enemies of the USA, foreign and domestic.

But what would that do to the course of history beyond this date?   The Japanese people who wouldn't live.  The people at Pearl Harbor who would?

As one of the characters pondered he said he doubted changing history would be so easy.

What would any of us do in that situation?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



Foxy tends to assume people aren't complete assholes.

even when it's a hobby for them to act like they are getting paid to be assholes.

I think it's a good trait, kinda of like a counter to me that thinks everyone is an asshole, that's pretending to be nice.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Aug 4, 2013)

A good book to read that addresses this very concept of changing history is Stephen King's "11/22/63."  Has anyone read it?  It is about a portal through which a guy travels and goes back into the past to try and prevent the assassination of JFK.

He finds that:  "the "obdurate" past seems to resist change, throwing up obstacles to prevent them from taking place; Al and Jake conclude this resistance is proportional to the historical effects of the changes."

Intriguing book, beautifully researched.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't change anything.
> ...



I recall watching "Final Countdown." That was a great movie premise. I love that kind of premise.

pause...

Unbelievable...it is 3:44 EST here. Just as I was typing I heard an airplane, and it had the unmistakable drone of radial engines. I raced outside to see what it was.

It was a B-29, the plane that dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

There is only one operational B-29 in the whole world...FiFi 

Spooky! And AWESOME!!!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



One of my failings is a compulsion to use the absurd as a teaching moment.  I know I sometimes appear condescending and/or patronizing or an insufferable boor when I do that, but alas. . . .it is ingrained in my DNA.  It is based on a heartfelt conviction that our  history should inform us, not condemn us, and not excuse us from being better than we were.

So Surfer's intent wasn't really all that important in this situation.  He just provided a springboard for a thoughtful discussion of what might have been.

But thanks to Two Thumbs for the compliment.  Perhaps the nicest one I've had in a awhile.  And I don't want to wreck his reputation or anythng, but I've observed a few posts of his that fell short of 'ass-hole-ism.'


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



 or it didn't happen


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 4, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> 
> _Adam eating the apple?
> The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
> ...



I would go back to 1860 and assassinate Lincoln before he got elected.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Aug 4, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.



Hey, you people who give Zona a hard time.  Do you see this?  Do you understand that there are people who think like THIS?

So when people say that blacks should shut up about the slavery and the lynchings and the discrimination because the blacks of today never experienced any of that...

I SAY BULLSHIT!

Because there are people like THIS everywhere, and especially apparent on this board.  And black people of today know that.  I cannot even begin to imagine the concept of someone HATING me just because I am white.  But black people, even black people today, know what that's like.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Aug 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yeah, well I think to just ignore blatant racism like that is wrong.  What  he said was pretty crystal clear.  He was talking about MINORITIES, not IMMIGRANTS.

I think you totally missed the real "teaching moment." 

See my signature.


----------



## PixieStix (Aug 4, 2013)

January 22 1973, is a day that will live in infamy. 

If I could change a historical event, it would definitely be that


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.
> ...



Teaching moment time. . . .also avoiding having the thread sidetracked into a separate issue here. . . .

What IF that first boatload of slaves had been turned back?   Would the ship's captain have just transported them to Canada or Mexico, both still slave owning nations at that time?  Or failing to find a buyer, would he just have drowned them or otherwise disposed of them?   The life in store for most of those slaves brought to this country was cruel, miserable, unjustifiable.   But what if we had prevented it?

The descendants of those slaves would have a huge chance to live in some of the most impoverished nations in the world today, some would be terrorized, tortured, maimed, and threatened by brutal warlords, some would never known anything more than a subsistance state of life.   As indefensible and unconscionable as slavery was, most black people in this country who descended from those slaves enjoy a much higher quality of life than they would if somebody hadn't dragged their ancestors over here.

But what if we had made ourselves a white supremacist nation and kept all black people out?

No George Washington Carver.
No Alex Haley.
No Louis Armstrong or Bill Cosby or Denzel Washington or any of the great writers, artists, athletes, and performers who have enriched our lives.  No Thurgood Marshall, no Clarence Thomas, no great minds and teachers such as Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, William Raspberry et al.

We would have been the poorer for it.  We don't have poor black people, violent black people, corrupt black people because the people are black.  We have such things because of a history and legacy and mindset that encourages people to be poor, to be violent, to be corrupt, to hate.   And it didn't happen because of slavery.  That war was fought and won.   It happened because of a shift in concept of our Constitution and what we as a nation were intended to be.  And that happened early in the 20th Century.

And that I would very much like to go back and change.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Update...I was wrong, it was not the B-29 FiFi, it was The Memphis Belle, a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. When I went outside to see it, the plane was almost out of sight heading south east. 

FiFi is in Oshkosh, Wi, over 700 miles from my house. My eyesight isn't that good...LOL


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2013)

PixieStix said:


> January 22 1973, is a day that will live in infamy.
> 
> If I could change a historical event, it would definitely be that



Would you?   Roe v Wade provided a practical solution for a difficult situation in America.  Again had we stayed with the original intent, it would have left abortion a matter of conscience between the patient and doctor in the first trimester.   The State could ban all abortion other than the most serious situations in the second tri-mester, and a late term abortion would require a court order unless the life of the mother was at stake.  There would be no Planned Parenthood or other abortion mills who figured out how to use the progressive meme to alter and corrupt the original intent.

If we could undo Teddy Roosevelt's legacy, perhaps we wouldn't have a culture in which abortion was acceptable as a matter of convenience or birth control.


----------



## PixieStix (Aug 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > January 22 1973, is a day that will live in infamy.
> ...



Indeed I would


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.
> ...



So, you're saying slavery was a good thing?


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 4, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.



Much slavery in the colonies was indentured whites who were working their passage to the new world.  African slaves were not used extensively until Bacon's Rebellion.  And there was a reason for it.  Slavery was here before blacks.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.
> ...



Then I should get reparations because my Irish ancestors were slaves~!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



I don't think that was his intent, Ernie.  I think his intent was to empathise with black people living today.

But no, slavery was a terrible thing as it existed in America.  There is no way any sane person can justify it or elevate to anything acceptable.

And nevertheless, the black Americans who descended from those slaves are almost all much much better off than they would be if their ancestors had been left in Africa.  And I am going to guess that very few, if any, would accept an offer to relinquish their American citizenship along with free passage to move to the lands of their ancestors.

Knowing that they would not now be Americans but would have an excellent chance to be among the poorest of Africans, would THEY change history and eliminate those slave ships?   I wonder.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.
> ...



Well ya dumbass, you better face the fact that there are millions of ******* in this nation that hate you JUST because you're white, starting with the pos president, his atty. general and the average ****** drinking a 40oz on the corner looking to jack up and roib a white boy.  Nothing dumber in this world than a white, guilt filled, dumbass who sighs, "Can't we all just along", while some boofer is jacking his car at gun point.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 4, 2013)

There are times I wish I had it in me to neg rep.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Jamestown Va. Circa 1619.  I would have turned back the first boatload of 20 or so Africans that where brought here to be sold into slavery and made the Southerners pick their own damn cotton.  Whole lot better, more prosperous and safer nation if we could go back and find a way to keep the negroes out.
> ...


I know what it's like to be hated for being white.

how young are you?

Did you miss the hate put upon George Zimm?  he got hate b/c racist thought he was white.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...


Looking at it from a liberal point of view

yes it was

They had cloths that got replaced, medical care, plenty of food, a roof, etc.

All things they wouldn't have had, if they were not taken away.

oh the irony


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



wow dood, that's some good hate mongering.

Bet you like to watch interracial porn where the white chick is getting meat steaked by a yummy black man.

or do you surf the gay interracial section?  yeeaa, I bet you do.


----------



## Sunshine (Aug 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Kooshdakhaa said:
> ...



Well I had a black student once who said she thought slavery was 'unfortunate', but that she is glad she lives in the US and wouldn't live anywhere else on earth.  That would be one alternative way to look at it.  The other is that the DNA wouldn't have lined up for people who exist today to exist, and for others in history to have existed, and I would have hated to miss out on peanut butter. My student was a good one, she wasn't angry or vengeful like our blacks in residence.  And she accepted that her life was and was better because of the history of this country.  I think she is likely making someone an excellent nurse about now.


----------



## Pop23 (Aug 4, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



EAA?

Been there several times

Too much fun


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > January 22 1973, is a day that will live in infamy.
> ...



There is no level you won't stoop to is there FF? Now you are making the moron Beck sound moderate. I also wish I had it in me to initiate a neg rep. THIS post deserves it.


----------



## Surfer (Aug 4, 2013)

The bottom line is that most minorities and immigrants contribute nothing of value to this country. They are terrorists, welfare hags, leeches, moochers, parasites, lazy, diseased, stupid, broke and useless. They can't even do the farm work properly because they don't wash their hands and make us all sick. No one has the balls to say all this is true. They are too PC. I don't care what color anyone is as long as they behave but most minorities don't. They are mostly godless slugs.


----------



## numan (Aug 4, 2013)

Surfer said:


> The bottom line is that most minorities and immigrants contribute nothing of value to this country.


Uh...hate to break it to you...but in California *YOU* are now the minority!! · · 

.


----------



## Surfer (Aug 4, 2013)

numan said:


> hate to break it to you...but in California YOU are now the minority



Not true. CA is still 78% white despite being infested by minority trash.


----------



## numan (Aug 4, 2013)

' 
*Oh, yeah?* · · 

*Demographics of California*



> Non-Hispanic whites decreased from about 76.3 - 78 % of the state's population in 1970 to 39.7% in 2011....
> 
> No single racial or ethnic group forms a majority of California's population....
> 
> ...


Yet again, California carries the torch of civilization and progress that will eventually bring light to the dark and backward regions of the rest of the USA!! · · 

Guess you had better start learning Spanish or Chinese -- preferably, both !!

Try it -- you'll  like it !! 
They are both beautiful languages, and they have great literary traditions!

And if you still remain a grumpy puss about it, your children and grandchildren will love it -- and they will be more civilized and cultured (though I suppose that doesn't mean much to _you_).

