Survivalist Forum - Reply to Topic
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Thread: $.02...Serving our country Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
07-12-2013 10:51 AM
merlinfire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heckler&Coke View Post
100 million riflemen, most avid shooters and hunters, booming arms industries SEPARATE from the military industry, a close ally to the north, a desolate third world country to the south, and seas on both sides? Extreme variables in terrain, few military capable roads, cities, burbs, rural high ground. For a foreign nation to invade and hold america would be the largest and most unsuccessful invasion and occupation in history. An unsustainable impossibility, even if we had NO standing military at all.

Whether or not Yamamoto actually said it or not, the quote bears the truth.

Red Dawn will never happen. The fear of being invaded by the russians or chinese is pure cold war nonsense. Especially today. Do we really need millions in a standing military and to spend more than the entire world put together in military spending? Only if world domination by force is our goal...The more likely future dissolution of these United States is rebellion and balkanization.
Balkanization is as tantalizing a possibility as it is scary.
07-12-2013 09:59 AM
Heckler&Coke
Quote:
Originally Posted by merlinfire View Post
Somebody has got to work in private industry so that people serving can get a paycheck and have equipment/supplies.

As an ideal, everyone serving in some way is a good idea.

Mandatory service however is not....it enslaves the citizen to the state.


To expand upon that, I would say that the real ideal would be to bring back colonial-era militias in every town and state. They would be useful primarily only in times of invasion, and warhawk politicians would be less tempted to use them to invade foreign lands (Looking at you, military-industrial complex). With each militiaman responsible for his own armament (or with very minimal assistance from local authorities), our defense budget item shrinks substantially. And of course, someone is going to come on here and say we would get invaded if we weren't spending 10x the military budget of our next closest rival. To that I say, would you want to invade a nation that had 100 million trained riflemen?

Problem is, a well trained, well armed citizenry is a threat to government, and enriches few contractors, few politicians.


100 million riflemen, most avid shooters and hunters, booming arms industries SEPARATE from the military industry, a close ally to the north, a desolate third world country to the south, and seas on both sides? Extreme variables in terrain, few military capable roads, cities, burbs, rural high ground. For a foreign nation to invade and hold america would be the largest and most unsuccessful invasion and occupation in history. An unsustainable impossibility, even if we had NO standing military at all.

Whether or not Yamamoto actually said it or not, the quote bears the truth.
Quote:
You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
Red Dawn will never happen. The fear of being invaded by the russians or chinese is pure cold war nonsense. Especially today. Do we really need millions in a standing military and to spend more than the entire world put together in military spending? Only if world domination by force is our goal...The more likely future dissolution of these United States is rebellion and balkanization.
07-12-2013 09:48 AM
merlinfire Somebody has got to work in private industry so that people serving can get a paycheck and have equipment/supplies.

As an ideal, everyone serving in some way is a good idea.

Mandatory service however is not....it enslaves the citizen to the state.


To expand upon that, I would say that the real ideal would be to bring back colonial-era militias in every town and state. They would be useful primarily only in times of invasion, and warhawk politicians would be less tempted to use them to invade foreign lands (Looking at you, military-industrial complex). With each militiaman responsible for his own armament (or with very minimal assistance from local authorities), our defense budget item shrinks substantially. And of course, someone is going to come on here and say we would get invaded if we weren't spending 10x the military budget of our next closest rival. To that I say, would you want to invade a nation that had 100 million trained riflemen?

Problem is, a well trained, well armed citizenry is a threat to government, and enriches few contractors, few politicians.
07-12-2013 08:54 AM
dontbuypotteryfromme We are all ready forced into education. So forced into some sort of limited employment should not be that big a stretch.

Wouldn't do the military. But some sort of civil service could work.
07-12-2013 08:39 AM
Heckler&Coke
Quote:
Originally Posted by skulgaffer_0817 View Post
4. Military service is apolitical. I don't like the present administration, I didnt like the last one either, so what. I don't agree with why we go to war. So what. That isnt what its about. I took an oath to serve the Constitution of the United States. I serve Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, etc. My bosses are the American People and my primary duty is to protect OUR constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I also have 144 Soldiers in my company that work thier ass off and deserve the best I can do every day. THAT is what it's all about.
I totally agree and share your stance, but in order to fullfill your oath, you actually have to be somewhat informed about what's going on. Where in the constitution does it say we can go to war without declarations? Or that congress and be derelict of duty and give the president the powers of a dictator? And pass legislation clearly unconstitutional?

