Thread: yeppers

“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” – Ben Franklin

Originally Posted by 2ANewbie

For those complaining about how the Senate doesn't represent the "majority of the people" and California vs. Montana, the Senate was originally designed to represent the states' interests and not "the peoples' interests". The states were to have equal power among themselves because each is a sovereign power and was to control the national government and to limits its power. Most governmental power was to reside with the states so that the people could control that level. That thought certainly has been corrupted. The Seventeenth Amendment changed the senators from being chosen by the legislatures of the states (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 3) to election by the people of a state (you can view these documents at: Constitution of the United States - Official . That has taken the original idea that the states would protect us from the national government and thrown that out so that we are now at the mercy of the feds.

I can't really see the harm in the people of the state electing senators rather than having their legislature appoint them.

What has really happened is that states have little by little given over their sovereignty to the feds. The feds have bought it via the income tax. The feds tax all of the people and then give grants back to the states for roads and hospitals and schools, etc.

With those grants come attached strings, and to get the money the states have to cave.

The real problem IMHO is that the states have slowly allowed the feds to grow way too big and take on way too much authority. We're just now beginning to see some push-back. Arizona thinks it should be able to defend its border and arrest illegals within its borders. A bunch of states believe the feds can't force an individual mandate on the people for health care. Montana believes that if a gun is 100% manufactured there that it doesn't come under the interstate commerce clause and BATF has no say over it. The list is growing.

Originally Posted by Gunner3456

I can't really see the harm in the people of the state electing senators rather than having their legislature appoint them.

Precisely the problem. People don't see the harm in it.

Here it is:

Senators being directly electable by the population means that they have to do populist things to get elected. Populist measures generally demonize business/industry and take stuff from one person or group to give to another.

The Senate was meant to be somewhat isolated from populism by both the longer terms and the appointment byt the legislature of the state./ It was a way to gain the longer term perspective of the House of Lords (to balance the House of Commons, which was already, probably immediately beset by welfare populism) witghout creating a permement, titled class.

Without that detechment, all kinds of ideas with short term appeal and no long term merit get passed. Senators are looking for a piece of the pie to bring home to their districts just like the representatives are, and they will prostitute themselves to get it, rather than looking out for the sovereignty of their state. The Senate and the House have no significant difference and no longer provide checks and balances to each other since the method of election was amended. The original check and balance is exemplified in the duties assigned to each half of Congress- the Senate to ratify treaties, the House to initiate spending bills, etc. There is SUPPOSED to be a different perspective in each.

Originally Posted by Thebastidge

Precisely the problem. People don't see the harm in it.

Here it is:

Senators being directly electable by the population means that they have to do populist things to get elected. Populist measures generally demonize business/industry and take stuff from one person or group to give to another.

The Senate was meant to be somewhat isolated from populism by both the longer terms and the appointment byt the legislature of the state./ It was a way to gain the longer term perspective of the House of Lords (to balance the House of Commons, which was already, probably immediately beset by welfare populism) witghout creating a permement, titled class.

Without that detechment, all kinds of ideas with short term appeal and no long term merit get passed. Senators are looking for a piece of the pie to bring home to their districts just like the representatives are, and they will prostitute themselves to get it, rather than looking out for the sovereignty of their state. The Senate and the House have no significant difference and no longer provide checks and balances to each other since the method of election was amended. The original check and balance is exemplified in the duties assigned to each half of Congress- the Senate to ratify treaties, the House to initiate spending bills, etc. There is SUPPOSED to be a different perspective in each.

I still don't understand. Who's to say that the same thing doesn't happen to get the legislature elected? Who's to say that the legislature won't appoint someone who will bring home the bacon, so that they themselves can get re-elected?

When have I seen a legislature with a pure heart?

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that when a majority of the people find out that they can vote themselves money from the treasury, the Republic is finished. I think we're seeing that.