.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 4, 2013)

Surfer said:


> The bottom line is that most minorities and immigrants contribute nothing of value to this country. They are terrorists, welfare hags, leeches, moochers, parasites, lazy, diseased, stupid, broke and useless. They can't even do the farm work properly because they don't wash their hands and make us all sick. No one has the balls to say all this is true. They are too PC. I don't care what color anyone is as long as they behave but most minorities don't. They are mostly godless slugs.



Unlike Foxy, I neg racist fuckholes.

oh and

your ancestors aren't from here. You just talked shit about your granny


----------



## Duped (Aug 4, 2013)

Stop Eve from eating from the forbidden tree!


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 4, 2013)

I'd have given BH Obama Sr. free condoms for life.


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 5, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> 
> _Adam eating the apple?
> The Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
> ...



Are U seriuz? 

I had to type that just once in my life

Ok it's a toss up. Katrina and the Waves "I'm walking on sunshine"  or "99 luft balloons" by Neenna.

Both needed to be stopped before they recorded those tunes.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 5, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Kooshdakhaa said:
> ...



Don't watch any porn scrote, but interesting that you seem to be an expert on the various types of porn available and last I checked, speaking the truth isn't hate..............well except to negroes and white guilt filled liberal jackasses.  Which are you?


----------



## Surfer (Aug 5, 2013)

numan said:


> Guess you had better start learning Spanish



Yeah, when Hell freezes over. This is America. Speak English or get the Hell OUT!



Two Thumbs said:


> ...your ancestors aren't from here



7th-generation white American. You know NOTHING about my ancestors. Don't pretend you do. And stick your 2 thumbs back up your @ss.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Aug 5, 2013)

Surfer said:


> The bottom line is that most minorities and immigrants contribute nothing of value to this country. They are terrorists, welfare hags, leeches, moochers, parasites, lazy, diseased, stupid, broke and useless. They can't even do the farm work properly because they don't wash their hands and make us all sick. No one has the balls to say all this is true. They are too PC. I don't care what color anyone is as long as they behave but most minorities don't. They are mostly godless slugs.



So? Where were your ancestors from?


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Aug 5, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



No, I'm saying that wishing we could have kept the  "negroes" out of our country is a bad thing.

And I think you know that's what I meant, Ernie.


----------



## Surfer (Aug 5, 2013)

Wolfsister77 said:


> So? Where were your ancestors from?



Jesus


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 5, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...


Damn, I'm getting the urge to don black robes and burn a Budweiser truck on your front lawn........


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 6, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...




Don't drink sweetness, so wouldn't hurt my feelings none if you burned 100 Budweiser trucks, just a bit of FYI though, my "front law" is about 3/4's of a mile off county road and my dogs don't like strangers any more than I do.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 6, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Kooshdakhaa said:
> ...



How could he.  He never said that he wanted to keep negroes out.  He said he wanted to keep racial slavery out.

Is that hard to understand?


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 6, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...


 
You obviously missed the point.  Why am I not surprised.
Oh and the sweetness comment.... I had no idea.  Are you going to come out of the closet?  We also found the cutest outfit for you, it matches your personality to a T.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 7, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



Do you mean the point that you're a douche?  No I got that just fine.  As for coming out?, no, sweetness is just the polite word I use when addressing a bitch, sweetness.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 7, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



I'm the douche?  You haven't looked in a mirror for a while, have you?  You can't hide it now, you're out.  What's your prison name?  Heidi?  Gretchen?  I betcha you just love it when the black boys bend you over and have their way with you.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 7, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...




Lol, I love the way you kids talk all big and bad while you're sitting in your parents basement hiding behind your mommy's computer screen.  Do yourself a favor douche, stick to talking tough from behind the screen or I see a lot of ass whippings in your future puss.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Lol, I love the way you kids talk all big and bad while you're sitting in your parents basement hiding behind your mommy's computer screen.  Do yourself a favor douche, stick to talking tough from behind the screen or I see a lot of ass whippings in your future puss.


I'm at the 49ner Tavern in Long Beach, Ca every Friday for happy hour between 4:30pm-5:30pm 
if you care to say something to me face-to-face.

I'll even go one better than that!







The rest is on you, man.  I walk my talk, do you walk yours?


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 7, 2013)

Barack Obama senior meeting Stanley Ann Dunham.

It would have saved us from dealing with the prick today.


----------



## Meister (Aug 7, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, I love the way you kids talk all big and bad while you're sitting in your parents basement hiding behind your mommy's computer screen.  Do yourself a favor douche, stick to talking tough from behind the screen or I see a lot of ass whippings in your future puss.
> ...



Nothing like internet tough talk on a political messageboard.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 7, 2013)

Meister said:


> Nothing like internet tough talk on a political messageboard.


I wasn't talking tough, I was just inviting the guy to have a beer with me.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 7, 2013)

*If you could go back in time and stop one historical event, what would it be? *

Running Gunny off of USMB.  This place was a lot more fun when he was in charge.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, I love the way you kids talk all big and bad while you're sitting in your parents basement hiding behind your mommy's computer screen.  Do yourself a favor douche, stick to talking tough from behind the screen or I see a lot of ass whippings in your future puss.
> ...


Lemme guess, you're the one in the blue shirt sitting between Weird Al Yankovich and Owen Wilson, right?


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 7, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



Talk about internet tough guys.  By the way my last job was Law Enforcement, I've had criminal morons like you try to kick my ass, none succeeded.  One of my jobs was self defense training, want a lesson?


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 8, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...




I doubt you were in law enforcement as most PD's require you to pass basic intelligence tests, which I can see from your posts you could never do.  As for the rest of your nonsense, lol, that's what it is, nonsense.  I live in Southern Md.  My gym has a ring.  Care to give me a lesson PM me.  Glad to oblige.  You'll be ok.  Hospital less than 10 miles from the gym.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 8, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Lemme guess, you're the one in the blue shirt sitting between Weird Al Yankovich and Owen Wilson, right?


That was a 10 year old kid doing tequilla shots every time a fight broke out on Jerry Springer.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 8, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...


You keep telling yourself that Nancy, I love the way you scum bag neo-Nazis/KKKers actually think you have some form of working cognition.  Your desire for violence proves just the opposite.  It doesn't matter anyway, I live out west but if I was still in Northern VA I might have taken you up on that.
Oh and Southern Maryland?  That explains a lot.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 8, 2013)

Oh and by the way Nancy, given that most scum like you tend to fund their hate with illegal endeavors, I'd be willing to bet you're as dirty as they come.  Yup, I might pursue that hunch.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 8, 2013)

If I could go back in time with an outline of today's problems, I'd go back to about 1910 and explain to the States that if they passed the 17th Amendment rather than remedy the criminality that taking advantage of it required, I'd plead with them not to crater to doing it with all my heart and soul's passion, as it has changed America from being a republic to being a defacto democracy without the majority of Senators being decent, hard-nosed people to stop stupidity in its tracks, keeping America on the good side of life.

Passing it undermined the founder's balance to keeping unity. Its passage was done because it was deemed the easy way out of depraved human behaviors by a minority of Senators. The right thing to have done would have been to punish the abusers in some way that would deprive them of holding any public office for life. That's why we have people in Congress who have been convicted of high crimes while in office getting re-elected based on their criminality and ease of control by negative forces with a lot of money to re-elect an incorrigible.

Without decent men and/or women of sterling moral character representing their state, the nation has suffered to become what it is now--a governing body of extremists trying to beat back other extremists, with a minority of nice guys doing the harder and harder job of managing 325,000,000 Americans in a moral manner.

The only way that may happen is if rigidly honorable people win militarily against very deleterious entities cramming their lies down America's craw.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> If I could go back in time with an outline of today's problems, I'd go back to about 1910 and explain to the States that if they passed the 17th Amendment rather than remedy the criminality that taking advantage of it required, I'd plead with them not to crater to doing it with all my heart and soul's passion, as it has changed America from being a republic to being a defacto democracy without the majority of Senators being decent, hard-nosed people to stop stupidity in its tracks, keeping America on the good side of life.
> 
> Passing it undermined the founder's balance to keeping unity. Its passage was done because it was deemed the easy way out of depraved human behaviors by a minority of Senators. The right thing to have done would have been to punish the abusers in some way that would deprive them of holding any public office for life. That's why we have people in Congress who have been convicted of high crimes while in office getting re-elected based on their criminality and ease of control by negative forces with a lot of money to re-elect an incorrigible.
> 
> ...



Ineresting concept Becki, but I don't know if the 17th Amendment would make any difference once the door was open for those in government to benefit themselves at our expense.  It is an allure that has corrupted many otherwise decent men and women.

I honestly think it would require a Constitutional Amendment now that would prevent those in government, whether elected, appointed, or employed, from enacting ANY law, policy, or regulation that would benefit themselves or any person, group, demographic, or entity, that did not benefit all regardless of politics or socioeconomic situation.

In other words, we have to take away their ability to increase their personal power, influence, authority, and/or personal fortunes at our expense, or allow them to exempt themselves from the consequences of the laws and regulation they impose on the rest of us. 

That one thing would restore the Founders' concept that Teddy Roosevelt and those who have followed him destroyed, and we would again have true public servants going to Washington instead of the career politicians and bureaucrats that we now have.   Even some of the strongest and most well intentioned are too quickly corrupted and ruined by the current system.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 8, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...




Here's the facts sweetness  I am not a Neo-Nazi nor a Klucker.  I am family man, a land owner and small business owner, a PT Pastor, a Sunday School teacher and a former Marine.  I am also a believer in facts and history, and my opinions are based on my personal experiences, my personal observations and my study of the historical facts and current events regarding the races.  Now on to living in Southern Maryland explaining a lot.  What exactly would that be explaining sweetness?  See I am a transplant here and have lived here for a short time.  I was born and raised on E. 26th St. in NYC NY in the same hospital my Father was born in.  Left NYC in 81 for Parris Island and after serving went back and lived there until I moved South, Chester Va., in 95 and then onto Southern Md. in 2000.  So exactly what does me living in Southern Md. for these past 13yrs explain sweetness?   See, you bloviate on and on about things you're clueless about.  You pull stuff out of you rear end and call them facts.  Run along son, you speak like a man with a paper ass.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 8, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> Oh and by the way Nancy, given that most scum like you tend to fund their hate with illegal endeavors, I'd be willing to bet you're as dirty as they come.  Yup, I might pursue that hunch.