At what point do we actually read, and understand our founders intent, and the LAW of the land, and realize we have a DUTY to resist tyranny? While we may not be at that point yet, we soon will be under the rule of unprecedented tyranny in America. The federal government can use and abuse loopholes to justify our overseas actions, fine...but what about the total and unprecedented illegal activity against american citizens at home? I personally don't like to think about my best friends dying in unlawful wars, at the behest of a King with dictatorial powers, while our freedoms are eroded at home. I thought our first war as a nation was to rebel against such tyrannical excess...Sometimes I wish I had just died over in those ****holes instead of coming home to awaken to our nightmares of injustice, and tyranny at home.

While, there's not enough popular resistance, nor enough widespread acknowledgement of TREASON at the highest levels, there will be, one day, soon. We ARE going the way of an oppressive regime, little different than the fools we overthrow or install in other countries. They are a dime a dozen, but what about here in America?

We have journalists on the verge of breaking the "biggest story yet" about illegal activity with the CIA dying under bizarre circumstances, veterans being treated like common criminals BY the government, all Americans considered guilty until proven innocent, a federal government that has all but removed the Bill of Rights from the law...where will it end? I am not sensationalizing. I too, am a veteran, and I am a Police officer. I'm also an Oathkeeper, my proudest title. It's abundantly clear to me our country is in DIRE STRAIGHTS. We have to become active in legal channels to correct this issue, and take our oaths to the full extent of force if necessary when the time comes.

One day, I hope good soldiers like yourself join me in this understanding, and take our oath more seriously than ever before, and restore the republic our founders sacrificed life and limb to create. There was a reason this is was the greatest country in the world, and that reason was the FREEDOM we had in comparison to the rest of the world. We've already been going down the wrong path for quite sometime, but look around, we're accelerating down this path at a faster pace than ever. The crackdown on the american way of life, the freedoms we fought for, and the people we serve, is in full swing.
07-12-2013 08:18 AM
Old Soldier
Quote:
Originally Posted by skulgaffer_0817 View Post
1. Not everyone should be in the military, for many reasons. You can "serve" just as meaningfully by loving your wife or your husband, raising your children to be kind and thoughtful, and to work hard and respect themselves and others. Spending of yourself to help your fellow man. Living to be self-sufficient and leave something for those who will inherit from us.

2. Many who are "volunteers" in the military shouldnt be there. (I maintain roughly 10% of my company flagged for elimination, at some stage of the chapter process)

3. If you think the military are servile, brainwashed automatons then go back to shopping ebay for your elf costume to wear to comic-con. Luckily for you, us goose-stepping robots have, for generations, sacrificed for your self-absorbed ignorance and smug stupidity. Enjoy it.

4. Military service is apolitical. I don't like the present administration, I didnt like the last one either, so what. I don't agree with why we go to war. So what. That isnt what its about. I took an oath to serve the Constitution of the United States. I serve Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, etc. My bosses are the American People and my primary duty is to protect OUR constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I also have 144 Soldiers in my company that work thier ass off and deserve the best I can do every day. THAT is what it's all about.

5. I don't treat my superiors with respect because I agree with them, I do it because of my opinion of myself. I AM disciplined. I AM well-trained. I lead by the principle of always trying to do what is morally and ethically RIGHT according to my experience and my gut, and I lead by EXAMPLE. I dont salute an officer because I think he's awesome, I do it because I'm proud of myself as a Soldier, and I refuse to dishonor myself, my children, and my name.

6. The percentage of Americans who serve in the military is less than 1% of the population at any given time; For every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that can't "cope" outside the military there are a few HUNDRED fat losers still living with thier parents who never even tried. I suspect some of them are the more obviously misinformed smarmy ass-hats who post in this forum.