Yes, that's the point of having a cut-out. The state legislatures can be corrupted by popularity issues. The House of Representatives can be corrupted by popularity issues. But the Senate could stand back a bit from it, in the past. Nothing guarantees it can't be corrupted- the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But it's much more likely with direct elections. The incentives changed drastically with the change in electoral procedure.

When you say the legislature could appoint someone to bring home the bacon, it would be for different types of "bacon". It would be for representing the ability of the states to maintain some independence from the Federal government.

It's a bit of a subtle thing, but you have to look at the history before that amendment and after, and the effects are pretty clear- a quick slide into subservience to the Federal government followed quickly upon that change.

Gunner- you're listing all the symptoms and pieces, you're just not putting together in a cause and effect analysis. You're almost there, amigo.

Think of it like when you have a boss that signs your paycheck, and a boss who tasks you with things to do. In the end, which one of them gets the deciding vote? It's always the guy who holds your paycheck. Making Senators directly electable contributed to that slide you're pointing out.

Originally Posted by Thebastidge

Yes, that's the point of having a cut-out. The state legislatures can be corrupted by popularity issues. The House of Representatives can be corrupted by popularity issues. But the Senate could stand back a bit from it, in the past. Nothing guarantees it can't be corrupted- the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But it's much more likely with direct elections. The incentives changed drastically with the change in electoral procedure.

When you say the legislature could appoint someone to bring home the bacon, it would be for different types of "bacon". It would be for representing the ability of the states to maintain some independence from the Federal government.

It's a bit of a subtle thing, but you have to look at the history before that amendment and after, and the effects are pretty clear- a quick slide into subservience to the Federal government followed quickly upon that change.

Gunner- you're listing all the symptoms and pieces, you're just not putting together in a cause and effect analysis. You're almost there, amigo.

Think of it like when you have a boss that signs your paycheck, and a boss who tasks you with things to do. In the end, which one of them gets the deciding vote? It's always the guy who holds your paycheck. Making Senators directly electable contributed to that slide you're pointing out.

Oregon is an incredibly liberal state. It's the only state which voted for Dukakis. I believe that if our legislature appointed the Senators, they would be libs and big governement to the max. I believe that progressive thinking is a mental disease. I don't see it escaping our legislature.

.Crime
Report: Hezbollah Operatives Running Vast Drug Ring With Mexican CartelsPosted on December 14, 2011 at 4:42pm by Buck Sexton )– A Lebanese national who U.S. authorities say is the ringleader of a vast international drug smuggling ring with links to the militant group Hezbollah has been indicted on drug and money laundering charges after allegedly reaping more than $850 million in illicit profits.
The indictment was announced Tuesday in federal court in Alexandria against Ayman Joumaa, who is currently at large. It alleges he led a conspiracy that, among other activities, sold nearly 100 tons of Colombian cocaine to the Zetas drug cartel in Mexico between 2005 and 2007 that was ultimately smuggled into the United States.

The conspiracy has run since at least 2004 and at times brought in as much as $200 million in a single month, according to court documents.

Earlier this year, the Treasury Department designated Joumaa as a drug trafficker and said Hezbollah profited from his network.

Specifically, Treasury accused a major Lebanese bank, the Lebanese Canadian Bank, of being complicit in Joumaa’s money laundering and turning a blind eye to massive cash transactions. One of the members of Joumaa’s network is a suspected Hezbollah supporter, and bank managers had links to Hezbollah officials, according to the Treasury Department’s findings.

The criminal indictment itself makes no mention of links between Joumaa, 47, and Hezbollah, which the U.S. ¬government has designated as a terrorist group since 1997.