You'd spend your time better pursuing your brain dumbass.  It's obvious from your posts that it abandoned you a long, long, long time ago.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 8, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



You're a pastor?  Sure thing there Nancy, unless you're calling your devil worshiping pastoring.  I see that being a Marine didn't help you either, too bad.  Dishonorable discharge?  
As for bloviating you have that down pat as your cherry picking of historical fact and responses to me shows.  
NYC?  Even worse...... 
Not neo or KKK.....  Okay, so National Alliance it is.  Good to know.
I guess one could describe pimping and drug dealing as a small business.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 8, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and by the way Nancy, given that most scum like you tend to fund their hate with illegal endeavors, I'd be willing to bet you're as dirty as they come.  Yup, I might pursue that hunch.
> ...



Boy do you know how to project!!


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2013)

I would love to be a fly on the wall in that Sunday School class.  I wonder. . . .Westboro Baptist?. . . .naw, it couldn't be.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 8, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



Well sweetness, the fact that I called myself a former Marine and not an ex-Marine it would be obvious to anyone who had any knowledge on the subject that I was honorably discharged, as an NCO as a matter of fact.  Now you claim I cherry pick historical fact.  Well sweetness, I stated facts, the onus is now on you to disprove the facts I gave or to give facts that would show mine to be wrong, you cannot do this of course or you already would have, so once again I say you pull crap from your rear end.  Not even sure what the National Alliance was had to look it up, but I find it funny that YOU seem to be up on all the psycho groups out there right down to having pics on your computer of your favorites in drag.  Now we get to pimping and dope dealing, lol.  You're on dangerous ground here punk.  Slander and libel come to mind.  Might be a good idea to not let your eagle mouth write checks your little sparrow ass can't cash.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I would love to be a fly on the wall in that Sunday School class.  I wonder. . . .Westboro Baptist?. . . .naw, it couldn't be.





Nope, regular ole Southern Baptist church.  I'd be more than happy to educate you on any topic involving Christianity, the Lord, or the history of the Christian faith one on one no need to be a fly on the wall.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 8, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to be a fly on the wall in that Sunday School class.  I wonder. . . .Westboro Baptist?. . . .naw, it couldn't be.
> ...



I'm sure you could.  And though you are no different than a lot of our USMBers and probably an okay guy, the way you express yourself to others isn't exactly what I look for in a church.  I'll stick to my own version of Christianity, but thanks for the invitation.  Southern Baptists in southern Maryland sure are different than the Southern Baptists around here.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 8, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



Yo, numb nuts, it's a message board, you know opinions.  Good luck with a law suit, even if some lawyer is dumb enough or desperate enough to take it any judge would toss it out when it is submitted. 
I've met posers who claim to be "former Marines", notice I capitalized Marines, I did that for a reason, back in the 70s my Marines called me Doc. and we didn't tolerate racist pukes. 
You obviously don't know how debate works, I don't have to prove your "facts", you do. 
As for being up on nut job groups, already told you I was in Law Enforcement. 
But everything you post shows that our wittle wasist is but hurt, but then you should be used to that.   
MD does allow same sex marriage so I guess calling yourself a family man is correct. 

I'll give you one thing, you are entertaining........


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 8, 2013)

~Wondering who will get it~

The birth of Lucy....


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 9, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> If I could go back in time with an outline of today's problems, I'd go back to about 1910 and explain to the States that if they passed the 17th Amendment rather than remedy the criminality that taking advantage of it required, I'd plead with them not to crater to doing it with all my heart and soul's passion, as it has changed America from being a republic to being a defacto democracy without the majority of Senators being decent, hard-nosed people to stop stupidity in its tracks, keeping America on the good side of life.
> 
> Passing it undermined the founder's balance to keeping unity. Its passage was done because it was deemed the easy way out of depraved human behaviors by a minority of Senators. The right thing to have done would have been to punish the abusers in some way that would deprive them of holding any public office for life. That's why we have people in Congress who have been convicted of high crimes while in office getting re-elected based on their criminality and ease of control by negative forces with a lot of money to re-elect an incorrigible.
> 
> ...



Yea, we really don't want We, the People to have much say in who our representatives are. It is better left to government pols, party bosses and bureaucrats.

I love how easy it is to exposes how much you right wing authoritarians hate We, the people and are always trying to create some form of an aristocracy with the least amount of people having a say. It IS the very core of conservatism.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 9, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



Well if you really were a Corpsman I thank you for that.  At least it would show you were not a total waste of air all your life.  As for proving my facts, I did, now the onus is on you to disprove them or to provide facts to support your position, are YOU familiar with how a debate works?  As for your contention that you were "in" Law Enforcement and therefore up on nut job groups, I find that quite laughable.  See I am from a family of Police Officers.  I have family, my dad and uncles, and family member from my wife's side, that are active or retired from Departments in many different jurisdictions, from the NYPD, to The Capitol Police, to the Petersburg Va. PD, to Md.s PG County PD and have been surrounded by them all my life, and never have I heard any discussions from them about these types of groups you have so much knowledge on.  See they don't really interact with those types, they interact with criminals, no need nor time to study up on these types of nut job groups.  Your contention that you're "in" Law Enforcement and then go on to show such a intense knowledge of these groups makes me think you might have been in Corrections not Law Enforcement.  Is that what it is sweetness?  You a jail/prison guard at one time?  Lol, that's not Law Enforcement dude, that's being a guard.  I can understand you wanting people to think you were a cop and not just a guard though.  What's the matter dude?  Couldn't pass the tests to become a real Police Officer?


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Well I don't know where "around here" is, but I've preached Revivals, or as a guest speaker in Southern Baptist Churches from Smyrna TN to Newark and Jersey City NJ and most states in-between.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

Id have the Gnostic Christians come out the winners after the Fall of Rome


----------



## Toro (Aug 9, 2013)

I'd have the Minnesota Vikings win the last 45 Super Bowls.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 9, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...


Uuummmmm, Federal Law Enforcement.  Ask the Capital PD one, he should know about these groups, if he's not just a beat cop.  But keep trying to justify your impression of me, it's rather funny to watch.  And no, ya didn't prove your facts, you simply threw then out in hopes they'd stick with some gullible, angry fool who's looking to blame someone else for his problems.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 9, 2013)

travel back to 1872 

prevent the birth of carl magee

for obvious reasons


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 9, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > If I could go back in time with an outline of today's problems, I'd go back to about 1910 and explain to the States that if they passed the 17th Amendment rather than remedy the criminality that taking advantage of it required, I'd plead with them not to crater to doing it with all my heart and soul's passion, as it has changed America from being a republic to being a defacto democracy without the majority of Senators being decent, hard-nosed people to stop stupidity in its tracks, keeping America on the good side of life.
> ...


We've always had conservatives and liberals in American Bgfrn. The only thing incompatible with conservatives is Marxism. And it is poison to the republic and its advocates should be taught a lesson not to mess with free people.


----------



## numan (Aug 9, 2013)

'
One can certainly tell the people who were brainwashed in the 50s and 60s, and whose brains have been petrified ever since then.

They have the delusion that "Marxism" is still an important factor in the modern world.

.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> One can certainly tell the people who were brainwashed in the 50s and 60s, and whose brains have been petrified ever since then.
> 
> They have the delusion that "Marxism" is still an important factor in the modern world.
> ...


Seems to be an important factor to our president, who has been forcing it on us for 5 years now.


----------



## Toro (Aug 9, 2013)

I'd go back in time and film Obama being born in Kenya, and stop his parents from planting false birth notices in the Honolulu newspaper.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 9, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Yea, and the most liberal men of their day created this nation, and conservatives in 1776 were called redcoats, lobsterbacks, tories and new Canadians.

I've been a liberal for over 6 decades, and I have yet to read ONE word of Marx. You right wing turds are so far to the right you have lost any decency or humanism. You are the modern day Pharisees.


----------



## jtpr312 (Aug 9, 2013)

Ringel05 said:


> jtpr312 said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



Done dude.  You have failed to use facts to support your position and you have failed to provide any sources to disprove my facts.


----------



## Ringel05 (Aug 10, 2013)

jtpr312 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > jtpr312 said:
> ...



I don't argue with fools, looker-ons can't tell the difference so there is no need to refute that which has already been dis-proven by legitimate science.  I will however continue to fuck with ignorant racist scumbags at my heart's content.  Aren't you lucky.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 You're a liberal and don't know what a conservative hates? Conservatives hated the big government snub of King George of England, and they hated the tax on tea in Boston and decided to start the Tea Party that angered Georgie Porgie puddin' and pie even more. It takes a conservative to notice the national deficit, and the truth was, the taxes charged on tea didn't add up to the failure of George to listen to the people on this continent with sympathy or anything else his subjects the Colonists had to say, when we were bringing him far more wealth than some of his friends who were well-represented in his court. King George pissed off the conservative colonists so badly over failure to hear them in his courts so badly, they collaborated to dismiss his bloodsucking tax situation permanently.

Americans really were more about a government that would help them survive on this continent than they were about constant subservience required to satisfy George's entitlements for his insider friends he was able to perpetuate by snubbing taxpayers in the New World of which he hadn't the vaguest idea.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Bfgn is correct that the men who forged the Constitution were the liberals, i.e. anti big government, of their day.  He does not, however, seem to understand that their beliefs were the antithesis of what he describes as his own, because over the more than 200 years since, the definitions have changed.    The modern American conservatives of today--the Tea Partiers, the 9/12ers, the tax reformers, etc.--share the basic principles and convictions of the Founders.  Knowing this, that is why most historians now use the term 'classical liberal' or 'libertarian' (little "L") to designate them.   Modern American liberals share almost nothing of the beliefs of the Founders.