7. It truly is not the critic that counts.

There's my $.02. Cash it in.
Thank you. One of the best posts of this thread. You sound like the 1SG of one fine unit......HOOAH!

GT Vanderhoof MSG, USA (ret)
07-12-2013 02:22 AM
sgltrk
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlasphemousBill View Post
To me, better education would be the best solution to this. Pay teachers more. That will make teaching a more profitable profession, which would create a larger pool of people who want teaching jobs. With more people fighting for teaching jobs, the quality of instruction would improve and bad teachers wouldn't last long. That's a big part of it.
Hi Bill,

Don't get me started on education. After having worked in a High School for nearly 8 years education is one of my pet peeves. I'll control my desire to launch into a massive rant and just make two points:

First, I don't believe the problem is bad teachers, if by bad you mean incompetent. Yes they exist but I don't think there are as many as you might think. I believe the problem is with the value system young teachers, straight out of college, bring with them.

Second, if you look at teacher compensation including retirement, benefits and hourly wage based on actual hours worked they are exceedingly well compensated. Add to that the ability to hold a summer job if they choose or travel to Europe as a paid chaperone among other options and their wails about being underpaid become far less believable.

OK. I'm winning my anti-rant battle so I'll leave it there.

SGLTRK
07-11-2013 10:13 PM
incubus Just to throw my .02 in, which will echo a bunch of the posts here-

Spent 9 years in the Army, decided to switch to the Marine Corps for the sake of being part of the brotherhood and camaraderie that all Marines feel, got planter fasciitis in both feet during boot which caused me to get medically released from the Marines. I pretty much think every day about re-enlisting and going back because I just want to wear the uniform. I miss it, but I'm giving my wife a break from it all and trying out being a full civilian and going back to school.

With all that said, would I support mandatory military service? No.

Sacrifice is the privilege of free men. To have mandatory anything service, including in the military, is the antithesis of a free society.

Besides, what is a conscript military worth?
07-11-2013 09:30 PM
BlasphemousBill This is a tough question. I think the idea of some sort of compulsory service is to get people involved in the country. To get people to care instead of just complaining about the government or ignoring everything but their own selfish wants.

To me, better education would be the best solution to this. Pay teachers more. That will make teaching a more profitable profession, which would create a larger pool of people who want teaching jobs. With more people fighting for teaching jobs, the quality of instruction would improve and bad teachers wouldn't last long. That's a big part of it.
07-11-2013 09:05 PM
skulgaffer_0817 1. Not everyone should be in the military, for many reasons. You can "serve" just as meaningfully by loving your wife or your husband, raising your children to be kind and thoughtful, and to work hard and respect themselves and others. Spending of yourself to help your fellow man. Living to be self-sufficient and leave something for those who will inherit from us.

2. Many who are "volunteers" in the military shouldnt be there. (I maintain roughly 10% of my company flagged for elimination, at some stage of the chapter process)

3. If you think the military are servile, brainwashed automatons then go back to shopping ebay for your elf costume to wear to comic-con. Luckily for you, us goose-stepping robots have, for generations, sacrificed for your self-absorbed ignorance and smug stupidity. Enjoy it.

4. Military service is apolitical. I don't like the present administration, I didnt like the last one either, so what. I don't agree with why we go to war. So what. That isnt what its about. I took an oath to serve the Constitution of the United States. I serve Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, etc. My bosses are the American People and my primary duty is to protect OUR constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. I also have 144 Soldiers in my company that work thier ass off and deserve the best I can do every day. THAT is what it's all about.

5. I don't treat my superiors with respect because I agree with them, I do it because of my opinion of myself. I AM disciplined. I AM well-trained. I lead by the principle of always trying to do what is morally and ethically RIGHT according to my experience and my gut, and I lead by EXAMPLE. I dont salute an officer because I think he's awesome, I do it because I'm proud of myself as a Soldier, and I refuse to dishonor myself, my children, and my name.

