If the US is going to collapse, it won't be under that strain of any social ist policies, but rather because it's being put under strain by diametrical ly opposed policies, which have transferred essentially all the benefits of the last thirty years of economic growth into the pockets of the top 1% of the income distribution, leaving everybody doing no better off - and worse in a number of respects.
The real cost of getting an education has gone up a lot in the last thirty years, so the bright kids from poorer families aren't getting the same kind of educational opportunity that Jim had. This is costing the top 1% money
- there isn't as much well-trained hired help around to help them make even more money - but they are too complacent to notice.
Joseph E. Stiglitz has spelled this out in "The Price of Inequality"
formatting link
Nassim Nicholas Talib doesn't like Stiglitz much, but he still endorses him as a smart economist.
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is getting ready for the wrong revol ution, as you'd expect.
--
In his professional life, it seems that passers-by hold him in high
regard because of his past accomplishments and because of what he can
bring to the table in the present in order to satisfy their needs in
the future.
In his personal life, he has a lovely home, a loving wife, and
children and grandchildren who have distinguished themselves in their
particular fields of endeavor.
And you?
You probably still live with your parents and all you can do to
assuage your feelings of inadequacy is to cast aspersions on those
whose accomplishments you can't possibly match, ever, in a futile
dance of pretense.
"High regard"? He's adequate, useful in the area and not too expensive.
Which doesn't excuse his antics here, which presumably embarrass every last one of them.
Does it matter? Our standing here depends on what we have to offer here. Yo urs is pretty much define by your enthusiasm for the 555, and a rather quix otic admiration for the - dubious - virtues of the southern gentleman, whic h Jim Thompson dreams, in his ignorant and maladroit way, of embodying.
One of the interminable pro-gun-regulation documents.
r.
I'm not advocating that the police be disarmed - though where they are arme d they do have a tendency to shoot the wrong people, like one another.
Tactically speaking, it makes more sense to identify bullies and capture th em when they aren't armed and ready for action.
Pretty much everywhere, including in the US - the average criminal is caugh t and locked up by the police, rather than being shot by an armed citizen, or subject to a citizen's arrest by a gun-carrying civilian.
al country. Take away the gun deaths and the US murder rate looks a lot mor e like that of most other advanced industrial countries.
What question? It's certainly relevant to the question of the advantages of closer gun-ownership regulation.
ia - as envisaged in the second amendment of the US constitution - they mig ht form some kind of useful defense, but an armed rabble is essentially dan gerous only to itself and incautious bystanders - militarily it is negligib le.
George the Third didn't have much trouble coping with the well-regulated co lonial militias at the start of the Revolutionary War.
The colonial militias were long-established and tolerably well-trained unit s that had fought off Indian attacks long before the founding tax dodgers s tarted their revolution, but they weren't much use against regular British Army units.
It took George Washington a long time to train up his colonial army to the point where it could win pitched battles.
The US Army - composed of full-time soldiers who'd been through basic train ing - did see service in the First and Second World Wars. They weren't an " armed rabble". The problem with US gun-control laws isn't that you've got a more or less effective professional army, but that a whole lot of civilian s have guns in their homes that they don't really know how to use, and in p ractice are much more likely to use to kill themselves than for any kind of effective defense.
tia - as envisaged in the second amendment of the US constitution - they mi ght form some kind of useful defense, but an armed rabble is essentially da ngerous only to itself and incautious bystanders - militarily it is negligi ble.
Krw and John Fields are a bit too dim to appreciate that it isn't the weapo ns that make the difference, but the training of the people who handle them .
A "well regulated militia" is trained to use it's weapons in a coordinated fashion - say half the group providing covering fire while the other half m oves forward.
A group of well-trained infantrymen can make mince-meat of a much larger ar med - but uncoordinated - group by carving them up into smaller groups and annihilating each group in succession. It's called tactics, or divide and conquer, and has been known for quite some time.
formatting link
Krw and John Fields may be as little as two and half thousand years behind the times, but these insights were probably first discovered somewhat earli er.