The American people forged a great nation under the classical liberal principles of the Founders, and every American president and Congress respected those principles written into the Constitution.

Until Teddy Roosevelt.   He stood the Constitution on its head and started the snowball rolling to dismantle a government by people and reinstante authoritarian government.  The very thing the Constitution was intended to free us from.

That snowball has been gaining mass and speed ever since until now it steamrollers over everything.  It has overwhelmed our liberties, swallowed our economy, and controls almost every aspect of our lives.

And THAT is why that would be the one thing I would change from history if I had the chance.  Teddy Roosevelt would not have been allowed to change the intent of the Constitution.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 10, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I see you have the 'taxation without representation' fairy tale down pat. In my over 6 decades I have learned to decipher truth from myth. It is something conservatives are unable to do...parrots don't think, they mimic.

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

"It takes a conservative to notice the national deficit"...REALLY??? Why didn't any of you 'conservatives' notice the national deficit until Obama was sworn in? 

As the liberal era that began with the New Deal came to an end with the splintering of the Democratic Party brought about by assassination of Presidents and future Presidents, the Vietnam War fiasco and conservative money creating 'think tanks', JFK and LBJ, the last two Presidents of that era faced the awful specter how to deal with *revenue SURPLUSES.* Public debt was not even part of our lexicon...

Enter Reagan, the welfare queen. Put everything on the Beijing credit card and dump the bill on our children, grandchildren and their children and grandchildren.  

Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a tax and spend policy, to a borrow and spend policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt.


"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 10, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> One can certainly tell the people who were brainwashed in the 50s and 60s, and whose brains have been petrified ever since then.
> 
> They have the delusion that "Marxism" is still an important factor in the modern world.
> ...



You mean the flower children who had demonstrations against overbearing, authoritarian government; who are no the ones in charge promoting overbearing, authoritarian government?

But that's okay.  Keep the backpedal going.  Denying Marxism has a role in the world is a positive step in the right direction.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...



You notice the USMB 'liberals' mostly don't address the question asked in the OP but rather continue to dredge up and report the 'sins' of Republicans and conservatives.  Why?   Because to them nothing is good other than vague 'feel good' platitudes but their whole philosophy and M.O. is focused on blaming or accusing somebody else.  Which of course is the legacy of the flower children--the establishment is evil and their fuzzy notions of light and justice and peace, achieved sometimes by violence of course, and a more virtuous world that would result by dumping all the trappings of the past and looking forward to a world of rainbows and unicorns.

And yes, some of our more conservative friends do that too, but at least most will state what they do believe and want to happen in more concrete terms..   And what they want is to allow society to better itself rather than some fuzzy notion of government engineered 'equality' or 'fairness' or control of the social order.

But again, if what we now refer to as liberalism or progressivism or leftism was not allowedf to gain a foothold around the turn of the century, those flower children would never have had so much success in dismantling a lot of American culture and installing something that has been mostly detrimental in its place.

The OP asks a provocative and interesting question.   Most who have made a serious effort to address it have been quickly attacked with some version of a somebody done somebody wrong song.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The antithesis of the founding fathers, the Federalists, were the ANTI-federalists. 

The modern American conservatives of today--the Tea Partiers, the 9/12ers, the tax reformers, etc.--share the basic principles and convictions of the ANTI-federalists, the antithesis of our founders.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



The question in the OP is entirely generic and has no partisan intent, Foxy. There have been partisan responses from both sides of the aisle to the OP. As far as "fuzzy notions of government" are concerned they are also found on both sides. Does anyone seriously believe that illegal aliens will "self deport" and that "taxcuts pay for themselves"? Not even a stoned flower child is going to come up with that kind of "fuzzy" thinking. 

No, the OP is about which single historical event in the history of the planet would you stop if you could. By far the best answer I have read was to stop the burning of the Library of Alexandria. The only thing that might come close to that would be to ensure that the teachings of Galen were not lost for centuries to the western world. (We can thank Islam for preserving them and reintroducing them to the west 500 years later.)

The knowledge we have is the legacy that we pass on to our children and grandchildren. The Founding Fathers started public libraries in this nation because they knew the value of knowledge in the hands of the common people. Ultimately that knowledge is what actually preserves our freedom in my opinion.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> You notice the USMB 'liberals' mostly don't address the question asked in the OP but rather continue to dredge up and report the 'sins' of Republicans and conservatives.  Why?


Because "Republicans and conservatives" sin an awful lot!




Foxfyre said:


> Because to them nothing is good other than vague 'feel good' platitudes but their whole philosophy and M.O. is focused on blaming or accusing somebody else.


And your whole philosphy, is not taking responsibility for the things you did.  You never blame yourself, even on shit you caused.  Why would you expect us to blame someone else, for the things you did?




Foxfyre said:


> Which of course is the legacy of the flower children--the establishment is evil and their fuzzy notions of light and justice and peace, achieved sometimes by violence of course, and a more virtuous world that would result by dumping all the trappings of the past and looking forward to a world of rainbows and unicorns.


So you don't think the establishment is evil?  Is that your point here?  The establishment is not evil?

So what you're saying is, "Republicans and conservatives" of today, are not to be compared to the "flower children" of 50 years ago, who were protesting their disagreement with  establishment (at that time)?  

mmmmm................_*and what was your position on Obama? *_ 
He is, after all, representing today's establishment.



Foxfyre said:


> And yes, some of our more conservative friends do that too, but at least most will state what they do believe and want to happen in more concrete terms..


Like...

_*"...fuzzy notions of light and justice and peace..."*_

...oh yeah, that's pretty succinct!


Foxfyre said:


> And what they want is to allow society to better itself rather than some fuzzy notion of government engineered 'equality' or 'fairness' or control of the social order.


At this point, I need to warn you,   there is a (2) _"fuzzy notion"_ limit per thread and you are at your maximum allowed usage of that term.  The next one will cost you!



Foxfyre said:


> But again, if what we now refer to as liberalism or progressivism or leftism was not allowedf to gain a foothold around the turn of the century, those flower children would never have had so much success in dismantling a lot of American culture and installing something that has been mostly detrimental in its place.


 _"...dismantling a lot of American culture..." _

Ummm, earth to *Foxfyre*, _*"dissent"*_ IS American culture!  It's one of the principles this country was founded upon.  If you are against dissent, you are against America.


Foxfyre said:


> The OP asks a provocative and interesting question.   Most who have made a serious effort to address it have been quickly attacked with some version of a somebody done somebody wrong song.


What was the question?
_*"How do you say no to butt stuff?"​*_


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Yes, some of the Founders, fearing anarchy and feudal  loyalties, did favor a strong central government - federalists.  And some of the Founders feared a strong central government that would inevitably morph into just another monarchy - anti- federalist.  It was precisely because they did not all agree but all had the common goals of self governance that it took them four long years of debates and negotiations, argument and compromise, from the end of Revolutionary War to the signing of the Constitution.  Longer to complete the ratification process

The Federalists got a federal government strong enough to weld the various states into one nation; the anti-federalists got the protections they wanted written into the Constitution plus the Bill of Rights.

And ALL were in agreement that the federal government should be only as large and powerful as necessary to secure the rights of the people, and then the government would leave the people alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.  The federal government received its power from the people and could do only what the people had assigned to it to do via the Constitution.

What Teddy Roosevelt did was to flip that and declare that the federal government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly prohibit.  And because of his immense personal popularity, and because there was enough distance from King George and the oppression of the monarchy, not enough people realized the inevitable danger and consequences of that and he was allowed to get away with it.  .   And Roosevelt and all subsequent Presidents and Congresses found the new heady addiction of power too much to resist.

We are now experiencing the danger and consequences of that.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Yes, some of the Founders, fearing anarchy and feudal  loyalties, did favor a strong central government - federalists.  And some of the Founders feared a strong central government that would inevitably morph into just another monarchy - anti- federalist.  It was precisely because they did not all agree but all had the common goals of self governance that it took them four long years of debates and negotiations, argument and compromise, from the end of Revolutionary War to the signing of the Constitution.  Longer to complete the ratification process
> 
> The Federalists got a federal government strong enough to weld the various states into one nation; the anti-federalists got the protections they wanted written into the Constitution plus the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


Congress can make any law that will provide for the _*"general welfare" *_of the country.

That is their job.  Deal with it!


----------



## numan (Aug 10, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> Congress can make any law that will provide for the _*"general welfare" *_of the country.
> 
> That is their job.


Too bad they never do their job.

Or rather, too bad they are constantly doing the opposite of their job.

.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 10, 2013)

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, *promote the general welfare*, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

"Promote", not "Provide".  I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.


----------



## Zona (Aug 10, 2013)

I wish I could go back in time and arm Trevon.  I would tell him to wait for Zimmerman to pull his gun and to shoot Zimmerman in his brain.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 10, 2013)

S.J. said:


> "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, *promote the general welfare*, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
> 
> *"Promote", not "Provide"*.  I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.



The preamble specifies goals but has no power. The "Provide" clause is found in the Constitution itself;



> Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
> Section 8 - Powers of Congress
> 
> *The Congress shall have Power *To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide* for the common Defence *and general Welfare* of the United States;


----------



## numan (Aug 10, 2013)

Zona said:


> I wish I could go back in time and arm Trevon.  I would tell him to wait for Zimmerman to pull his gun and to shoot Zimmerman in his brain.


Do you think it would be wise to advise him to try to hit such a small target? · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Mr Natural (Aug 10, 2013)

I'd stop the crucifixion of JC so there might on less religion to muck things up.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 10, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> I'd stop the crucifixion of JC so there might on less religion to muck things up.



But it you went back another 2100 years you could prevent 3 religions from starting.


----------



## Mr Natural (Aug 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > I'd stop the crucifixion of JC so there might on less religion to muck things up.
> ...



Even better!