6. The percentage of Americans who serve in the military is less than 1% of the population at any given time; For every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that can't "cope" outside the military there are a few HUNDRED fat losers still living with thier parents who never even tried. I suspect some of them are the more obviously misinformed smarmy ass-hats who post in this forum.

7. It truly is not the critic that counts.

There's my $.02. Cash it in.
07-11-2013 04:23 AM
sgltrk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heckler&Coke View Post
God, I hate it when people talk about how socialism/fascism and government programs cured the german economy. The mere idea of that needs to be debated, because this belief has actually guided american economics. It's like saying a brief bout with heroin solved all your problems! (Until you need more heroin...)

Gramps was a kraut, through and through, lived through the good times, and the bad times. He "served" in the wehrmacht under Rommel and was captured. (see that word "served" again? We have hindsight, what did he serve?)

He claimed the 1930s nazi era of domestic spending were actually not as good as people think, concurring with my austrian school belief that such managed economies can really only look good on paper, but ends hopelessly in debt, and enslaves the populace with the false belief in der führer providing prosperity through government. It's always destined to fail through inflation, bubbles, and confiscatory taxation. Sound familiar to modern america?
H&C you are right. Socialism & Fascism did not "cure" the German economy. I said Hitler used socialism to bring Germany (The Weimar Republic) back to solvency. A bankruptcy can return a business to solvency from insolvency but it doesn't "cure" whatever problems the business had in the first place. The majority of the German people did view Germany's return to solvency under Hitler as a godsend. A belief ably enhanced and supported by his propaganda machine. What cured Germany's economy, at least temporarily, was WW II. WW II was also responsible fully curing our economy as well. I agree with you fully that socialism/fascism are economically and socially unstable forms of government. No society that I am aware of has been able to exist long term using either form of government.

On a side note: You mentioned your grandfather served in the Wehrmacht during WW II. I had a friend, when I was on active duty, who had been a Panzergrenadier in the 11 SS Panzer Division on the Russian front during WW II. On the advice of his corporal he volunteered to become a Fallschirmjäger (paratrooper). That got him sent back to Germany for training. He rode for several days in railroad box cars on his return to Germany. Once there he was taken from the train, given a meak then a 30 min. class on how to use a parachute and immediately sent out for his first parachute drop. Oh, by the way, that first jump was also a combat drop. Adds new meaning to the phrase "blood wings". He had a picture of himself shaking hands with Hitler when he was a Brownshirt Youth. MstSgt Schmitka (sp) was quite a character.

SGLTRK
07-11-2013 01:26 AM
Herd Sniper Folks don't like to pay their taxes or serve on juries, but most do it because they know it's for the greater good.

Yeah, right. If you don't show up for jury duty the jury commission will get the local sheriff to track you down and bring you in on one of their warrants. Greater good does NOT involve an arrest warrant or sitting in jail.
07-10-2013 10:33 PM
Heckler&Coke
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgltrk View Post
To expand on your first paragraph... Hitler rose to power on the back of the NAZI (National Socialist German Workers' Party) by employing socialistic principals/programs to bring Germany back to economic solvency. Through that success, coupled with a truly incredible propaganda program that took advantage of the German peoples' penchant for extreme nationalism, he achieved a level of power, which, in turn allowed him to move the country into a fascist state. Italy, under Mussolini, was a fascist state from the git-go. You are correct in that in the final analysis the was little practical difference between them.

In reference to your second paragraph, I guess you missed the content of my last paragraph in, which, I stated this thread is, for me, an exercise in whimsy. I have yet to state a personal conviction one way or the other on this topic and still you refer to my "zeal" and imply that I am due a painful reality check when you have no idea what my personal convictions are.

Take a deep breath buddy. Personal attacks seldom sway people to your way of thinking. We may have more in common philosophically than you realize. This is not a contest it is a discussion.


I'll let you have the last word...unless, of course, that word is another personal attack.
SGLTRK
God, I hate it when people talk about how socialism/fascism and government programs cured the german economy. The mere idea of that needs to be debated, because this belief has actually guided american economics. It's like saying a brief bout with heroin solved all your problems! (Until you need more heroin...)