The court documents show that Joumaa’s network has played a major role in the global drug trade for years, helping Colombian producers get their product into the hands of cartels in Central America and Mexico, and from there into the U.S

Originally Posted by Just Jim

I am trying to get the folkes to answer what is the trigger that sets their survival plan to action. Bank closures? Riots, what is it going to take, a fire next door and people dieing in the streets When are you going to pull the plug on life today and start your plan?

jj

Loosing you job? Death of your spouse? House fire?
We could go on from there but the truth is that being prepared is just like insurance.. You pay in, and pay in, and pay in.. with the HOPE you never need it.. Do I want to see a economic collapse or a space object strike.. heck no! But its much more realistic to prepare to be resilient so that when I loose my job or my house catches fire.. I have a realistic backup plan I can engage at any moment.

"What is the trigger?" I think its more like What is YOUR trigger? What would send YOU personally into survival mode? Truck breaks down or catches fire on a hunting trip 150 miles from folks on your hunting ground outside of cell range. That might do it!

I think you ask a great question.. I encourage people to prepare for the ups and downs of life.. Its just as realistic as planning for economic collapse, major earthquake etc..

-Joshua

The overall global food price index increased by 33% from January 2010 to January 2011. Did your income rise by that much in 2011? Did the value of your investments increase by that much in 2011? If not, storing extra food is far more practical than maintaining a savings or investment account.

Originally Posted by Noisycow

The overall global food price index increased by 33% from January 2010 to January 2011. Did your income rise by that much in 2011? Did the value of your investments increase by that much in 2011? If not, storing extra food is far more practical than maintaining a savings or investment account.

to me that is a problem. I like to eat fresh food. I don't eat canned or otherwise prepared food almost at all. I cannot save most food as it would spoil.

Hello,

I work for a television production company and we're currently developing an idea for a new show with a basic concept of documenting a group of people who want to start a new, self-reliant community away from the modern world.

We're casting our net far and wide and I've searching through message boards and forums for anyone that might be an interesting character. Does an idea like this appeal to you? Or do you know anyone who would be good for a project like this?

Please feel free to write me back or call me with any questions.
Adam

Originally Posted by Raw TV

Hello,

I work for a television production company and we're currently developing an idea for a new show with a basic concept of documenting a group of people who want to start a new, self-reliant community away from the modern world.

We're casting our net far and wide and I've searching through message boards and forums for anyone that might be an interesting character. Does an idea like this appeal to you? Or do you know anyone who would be good for a project like this?

Please feel free to write me back or call me with any questions.
Adam

Good luck, it could be a great reality show. Please get some people who really know what they are doing. There's nothing worse than a "reality" show where you scoff while watching it because the things people do are so implausible. I've seen "reality" shows where, if the audience tried to follow the ideas in the show, they would be in a world of hurt.

Originally Posted by Gunner3456

Good luck, it could be a great reality show. Please get some people who really know what they are doing. There's nothing worse than a "reality" show where you scoff while watching it because the things people do are so implausible. I've seen "reality" shows where, if the audience tried to follow the ideas in the show, they would be in a world of hurt.

Better then that.. use hidden cameras and keep your camera guys and producers out of the experiment.. Lets see how people really act when the producer is not pushing them.. and the camera guy is not eating his nice trailer lunch on set..

RAW TV specializes in sensationalistic "Reality Shows"

I've seen "reality" shows where, if the audience tried to follow the ideas in the show, they would be in a world of hurt.

Like if you tried to mine gold following the Hoffman plan?

Originally Posted by RVTECH

Like if you tried to mine gold following the Hoffman plan?

Heck, even if I tried running an excavator the way Jack Hoffman does(n't), LOL. The way he runs around on uneven ground with the boom and bucket extended off to the side, I keep expecting to see it topple.

If you're planning on preparing when you see these "signs" it would be too late. Best to prep now!

You dont "see the signs"?

When you "see the signs" so will everbody else, and then not only will preppers stock up, but also the rest of the country.

No offense meant, but how much prepping - either stocking up or getting out of Dodge - did most people do even with a few days of warning about the severity of the incoming Katrina?

A lot of sheeple, used to the government taking care of them, just sat and waited for, and expected help.

$.02