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You keep forgetting something. That very same government, Constitution and Bill of Rights our founding fathers crafted would prevent a Teddy Roosevelt from government by fiat. What Roosevelt did WAS receive the power from the people and he did only what the people had assigned the government to do via the Constitution.

The progressive movement was based on the very philosophy that our government should serve We, the People, not cater to monied interests and narrow special interests.

The progressive movement was BI-partisan. It was in direct response to what America had morphed into, a plutocracy.

Your problem is conservatives, who have ZERO liberal genes in their bodies, are always trying to create some form of a hierarchy or aristocracy. A plutocracy is VERY DESIRABLE to the conservative world view because it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 10, 2013)

numan said:


> Too bad they never do their job.
> 
> Or rather, too bad they are constantly doing the opposite of their job.
> 
> .


They're doing the job they're paid to do.

Unfortunately, it's not the US taxpayer who's signing that check.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 10, 2013)

S.J. said:


> "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, *promote the general welfare*, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
> 
> "Promote", not "Provide".  I'm sure the founding fathers would appreciate you not butchering the preamble.


I'm sorry, but it's _*"provide"!*_




> _*Section. 8.*
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_


----------



## numan (Aug 10, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Conservatives hated the big government snub of King George of England, and they hated the tax on tea in Boston and decided to start the Tea Party that angered Georgie Porgie puddin' and pie even more.


Good Grief!! That is something up with which I will not put!!
You are a total nincompoop where history is concerned!!

The Boston Tea Party was organized by the biggest Mafia boss of New England, richest man in America, John Hancock, who made most of his ill-gotten gains smuggling liquor and Dutch tea! 

The tea sold by the East India Company was _cheaper_ than Hancock's smuggled Dutch tea, *and that is why he organized the so-called "Boston Tea Party" to dump the East India Company tea into the harbor!! It was all about not being  under-sold by legal tea!!*

Of course, dirty, rotten Hancock was ably abetted by his slimy confederate and go-fer, the rabble-rousing terrorist Sam Adams!!

.


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 10, 2013)

MMMMMMMMM....I already put up Katrina and the Waves....

I would prevent Boy George from recording Chameleon.






See? I already made the world a better place.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 10, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, *promote the general welfare*, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
> ...


And by "welfare", they weren't talking about public assistance.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Exactly.  Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody.   To a man, they knew how corrupting that would quickly become.  The GENERAL welfare was that which benefitted all the states and all the people without regard to politics, religion, demographics, or socioeconomic status.   Restoring allegiance to that single fundamental concept would do wonders to replace career politicans and bureaucrats with honest public servants again; it would do wonders to stabilize the economy and restore the American dream.

And that is why my choice of an event to change in American history is to negate the corruption of the Constitution done in the T Roosevelt administration.  That simple change of history would almost certainly have avoided us at least most of the mess we are currently in.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



With all due respect, Foxy, the world of the Founding Fathers predated the industrial revolution. The world was a very different place when TR took office. The FF's understood that the world would change and they did not create a rigid document with which to dictate how America must be run. Instead they were deliberate in choosing terms like the "general welfare" knowing full well that what was defined as "general welfare" in 1795 would be different to what it would be in 1895 and different yet again by 1995. Society evolves because we are transforming our world like no species since the Carboniferrous period. To ignore that change or to want to roll the clock 225 years is unrealistic in my opinion.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



They knew the general welfare, as they defined it, would change over time yes.  But the principle that the general welfare referred to all of  society, without regard to politics or demographics or socioeconomic standing, was not expected to change.   If the government's ability to curry favor with one group at the expense of another group, to rob Peter to pay Paul, was corrupting and detrimental to all our freedoms and concept of self governance then, it is equally if not more true today.  The industrial revolution changed the dynamics of what the general welfare might include; i.e. some pollution issues that did not exist in colonial times.  It did not change the principle itself.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You are absolutely correct that it did not change the principle. What changed was society itself. When people were born, lived and died on the same piece of land that essentially fed and clothed them too there was never a problem when one became too old to work. The next generation was there to farm the crops and make the clothes. When people left the land and started working in factories they found themselves destitute once their working days were over. They no longer had an income so they became poverty stricken. The concept of Social Security and Medicare were devised as a means to ensure that 100% of all Americans would not find themselves destitute once they could no longer work for a living. From the perspective of the government this is clearly in the "general welfare" of the people because with large groups of destitute elderly people you are going to have to deal with rampant crime, slums and disease. Since this is available to 100% of the people it is not a means to "curry favor with one group at the expense of another group, to rob Peter to pay Paul". Instead it is a humanitarian solution to what would otherwise be a serious threat to the economic stability of this nation.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2013)

He was not speaking of the Constitution in that comment Bfgn.  He was referring to the social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that.   Jefferson's federal government was not in the business of making institutions, even though even he veered a bit off course in the case of higher education, but in the end chose wisely and looked to his beloved Virginia to provide that.  But the institutions were not to belong to the federal government but were left to the people to design and preserve.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> He was not speaking of the Constitution in that comment Bfgn.  He was referring to the social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that.   Jefferson's federal government was not in the business of making institutions, even though even he veered a bit off course in the case of higher education, but in the end chose wisely and looked to his beloved Virginia to provide that.  But the institutions were not to belong to the federal government but were left to the people to design and preserve.



Really? Can you produce this "social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that "?


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 10, 2013)

S.J. said:


> And by "welfare", they weren't talking about public assistance.


General welfare is exactly what it say's.  Whatever is in the general welfare of the country, it's Congress job to provide it.  If high un-employment happens to be harming the country and the private sector isn't hiring anybody, then it's the governments job to get people back to work, because American's with jobs is in the best interests of this country.  And it doesn't matter whether it's a public dollar or a private one, the main thing is to get American's paychecks.  And when Americans get paychecks, they spend it on rent, food, housing, transportation, etc., which is putting money back into the system.  They're not hoarding it like major corporations, waiting for demand to pick up  before they do anything.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Exactly.  Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody.


Does that include major corporations getting tax breaks?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 10, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.  Even the most cursory examination of the Founding documents makes it clear that the Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody.
> ...



As corporations weren't taxed when the Founders were in charge and such a concept would have been abhorrent to them, the subject didn't come up.   In fact they did their damndest to originally fund the federal government by imposing taxes on foreign imported products only--no internal taxes at all.  When that wasn't quite enough they imposed a few consumption taxes on luxury items only--ever conscious not to hinder commerce and trade or impose a hardship on any citizen.

Even their method of covering deficits was great.  Believing a balanced budget essential to the prosperity and integrity of the nation, they  assessed each state a portion of the deficit based on how many representatives that state sent to Washington.  It was up to the states how they would raise the money for their assessment. Can you imagine a better system to encourage the states to keep an eye on the spending habits of their elected federal representatives?

But if the HAD taxed corporations at the federal level, they absolutely would say if one got taxed, they all would be taxed at the same rate.  And if one got a tax break they all would get a tax break.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 10, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > And by "welfare", they weren't talking about public assistance.
> ...


You're wrong.  It's their job to create an environment by which free enterprise and private industries can thrive, not to redistribute wealth and control businesses, which is what you are suggesting here.  The founding fathers would laugh at that interpretation.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 10, 2013)

S.J. said:


> You're wrong.  It's their job to create an environment by which free enterprise and private industries can thrive, not to redistribute wealth and control businesses, which is what you are suggesting here.  The founding fathers would laugh at that interpretation.


Bullshit!

The document say's...

*"We the people..."​*
*not​*
*"We the people, Inc."​*

This country was not created for the benefit of business, but for the benefit of its people.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And if one got a tax break they all would get a tax break.


Well, I can say with absolute certainty, I don't get the same tax breaks GE does.

Now who's side are you on?  GE's?  Or mine?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And if one got a tax break they all would get a tax break.
> ...



Clue time.  G.E. did not exist in the 18th Century or the first 3/4ths of the 29th Century as no businesses were taxed at all in the 18th and 19th centuries. Taxes on businesses is a 20th Century invention AFTER Teddy Roosevelt dumped the Constitution in favor of ever increasing and authoritarian government.

So perhaps you could enlighten me as to what G.E. had to do with the Founders and the principles they held as convictions because that is what we were talking about.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > He was not speaking of the Constitution in that comment Bfgn.  He was referring to the social contract and that the federal government would be hands off in what the people did with that.   Jefferson's federal government was not in the business of making institutions, even though even he veered a bit off course in the case of higher education, but in the end chose wisely and looked to his beloved Virginia to provide that.  But the institutions were not to belong to the federal government but were left to the people to design and preserve.
> ...



I can point to the Constitution and all the documents the Founders left us that provide all the rationale that went into the Constitution.  I spent several years studying those in both highschool and college.  It is a shame everybody didn't.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 11, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong.  It's their job to create an environment by which free enterprise and private industries can thrive, not to redistribute wealth and control businesses, which is what you are suggesting here.  The founding fathers would laugh at that interpretation.
> ...


EXACTLY!!!  "We The People", not "We The Government".


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 11, 2013)

S.J. said:


> EXACTLY!!!  "We The People", not "We The Government".


What?

Will you explain to me how that ties in to your previous statement?


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Clue time.  G.E. did not exist in the 18th Century or the first 3/4ths of the 29th Century as no businesses were taxed at all in the 18th and 19th centuries. Taxes on businesses is a 20th Century invention AFTER Teddy Roosevelt dumped the Constitution in favor of ever increasing and authoritarian government.
> 
> So perhaps you could enlighten me as to what G.E. had to do with the Founders and the principles they held as convictions because that is what we were talking about.


I'm not talking about what the Founders said, I'm talking about what you said.  Which was....


Foxfyre said:


> And if one got a tax break they all would get a tax break..


Well, GE gets tax breaks I don't get, but I don't see you bitching about that!

On the one hand, you state...


Foxfyre said:


> Founders opposed the federal government providing ANY form of charity or benevolence to anybody.


 Which is an obvious reference to social programs.  But when I bring up the issue of "charity" going to corporations in the form of tax breaks, you give me this deer-in-the-headlights look , _"Whoa, where did that come from?"_

I'll tell you where it came from.  It came from your hypocrisy as demonstrated in this ongoing war your having with the lower class, then looking the other way when the upper class is gets the same treatment.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 11, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > EXACTLY!!!  "We The People", not "We The Government".
> ...