Gramps was a kraut, through and through, lived through the good times, and the bad times. He "served" in the wehrmacht under Rommel and was captured. (see that word "served" again? He though he was serving fore the "freiheit" (freedom) of the german people. We have hindsight, what did he really serve?)

He claimed the 1930s nazi era of domestic spending were actually not as good as people think, concurring with my austrian school belief that such managed economies can really only look good on paper, but ends hopelessly in debt, and enslaves the populace with the false belief in der führer providing prosperity through government. It's always destined to fail through inflation, bubbles, and confiscatory taxation. Sound familiar to modern america?
07-10-2013 08:47 PM
sgltrk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmless Drudge View Post
Read the two excerpts in blue and tell me which of them does not apply to Nazi Germany. If both are evidenced in the platform and practices of an applied political philosophy that not only took over a continent, but almost the entire world, then no argument can be made that they are mutually exclusive.

I know that reality hurts sometimes. We get so worked up in our zeal to defend freedom that we are willing to violate that freedom in order to better equip ourselves to protect it. But this is a reality check, and there is no way that growing government and makinf them the master over people is going to protect freedom.
To expand on your first paragraph... Hitler rose to power on the back of the NAZI (National Socialist German Workers' Party) by employing socialistic principals/programs to bring Germany back to economic solvency. Through that success, coupled with a truly incredible propaganda program that took advantage of the German peoples' penchant for extreme nationalism, he achieved a level of power, which, in turn allowed him to move the country into a fascist state. Italy, under Mussolini, was a fascist state from the git-go. You are correct in that in the final analysis the was little practical difference between them.

In reference to your second paragraph, I guess you missed the content of my last paragraph in, which, I stated this thread is, for me, an exercise in whimsy. I have yet to state a personal conviction one way or the other on this topic and still you refer to my "zeal" and imply that I am due a painful reality check when you have no idea what my personal convictions are.

Take a deep breath buddy. Personal attacks seldom sway people to your way of thinking. We may have more in common philosophically than you realize. This is not a contest it is a discussion.


I'll let you have the last word...unless, of course, that word is another personal attack.
SGLTRK
07-10-2013 06:01 PM
ForestBeekeeper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmless Drudge View Post
Unless they have a flux capacitor in their Delorean, they live in the present, not in the past. My point is not to impugn any who have served in the military, but simply to point out that there are different modes of service. Quite frankly, there are few people whose best capacity to serve their fellow man falls within the profession of arms.

It is a great honor to serve in the military, and a remarkably selfless act to risk one's life in defense of one's country, but that is just one of a broad diversity of callings.

If you want to broaden the concept of "service" to include all manner of non-military forced volunteering, as the OP intended, I would point your attention to the epic failure of government make-work schemes, in general. Diverting people away from their vocation, and wasting their lives for 2 years when nature would intend the time for them to pursue excellence, is nothing short of treason.

EDIT: My post to which you responded was not a swipe at you for living your life in such a way that yoou incur no tax burden. Quite to the contrary, I would argue that by starving the beast, you are accomplishing more than most taxpayers. No, I was explaining that everyone, except those who are draining the system dry, are serving their fellow man every day, and they have the certificates (dollars) to prove it, or the reciprocated service from others to affirm it.
I misunderstood your original post, my bad



Among one of my circles of friends, is a bunch of career military on pension. As such they have small fixed incomes and fit within the 47%.

Now that I am on my homestead and marketing farm produce, another circle of my friends are these small-scale farmers. Who are supporting their families on low income, and due to their low income they pay no income taxes.

Sometimes when people make general statements about the 47%, I suspect that they assume the 47% are all on welfare.

07-10-2013 04:11 PM
Harmless Drudge
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgltrk View Post
Harmless Drudge you seem to be on quite a roll.

Since you chose to impugn my education I'll address that directly. My K-12 was in the '50s and '60s. I don't know how old you are but, most seems to feel public education was more comprehensive then, than now. I have a degree in Information Systems Engineering and graduated Magna Cum Laude. I have never joined, I'm not much of a joiner, but I am Mensa qualified. Additionally my parents both served during WW II when fascism was all the rage in some parts of the world and my family discussed those sorts of things.