You're uneducatable, Slowman. One more time; "well regulated" meant that they had weapons and that they were in working order (e.g "well regulated clock); military weapons, in fact. The "militia" was
*everyone* (in particular all men over the age of 17).
That's what George thought. The Allen family taught them a rather hard lesson. Oops.
Too bad Slowman hasn't a well regulated brain cell. BTW, the Constitution isn't "two and a half thousand years old". What a dumbass!
ilitia - as envisaged in the second amendment of the US constitution - they might form some kind of useful defense, but an armed rabble is essentially dangerous only to itself and incautious bystanders - militarily it is negl igible.
r
apons that make the difference, but the training of the people who handle t hem.
ed fashion - say half the group providing covering fire while the other hal f moves forward.
You obviously aren't equipped to educate me, since what you think you know is total nonsense.
For a start, it only included people who had enough money to buy weapons. T hey weren't government issue. Being well-enough armed to participate in the militia was a mark of social status, and being seen as responsible enough for the other members to risk having you stand within gun-shot while you al l exercised with your weapons was another requirement.
armed - but uncoordinated - group by carving them up into smaller groups and annihilating each group in succession. It's called tactics, or divide a nd conquer, and has been known for quite some time.
It took George Washington a couple of years to train up his continental arm y to the point where it could fight a pitched battle against British regula rs.
Allen's "Green Mountain Boys" militia did secure an early success by captur ing Fort Ticonderoga in a surprise attack, but they were a "well-regulated militia" with pre-Revolutionary military experience whom Allen had led in a campaign of intimidation and property destruction to drive New York settle rs from the New Hampshire Grants, which seems to have started around 1770.
Four months later Ethan Allen was captured by the British while leading the unsuccessful attack on Montreal, so George III might be considered to have instructed Ethan Allen rather more forcefully than Ethan Allen had instruc ted him.
nd the times, but these insights were probably first discovered somewhat ea rlier.
I was referring to "The Art of War" rather than the US constitution (which wasn't under discussion). If krw had enough neurones to make a synapse, he might have been able to work this out.
Ask any right-wing nitiwit, and they'll agree immediately. They don't have to waste time finding evidence to support their point of view - Fox News has given them the answer and they (fortunately) don't have to think about what they are saying.
Precisely my point, Slowman. It's impossible. It's good that you agree with me, here, though.
You really are a dumb shit, aren't you Slowman?. That's the WHOLE POINT of the Constitution - Liberty. I know you don't give a rat's ass about it but it is important to some.
Good Lord, you're an idiot Slowman.
Of course you forget about Ira and co.
Proving, once again, that you're the perfect idiot everyone knows you to be. Good work, Slowman.
d militia - as envisaged in the second amendment of the US constitution - t hey might form some kind of useful defense, but an armed rabble is essentia lly dangerous only to itself and incautious bystanders - militarily it is n egligible.
o
weapons that make the difference, but the training of the people who handl e them.
nated fashion - say half the group providing covering fire while the other half moves forward.
ow is total nonsense.
We certainly seem to be agreed that you have no information to impart that would make me better-educated. That doesn't make me uneducatable.
Sadly your grasp of logic is not good enough for that point to have penetra ted your regrettably feeble brain.
. They weren't government issue. Being well-enough armed to participate in the militia was a mark of social status, and being seen as responsible enou gh for the other members to risk having you stand within gun-shot while you all exercised with your weapons was another requirement.
Quite how the social status of people who were allowed to join the militia has any bearing on your constitution escapes me. That they could co-opt all men over the age of 17 into the militia may strike you as having something to do with liberty.
Since, in practice, they wouldn't have bothered with the halt or the lame, or the kind of nitwit like you who really shouldn't be trusted with someone else's gun, or the kind of rogue who might use the gun that had been lent to him to rob his better-off neighbours, this looks more like the tyrannica l imposition of the conscription of cannon-fodder.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.