What's to explain?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 11, 2013)

I'd convince Napoleon not to invade Russia in 1812. If he didn't invade Russia, Europe would of been one since that time...

This would of = no world wars. 

Likely no Marxism and bloody 20th century.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Did they teach you this?

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

*Early laws regulating corporations in America*

    *Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

    *Corporations licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

    *The state legislature could revoke a corporations charter if it misbehaved.

    *The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

    *As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldnt break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were just doing their job when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

    *Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

    *Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

    *Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted in perpetuity, as is now the practice).

    *Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

    *Corporations real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

    *Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

    *Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

    *State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

    *All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 11, 2013)

Or maybe I'd go back in tell god to make all human races equal.  That would make the world a better place. Hopefully on the higher side of intelligence.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 11, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Or maybe I'd go back in tell god to make all human races equal.  That would make the world a better place. Hopefully on the higher side of intelligence.



You would tell God?

Did the arrogance of that statement go right over your head?  I mean really, I am an atheist and I dont think that I would tell God anything if I found myself with that possibility; I dont think I could be that presumptuous.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 11, 2013)

Billo did say that I could charge one thing  I am assuming even convincing god.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 11, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Or maybe I'd go back in tell god to make all human races equal.  That would make the world a better place. Hopefully on the higher side of intelligence.
> ...



I am also an Atheist but if I were to be given the opportunity to speak to God I would ask him who created him. If God says nothing then that would make God an Atheist just like me so we would have something in common.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Too bad we can't repeal whatever laws overturned those original regulations.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2013)

Since those laws were the laws of one state, that state could overturn those laws at will.  Sometimes our friends have a really tough time understanding that government exists at myriad levels beginning with the family and on up into more formal structures.  The federal government is NOT state government, is NOT local government.

The Founders intended the federal government to have ability to prevent states from doing physical, environmental, economic violence to each other, and initiate and enforce anti trust laws that would prevent economic mischief beyond state lines, but then each state was left alone to make its own laws, for the people to govern themselves.  They did not intend for the federal government to oversee or dictate state laws.

I did not get from the OP, however, that this thread is devoted to the evils or virtues of corporations.   If the formation of corporations is important enough to you to be the one thing of history you would change, well then that is your conviction.  Personally, I think a federal government restricted to its constiitutional functions was the way to go.   A great deal of the problems we have now from corporate mischief and many other issues is due to federal meddling, not federal restraint.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Since those laws were the laws of one state, that state could overturn those laws at will.  Sometimes our friends have a really tough time understanding that government exists at myriad levels beginning with the family and on up into more formal structures.  The federal government is NOT state government, is NOT local government.
> 
> The Founders intended the federal government to have ability to prevent states from doing physical, environmental, economic violence to each other, and initiate and enforce anti trust laws that would prevent economic mischief beyond state lines, but then each state was left alone to make its own laws, for the people to govern themselves.  They did not intend for the federal government to oversee or dictate state laws.
> 
> I did not get from the OP, however, that this thread is devoted to the evils or virtues of corporations.   If the formation of corporations is important enough to you to be the one thing of history you would change, well then that is your conviction.  Personally, I think a federal government restricted to its constiitutional functions was the way to go. *  A great deal of the problems we have now from corporate mischief and many other issues is due to federal meddling, not federal restraint*.



Point taken, Foxy. Could you please provide some examples of "corporate mischief" as a direct result of "federal meddling"? TYIA.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Since those laws were the laws of one state, that state could overturn those laws at will.  Sometimes our friends have a really tough time understanding that government exists at myriad levels beginning with the family and on up into more formal structures.  The federal government is NOT state government, is NOT local government.
> 
> The Founders intended the federal government to have ability to prevent states from doing physical, environmental, economic violence to each other, and initiate and enforce anti trust laws that would prevent economic mischief beyond state lines, but then each state was left alone to make its own laws, for the people to govern themselves.  They did not intend for the federal government to oversee or dictate state laws.
> 
> I did not get from the OP, however, that this thread is devoted to the evils or virtues of corporations.   If the formation of corporations is important enough to you to be the one thing of history you would change, well then that is your conviction.  Personally, I think a federal government restricted to its constiitutional functions was the way to go.   A great deal of the problems we have now from corporate mischief and many other issues is due to federal meddling, not federal restraint.


The BP oil spill wasn't caused by federal meddling.  

BTW, your dodge of my point wasn't very good, as I got my answer in your post.  Which is,  that while you are_* "against"*_ charity to the working poor, you are _*"for"*_ charity to their corporate sponsors.


----------



## Billo_Really (Aug 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> I am also an Atheist but if I were to be given the opportunity to speak to God I would ask him who created him. If God says nothing then that would make God an Atheist just like me so we would have something in common.


I'd ask God to condemn the Boston Celtics to eternal damnation, but that's just me.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


 `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
-Douglass Adams, Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Since those laws were the laws of one state, that state could overturn those laws at will.  Sometimes our friends have a really tough time understanding that government exists at myriad levels beginning with the family and on up into more formal structures.  The federal government is NOT state government, is NOT local government.
> ...



Three examples:

Enron
The housing bubble
Solyndra

The other examples are legion.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 11, 2013)

Late to the party but here's what I would change:

I would go back to the early days of this country. I would go down south and tell the plantation owners what their future holds and what happened to the country. I would convince them to look for other ways to harvest their crop and to pack up every single slave they have and ship them all back to Africa.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Aug 11, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Late to the party but here's what I would change:
> 
> I would go back to the early days of this country. I would go down south and tell the plantation owners what their future holds and what happened to the country. I would convince them to look for other ways to harvest their crop and to pack up every single slave they have and ship them all back to Africa.



Damn good answer.. It would change the entire course of this nation and eliminate the class of people who STILL centuries later, use it for an excuse to point fingers, sling hatred, cause division, and become a permanent parasite on the American economy buying in the "you cant do any better better argument because you're black."


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Thank you. Enron and the housing bubble were both as a result of federal deregulation. Removing restraints that were previously in place allowed them to happen. Solyndra is an example of the government investing in the future of this nation. This has been happening since it was first formed. As all of the investment brochures warn results are not guaranteed. What we need to keep in mind is whether the overall benefit exceeds the costs. 

What surprised me was that you failed to mention NASA. Surely the exploration of space is something that private enterprise should undertake and the federal government should not "meddle" with? But what happened as a direct result of that government "meddling"? There was a direct need for very lightweight components that could perform the complex calculations needed during space flight. That created the market for handheld calculators and digital watches. Shortly thereafter we had the advent of the first personal computers. That was the seed planted by the "meddling" federal government that allows you and I to have have this conversation today. Would you go back in time and stop that "government "meddling" from happening if you had the chance? In the interests of full disclosure I would go back and stop the deregulation that caused both Enron and the housing bubble myself.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Will respectfully disagree.  Not one of the three was due to deregulation but was due to government subsidies, manipulation, mandates and interference with the natural supply and demand.  But let's not derail the thread with a detailed discussion of corporations and housing.  A separate thread might be nteresting to some though.   (And pssst, NASA is NOT a corporation and deserves it own discussion too.)

This thread is targeted at the one event in history we would change.  My targeted event that I would have changed would have almost certainly prevented Enron, the housing bubble, and Solyndra and a myriad of other unnecessary scandals and economic tragedies.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 11, 2013)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Late to the party but here's what I would change:
> ...



For the sake of argument only these questions are directed at Predfan and LadyGunSlinger. Assuming you were successful in returning 100% of the slaves to Africa who do you think would be occupying that rung on the economic ladder today if the descendants of the slaves were not around? Who would have "become a permanent parasite on the American economy" instead?


----------



## PredFan (Aug 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Probably a proportional mixture of races. Mostly white of course, some  hispanic, some black, all in proportion to their population in society. Not grossly out of proportion as it is today.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 11, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



Thank you for the honest response, PF. Am I correct in assuming that you are drawing a direct correlation between the enslavement of blacks and their current over representation on the lowest rung?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



All you guys have to do is eliminate Roosevelt's "Square Deal" that opened the gates to excessive federal meddling and the welfare state, and the descendants of those slaves would not now make up the core of the permanent underclass dependent on government benevolence and seeing that as their right.  At the time of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives, those descendants of slaves were the most rapidly advancing demographic economically.   But the expansion of the welfare state pretty much stopped that advancement cold.   Left alone they would almost certainly be fully assimilated into American culture and society today and far better off than they have been with all that what should have been illegal government meddling.  Without TR Roosevelt's "Square Deal"  there would have been no "New Deal" and no "Great Society" and we would not be sinking under unsustainable entitlements and an almost 17 trillion dollar national debt now.


----------



## numan (Aug 11, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, *promote the general welfare*, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
> ...


That's really funny!! Talk about "hoist by his own petard"!!!

S.J., like so many who yak about the Constitution, doesn't even know what it says!! · · 

.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2013)

Nevertheless, does "provide for" mean the same things as "provide"?  Subtle difference there.   But the bottom line is what the Founders understood the 'general welfare' to be.   And it was not to give taxpayer money to the poor or anybody else.  In every aspect of the Constitution, they took great care to ensure that federal laws and policy would not favor or disfavor any individual based on their age, politics, or socioeconomic circumstances, or any other variables.  The federal government's role was to promote the general welfare of the country fairly and equitably among all states and citizens.  To target anybody or anything for favorable treatment was not to be the prerogative of the federal government.


----------



## numan (Aug 11, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
> 
> *Early laws regulating corporations in America*
> 
> ...


Even Adam Smith did not believe in the "invisible hand" of the marketplace, unhindered by regulation.

That form of folly required the "more perfect" idiocy of the corporate cultists of our own supremely brainwashed society.

They are incapable of understanding that the "invisible hand of the marketplace," devoid of appropriate regulation, leads inevitably to the "*invisible mind* of the marketplace," and to the imbecility and disaster which followed the Neo-Con swindlers dismantling economic regulation.