Fascism: A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

So, yes I do know what fascism is.

Second, someone else on this forum, I don't remember who, was vehement in his belief that Heinlein's books all advocated socialism.

Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Interesting that you two experts are in such significant disagreement about Heinlein's writings.

Lastly, the possibility of a mandatory two year Nat'l service for everyone at the age of, lets say 18, is a vanishingly remote possibility in this country. In that light I view this thread as a whimsical exercise at best and threw in another whimsical rendition of the original premise for fun.

You need to lighten-up my friend or start watching your blood pressure.

SGLTRK
Read the two excerpts in blue and tell me which of them does not apply to Nazi Germany. If both are evidenced in the platform and practices of an applied political philosophy that not only took over a continent, but almost the entire world, then no argument can be made that they are mutually exclusive.

I know that reality hurts sometimes. We get so worked up in our zeal to defend freedom that we are willing to violate that freedom in order to better equip ourselves to protect it. But this is a reality check, and there is no way that growing government and makinf them the master over people is going to protect freedom.
07-10-2013 03:58 PM
Harmless Drudge
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForestBeekeeper View Post
What about those within the 47% who did serve?
Unless they have a flux capacitor in their Delorean, they live in the present, not in the past. My point is not to impugn any who have served in the military, but simply to point out that there are different modes of service. Quite frankly, there are few people whose best capacity to serve their fellow man falls within the profession of arms.

It is a great honor to serve in the military, and a remarkably selfless act to risk one's life in defense of one's country, but that is just one of a broad diversity of callings.

If you want to broaden the concept of "service" to include all manner of non-military forced volunteering, as the OP intended, I would point your attention to the epic failure of government make-work schemes, in general. Diverting people away from their vocation, and wasting their lives for 2 years when nature would intend the time for them to pursue excellence, is nothing short of treason.

EDIT: My post to which you responded was not a swipe at you for living your life in such a way that yoou incur no tax burden. Quite to the contrary, I would argue that by starving the beast, you are accomplishing more than most taxpayers. No, I was explaining that everyone, except those who are draining the system dry, are serving their fellow man every day, and they have the certificates (dollars) to prove it, or the reciprocated service from others to affirm it.
07-10-2013 03:32 PM
LibShooter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herd Sniper View Post
The whole thing boils down to involuntary service and that just chafes where the average American's shorts meets the skin. Worse than diaper rash on a baby. And it has nothing to do with a love for country at all. It's all about being frog marched to do something that you don't want to do and the justification doesn't matter one whit to you at all when you're mad as a wet hen.
Folks don't like to pay their taxes or serve on juries, but most do it because they know it's for the greater good.
07-10-2013 03:05 PM
ForestBeekeeper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmless Drudge View Post
Everyone except the "47%" does serve. When you receive payment in return for producing goods and providing services, those bills have no intrinsic value. The only value they have is that they are certificates that you have served your fellow man, and they are honored by others when you give them in gratitude for doing the same to you.
What about those within the 47% who did serve?
07-10-2013 03:00 PM
sgltrk Harmless Drudge you seem to be on quite a roll.

Since you chose to impugn my education I'll address that directly. My K-12 was in the '50s and '60s. I don't know how old you are but, most seems to feel public education was more comprehensive then, than now. I have a degree in Information Systems Engineering and graduated Magna Cum Laude. I have never joined, I'm not much of a joiner, but I am Mensa qualified. Additionally my parents both served during WW II when fascism was all the rage in some parts of the world and my family discussed those sorts of things.

Fascism: A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

So, yes I do know what fascism is.

Second, someone else on this forum, I don't remember who, was vehement in his belief that Heinlein's books all advocated socialism.

Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Interesting that you two experts are in such significant disagreement about Heinlein's writings.

Lastly, the possibility of a mandatory two year Nat'l service for everyone at the age of, lets say 18, is a vanishingly remote possibility in this country. In that light I view this thread as a whimsical exercise at best and threw in another whimsical rendition of the original premise for fun.

You need to lighten-up my friend or start watching your blood pressure.

SGLTRK
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net