.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 11, 2013)

numan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.
> ...



Adam Smith, however, did not advocate regulation of the type that is social engineering.  He strongly spoke against it.  The regulation he favored was the necessary enforcement of anti-trust regulations to prevent intentional economic violence.  He supported a role in government to enforce contracts and patent protections.

In Wealth of Nations he didn't dwell a great deal on the welfare state as such was unthinkable in his time.  But of charity he did say (paraphrased):  "Charity, while a virtuous act, cannot alone provide the essentials for living. Self-interest is the mechanism that can remedy this shortcoming."  Said Smith: &#8220;It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

The Founders intended people to be free to pursue whatever their hearts led them to pursue short of trampling on the rights of others.  And if their hearts led to to pursue acquisition of great fortunes, that was good and fine.  Because nobody can do that without creating opportunities for others along the way.  And also the wealthy have the means and the leisure to do good public service and works that are not a prerogrative for those of more limited means.

If TR Roosevelt had spent more time studying such concepts and less time building a personal fiefdom, we would be much much better off now than we are.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 11, 2013)

numan said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


The Preamble to the Constitution is what defines the intent, and it clearly says "PROMOTE the general welfare".


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Nevertheless, does "provide for" mean the same things as "provide"?  Subtle difference there.   But the bottom line is what the Founders understood the 'general welfare' to be.   And it was not to give taxpayer money to the poor or anybody else.  In every aspect of the Constitution, they took great care to ensure that federal laws and policy would not favor or disfavor any individual based on their age, politics, or socioeconomic circumstances, or any other variables.  The federal government's role was to promote the general welfare of the country fairly and equitably among all states and citizens.  To target anybody or anything for favorable treatment was not to be the prerogative of the federal government.



Can you please instances where the federal government is targeting "anybody or anything for favorable treatment"?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Nevertheless, does "provide for" mean the same things as "provide"?  Subtle difference there.   But the bottom line is what the Founders understood the 'general welfare' to be.   And it was not to give taxpayer money to the poor or anybody else.  In every aspect of the Constitution, they took great care to ensure that federal laws and policy would not favor or disfavor any individual based on their age, politics, or socioeconomic circumstances, or any other variables.  The federal government's role was to promote the general welfare of the country fairly and equitably among all states and citizens.  To target anybody or anything for favorable treatment was not to be the prerogative of the federal government.
> ...



Marriage tax breaks, tax breaks for children, tax subsidies to green energy companies, tax subsidies for buying the approved governmental light bulb, tax subsidies for oil, tax deferments for large corporations manufacturing or office space, tax subsidies for the government approved window or water heater, special tax considerations for investments over labor, obamacare applying to different entities with different rules (like unions) governmental kickbacks for states that pass certain laws (anyone know how drinking laws were nationalized).  Really, did you have to ask such an obvious question?  Virtually everything the government does these days is targeted to one group or another rather than the general welfare.  Want to know what a general welfare item is?

Roads, police and fire protection, parks etc.  You know, things that are available to everyone in the same manner without consideration to who you are.  You know one of the common threads here is taxation.  If we normalized taxes then the government would lose most of the asinine powers that it uses to steal from everyone to feed special interest machines.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 11, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Thank you and yes, I did. Because you highlighted what I expected you would. That the "targets" for "special treatment" cover the entire spectrum of everyday life and economic life. The next questions should be even more revealing. How do these "targeted tax breaks" for "special treatment" even come about? Who is responsible for them? Can you honestly say that they are more prevalent for one political party or the other?

The answers to those questions are corruption and both parties. You raised the issue of "normalized taxes" as a means to bring an end to this practice. Does that mean that when Rand Paul and Chris Christie were jabbing at one another Kentucky would lose it's $0.50 federal tax dollar subsidy and NJ would regain the$0.40 that it is currently giving away? If so then we are talking of some serious economic hardships for the states that are currently enjoying those federal subsidies.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Can you point to any post where FF or I have ever tried to claim this was not inherent in both parties?  Methinks that mayhap you are far too used to dealing with the hacks here, I certainly do not lay this just at the democrats feet even if I disagree with them politically.  

No, it would mean to me that we taxes all dollars earned the same amount period.  That to me would be the best way forward.  Many do not agree (even on my side there is debate between flat tax on goods and one on income) but that would really clean shit up and, as a consequence, raise the taxes on those rich that the left so loves to target being that they enjoy the majority of the tax breaks and special interest kickbacks.  It would also mean an end to the asinine practice of HIDING taxes against the middle and poor classes through employer sided tax levies though the poor would be hit as the subsidies would end.  The real winner is the middle class.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 11, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Sorry, did not mean to imply that either you or FF were saying that. As for discussing the merits of various tax policies we will have to start another thread since that will be completely derailing this one.  And yes, I am guilty to bringing it up in the first place.


----------



## Bfgrn (Aug 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Foxfyre, you have carried this TR thing to the level of absurd. You have conflated one president into the most sinister person who ever lived, created a mental genocide of 4 generation of Americans and you have removed all sheds of personal responsibility.

What you are saying is that whole generations of Americans who defended this country in 2 world wars and built America with their sweat and blood were just a bunch of stupid sheep, UNTIL YOU came along. They just didn't know any better, but YOU KNOW, you are special.

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what I said before. You are a haughty narcissist.


----------



## numan (Aug 13, 2013)

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre, you have carried this TR thing to the level of absurd. You have conflated one president into the most sinister person who ever lived....


You are so right!! Everybody knows that George W. Bush is the most sinister person who ever lived !!



> What you are saying is that whole generations of Americans who defended this country in 2 world wars and built America with their sweat and blood were just a bunch of stupid sheep....


But...but...whole generations of Americans who defended this country in 2 world wars and built America with their sweat and blood *WERE* just a bunch of stupid sheep !!!

.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Nevertheless, does "provide for" mean the same things as "provide"?  Subtle difference there.   But the bottom line is what the Founders understood the 'general welfare' to be.   And it was not to give taxpayer money to the poor or anybody else.  In every aspect of the Constitution, they took great care to ensure that federal laws and policy would not favor or disfavor any individual based on their age, politics, or socioeconomic circumstances, or any other variables.  The federal government's role was to promote the general welfare of the country fairly and equitably among all states and citizens.  To target anybody or anything for favorable treatment was not to be the prerogative of the federal government.
> ...



The federal government gives taxpayer money to poorer Americans while threatening more affluent Americans with ever higher taxes.  That is giving favorable treatment to one group and not another.

The federal government gives subsidies and tax incentives to some industries while imposing punishing restrictions on others.  That is giving favorable treatment to one group and not another.

The federal government fills every single spending bill with pork for this state or that constituency or that project.  That is giving favorable treatment to some that is not available to all.

I can go on and on.   The federal government is bloated, expensive, and almost totally corrupt in this regard.  It uses our money to coerce us, force us, bribe us, bully us, and influence us almost exclusively to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

TR Roosevelt never intended the consequences of what has resulted from his 'Square Deal",  but he opened the gates that have allowed others to bring us to this destructive way of conducting government.  And that is why I chose THAT as the one event in history that I would change.


----------



## numan (Aug 13, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please instances where the federal government is targeting "anybody or anything for favorable treatment"?
> ...


Tell you what, FA, let's give you everything you want, provided it becomes a felony for any corporation or its agents to have any non-official, non-public contact with any government official; and further, that it be a felony for any public official to receive any money or any employment from a corporation, for a period of ten years after he leaves office.

Deal? · · 

,


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2013)

numan said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all.  You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.

Do that and 90+% of the corruption in government will be eliminated and fiscal sanity can be restored.


----------



## numan (Aug 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all.  You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.
> 
> Do that and 90+% of the corruption in government will be eliminated and fiscal sanity can be restored.


And let the monopolists give as much money as they want to officials, and use lobbyists to corrupt congressmen and get the legislation they want?

You must think you can sell me the Brooklyn Bridge, Foxy !!

.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2013)

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all.  You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.
> ...



Sure.  But why would they if they can receive nothing in return for all that lovely money?  You see?  If they cannot benefit from what Congress does, there would be no point in funneling bribes to members of Congress or appointees or bureaucrats.

The concept is not to restrict the rights of any citizen to do with his/her money whatever he/she wants to do with it.

The concept is to make it unproductive to bribe those in government and thereby restore government to public service rather than existing to enrich itself.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 13, 2013)

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all.  You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.
> ...


I doubt she could sell you a bridge, but I'm betting you'd still buy stock in Solyndra.

Your distaste for corporations seems only directed at corporations that don't follow your rules. Foxfyre is proposing ending targeted tax benefits for corporations and individuals, but you would only end what you call corporate welfare to oil companies so you could spread the wealth to so called "green" companies and others that donate to liberal politicians and causes.


----------



## numan (Aug 13, 2013)

'

That was remarkably incoherent, even for an Alabaman.

.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 13, 2013)

Maybe I'd stop the creation of islam....

Can you imagine how much more advanced humanity would be?


----------



## g5000 (Aug 13, 2013)

numan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > It is much simpler to just make it the rule that the federal government cannot provide money or rules or benefit for any individual or corporation or any other entity or demographic that it does not also provide for all.  You know, the concept that WAS the rule in the federal government until the TR Roosevelt administration.
> ...



Why would a corporation or any special interest give money to a congressman if the congressman cannot provide special rules for them?  If the congressman cannot write a regulation which favors that special interest, and cannot add a tax loophole for that special interest, you have removed the motive for providing that congressman with campaign cash.

Cure the disease, not the symptom.  No campaign finance reform of the past 40 years has had any effect whatsosever on the re-election chances of an incumbent.  It is time to admit curing the symptoms is not working.

The real way to level the playing field is to ban all tax expenditures and eliminate regulatory capture.  Those are the answers you are really looking for.


----------



## g5000 (Aug 13, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Maybe I'd stop the creation of islam....
> 
> Can you imagine how much more advanced humanity would be?



For a much better result, I would eliminate bigots.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2013)

I'd give Augustus Caesar the H bomb

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 13, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> That was remarkably incoherent, even for an Alabaman.
> 
> .



Strange, coming from you. Seems no one else had a problem.


----------



## BobPlumb (Aug 13, 2013)

I went back in time an somehow I became my own grandpa.  Didn't mean to.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 13, 2013)

numan said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No.  That sounds nice but the fact is that it will not work.  Simple as that.  Take all that and politicians will find a way around it.  The company will hire a cousin or a spouse for millions a year and have them do nothing.  Or they will pay in advance before they are in the seat.  

As long as politics gives favors to companies that pay, companies will pay.  The ONLY way to stop that is to remove the politicians power to curry corporate favor, period.  As the other posters have pointed out, all this finance reform and attempt to cut the moneyed interests out have achieved exactly zip to date.  What makes you think more is going to work now?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 13, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Maybe I'd stop the creation of islam....
> 
> Can you imagine how much more advanced humanity would be?



Not really considering it was the Muslims that saved the culmination of knowledge of all mankind when the Christians were busy burning anything that represented a hit of thought or knowledge at all (and the people that they didnt like as well).


----------



## numan (Aug 14, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I'd stop the creation of islam....
> ...


Yeah, get rid of those god-damn bigots! Crush them, destroy them, annihilate them!! · · 
.


----------



## numan (Aug 14, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Tell you what, FA, let's give you everything you want, provided it becomes a felony for any corporation or its agents to have any non-official, non-public contact with any government official; and further, that it be a felony for any public official to receive any money or any employment from a corporation, for a period of ten years after he leaves office.
> ...


Which is exactly the point I was making!! *ALL* attempts to deal with corruption will end in failure because it is not just the politicians and financiers who are corrupt, it is the whole system of government that is corrupt and stupid !!

You characters who think that the answer is to go back to the situation before Teddy Roosevelt -- you're just incredibly stupid and blind. The corruption and malfeasance at every level of government and business after the Civil War is legendary all over the world !!

You guys are either totally igonorant of history, or you are being deliberately deceptive. 

.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 14, 2013)

There is a difference between malfeasance and corruption in government for its own purposes and the seminal change T. Roosevelt made in government, however.  Before it was just the less noble side of humankind doing its thing and, when it became intolerable, the people would eventually have enough and throw the bums out.  People who hold the power collectively generally do get around to doing the best thing as they learn what is mutually beneficial for all.   What Roosevelt did was to give government the power instead of the people.  And that changed everything.  And not in a good way at all.

History is a very good thing to know in order to inform ourselves of the probable consequences of what we do.  Less so when facts are cherry picked and the larger message is ignored.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 14, 2013)

numan said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



So what system would YOU go to.  Dont forget, I have heard all about the fact that you would replace our constitution and, even though you claim to have a replacement already, it has been completely devoid of details or facts.  Now is your chance.


----------



## numan (Aug 14, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Before it was just the less noble side of humankind doing its thing and, when it became intolerable, the people would eventually have enough and throw the bums out.  People who hold the power collectively generally do get around to doing the best thing as they learn what is mutually beneficial for all.


Please keep your rose-colored glasses away from me !!

I wish to remain sane.

.


----------



## numan (Aug 14, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > Which is exactly the point I was making!! *ALL* attempts to deal with corruption will end in failure because it is not just the politicians and financiers who are corrupt, it is the whole system of government that is corrupt and stupid !!
> ...


*NOW you're going to get it !!*

But it will be on another thread.

I've been waiting for someone to ask me that, so that I could justify starting a thread on which I could be sufficiently long-winded and loquacious to deal with such a subject !!
,


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 14, 2013)

Billo_Really said:


> If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?



I've always wondered what this planet would be like if Chris Columbus and crew had met a big sister of Katrina and Sandy on their first voyage, resulting in their never returning to Europe. 

Western 'Civilization' and, in particular, the ruling classes and their government models circa 1500 acquiring access to such a vast rush of poorly defended resources really skewed Monkey evolution profoundly.

What if the European 'discovery' of the Americas was delayed until *after* the Catholics and their Inquisition were rendered impotent by popular demand?  Nobody knows what the end of the Inquisition years would have looked like if America had remained a secret for a few more decades, but history shows that the populace was just about fed up with that particular influence on the ruling class when Chris came home with his &#8216;discovery&#8217;.  

What if the Europeans had learned to share better before they &#8216;found&#8217; the rest of us?
​


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 14, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



The US Constitution amended to specifically deny congress the power it thinks it has to customize the tax code for the individuals and industries who pay them, and amended to require that public budgets be balanced. 

The beauty of the US Constitution is that it's a short read.  It's not a lot of words.  I pray for the day when the same can be said of the tax code.






Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then, build an economy that your spawn can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.
​


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 14, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...



No, it really isnt BUT you cannot manipulate that which everyone understands so it needs to SEEM like rocket science for the central authority to have its overbearing power.

If we went to a simple code, congress would lose a LOT of power and the rulers dont like that one bit.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 14, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> ...



Then we would not have the grate nation of America.

What created this nations prosperity is a combination of the fact that we have great wealth in the resources here and that when we were discovered, Europe was in such turmoil.  Essentially, the world drove some of the best and brightest thinkers out of their home nations and to the promise of a new land.  Part of what created the great opportunity here was the sheer fact that the rest of the world was in such turmoil.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 14, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Duh.

We need to go over the head of congress to change congress.  The voters need to demand fair taxes and balanced budgets, and I can only speak for one of them.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 14, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



Perhaps... but I bet the Monkeys living on that fantasy world would have incredible places to vacation!

Would it be better?  Nobody can know.  It would be different.  I'd bet money that our species is closer to reaching for the stars in 2013 than the Monkeys in my fantasy would be in their version of 2013.

That begs the question of whether or not progress = happiness.  I say it doesn't, but that doesn't mean shit in this scenario - because of our unique history, Earth Monkeys are midway through circumstances forcing them to keep pushing for stars or die trying. 

So far, and in spite of it all, the concept behind 'America' is still this planets best hope to reach for the stars and birth a Sentient World from Monkeys.  As soon as enough of us demand fair and simple taxes with balanced public budgets.


----------



## numan (Aug 14, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> That begs the question of whether or not progress = happiness.


What makes you think that what has happened in America is "progress"?

.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 14, 2013)

You're right of course... it depends on how one defines progress.  

God bless the nit-picking pharisees in the room 

As the term is usually used in this context to convey progressive advances in technology as it's made available to the middle classes, that's how I'm using it here.


----------



## numan (Aug 15, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> As the term is usually used in this context to convey progressive advances in technology as it's made available to the middle classes, that's how I'm using it here.


"Progressive" advances in technology?

The scientific control of human beings through propaganda, brainwashing, conditioning and subliminal messaging which turns former human beings into mindless zombies?

I find it hard to regard this as a positive development in the story of the human race. 

.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 15, 2013)

Then don't.

No skin off my nose.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 15, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > If you could go  back in time and stop one historical event in the history of the planet, what would it be?
> ...



So are you curious enough in the 'what ifs' to use one of them as the one single thing you would change in history per the question in the OP?

Mind you, narrowing down all world events for all the millenia for which we have a historical record to one single event is not to be taken lightly.  The genie will grant you one wish and one wish only. 

I am pretty secure in the one event I chose.  Until the worst effects of that event came to their fully ripe consequences, the USA was the envy of the world and many looked to us as shining proof that freedom, prosperity, and opportunity is attainable for anybody, regardless of the circumstances they are born into.

Few do that any more.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Aug 15, 2013)

I'd go back the 30's  and would have shot Stanley Dunham in the head or I'd have paid a visit to Robert E. Lee.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 16, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...




  I did name a single event.  The 'discovery' of the Americas by the Europeans in 1492 is what I would prevent in a fantasy world where I can be God for one event.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 16, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Naw, I wouldn't pick that one because just as the world's populations have been migrating and moving around the world for millenia, it was inevitable that Europe was going to find North and South America eventually anyway.  Columbus just happened to be among the first to do so with any consequence.

And because somebody did, I, a descendant of migrated Europeans, have been blessed with being born into and raised in what I consider the best place to grow up in the entire world.

We can judge specific events in history as to whether they were good or bad things, virtuous or evil, positive or negative for those experiencing it, etc., and the circumstances of the time inform us about that. . . .but. . . .

. . . we cannot judge history itself on any single component within it.

Teddy Roosevel, an exceedingly popular President, had the best of intentions to correct some specific problems in his world at the time he instituted his "Square Deal".  But he failed to be informed by history when he did it, he ignored the counsel of the Founders, and he did not look into the future to see what would be the consequences of what he wrought.  The result is the twisted, topsy turvy, and often misguided society we have today and a bloated, incompetent, expensive, intrusive, self serving, and ever more authoritarian government that we have today.


----------



## numan (Aug 17, 2013)

numan said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > numan said:
> ...


Here is the answer to your question _[even though it lacked a question mark]_ :

*ESCAPE FROM THE CONSTITUTION -- Saving Modern Civilization, or, a modest proposal for electoral reform*

.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 18, 2013)

Are you baked, boy?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Aug 18, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It's a discussion of fantasies.... 

There are no right or wrong answers, only fantasies and opinions.  I'll ass-u-me that, even in the world we did get stuck with, I'm still entitled to mine.
​


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 18, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Progress most certainly does not equal happiness though it DOES mean that more can have access to that possibility.  For the most part though, happiness comes from you, not your circumstances.  You can be perfectly happy poor, rich or anywhere in-between with whatever amenities that you have or lack.  The only real externalities that are going to infringe on your innate ability to be happy are those that harm you or take away your basic freedoms.

Progress is not necessarily good or bad anyway, more of a reality as man will always progress until he is destroyed.


----------



## Wildman (Aug 18, 2013)

MikeK said:


> The election of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> And if that didn't work I would carefully have explained the difference between a .22 and a .357 magnum to John Hinckley.



in that case, Brady would be a dead MF'er, not an anti gun puppet


----------

