Is it time to take America back?

SFC Collin McMillion — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:54:11 -0400

We as as American are sworn to defend this country against enemies foreign and domestic. We had better start with the domestic side. How long is it going to be before we have to start having visas just to travel from one part of our own country to another? Seem to me people are not coming here for a piece of the pie, but to own it. How long is it going to be before Americans, regardless of color, race, religion or creed go the way of the native Americans, put on reservations and told this is your part, stay here. I'm sorry, but, Hitler, Hussan, Bin Laden, Stalin, Castro, Putin, these are not my heros. Look at the countries on earth that are all getting divided up, are we next, have we already started in that direction? What happened to not being a divided front? To me it is of little wonder why so many states want to break away from be part of the United States, why, because we are no longer "united". In the name of whatever peace love religion or culture you belong to, we need to come together before we all fall apart. Just my way of thinking and begging this great country to reunite in peace with common goals.

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Mar 18 at 2015 10:12 AM

CPT Richard Riley — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:12:11 -0400

While I will tend to agree that we (United States of America) have veered off center and are no longer 'true' to our roots, the concept of America being "United" under one common goal is unfortunately far-fetched at this time. It is difficult to get general agreement out of even simple ideas, let alone a united concept. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of good ideas to embrace and plenty of positive steps that can be taken ... unfortunately the but in the sentence is that the general population cannot agree on what that idea and positive step IS.
To embrace common goals is a positive and good thing. It's the agreeing and getting there that become so arduous. We have rationalized ourselves into ideological camps that 'never the two shall meet'. In simplistic terms, we are incapable of agreeing on what the color RED is because each person's perception is different and we're not willing to evolve our individual concept of RED to include another that is starkly different than our own.

Is it possible to eventually obtain a united front? I think you'll find many would say yes with the notion that their concept is the accurate one and others, adverse to their definition, need to evolve to that definition. We do not have a 'Davey Crockett' in our midst today who would stand up and lead with the majority gravitating to his leadership. To find that, to have it, is a tall order!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 10:48 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:48:09 -0400

It used to be, "the United States are..." Now it is "the United States is..." We have veered from what a republic is supposed to be. No longer do we, as a State, have the ability to recall our Senators - it used to be such because they were appointed by the governor & if they lost approval of the people the governor would recall them. The Senators nixed that by declaring they must be elected to terms.

I believe a few years ago there was a Russian sociologist-type that stated that eventually the United States would break up & form several different nations. Of course, that was ludicrous when he said that...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 18 at 2015 11:13 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:13:25 -0400

I disagree SFC Collin McMillion, the United States was established as a country whose continuation or change were ultimately the right of the citizen. From the preamble of The Declaration of Independence,

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

While this was written to the King of England, the principle does not change. We have taken an Oath to uphold the Constitution, a document which was borne from the same principles. I think if we are going to be a nation that prides ourselves on "freedom", shouldn't we respect the freedom of a citizen's right to choose their government? If a majority have found the system to be broke, why should their solution be discounted because it is revolutionary and different? I don't agree that the states should in any way disband, but I do think it's hypocritical to pick and choose which acts are okay to be left to free will. It's the same reason I think Afghanistan has been a failure in some respects, we've forced them to choose a democracy. That's not freedom or democratic, that's authoritarian disguised. It's no surprise to me then that many of them do not see the benefit of it, because they were given no choice.

Anyway, I didn't intend this to be rude, I just wanted to offer a different perspective. Have a good day.

Response by MAJ Nathan Potter made Mar 18 at 2015 4:10 PM

MAJ Nathan Potter — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:10:10 -0400

I am not sure what or where we need to take our country back from. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried.” (Winston Churchill). What it is, governance is messy. What confuses me is that 95% of House incumbents and 82% of Senate incumbents were reelected yet during that same election Congress had a solid 16% approval rating. And this was all achieved with a 36% voter turnout which coincidentally was the worst turnout since World War II. We seem to complain nationally but reelect locally.

As far as I could find there have been four instances where the Electoral College and the popular vote did not go the same direction, three of those were back in the 1800s the fourth would have put Al Gore into office over G. W. Bush. I wonder how history would a played out from there? All it really does is serve to protect a two party system and we would probably benefit from some changes there. I think a better question would be, where is the integrity in our news media? They pander to the mob.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Mar 19 at 2015 12:39 AM

SFC Collin McMillion — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:39:48 -0400

I believe there is some misunderstanding in what, or the way I said what I did. I remember several years ago, in Georgia I think, one member of a high school band's father fought and won a discision that because prayer before a football game offended his son, so the prayers were stopped. Change to me is good if peace and prosperity is the end result, but I do not believe anyone has the right to dictate to others how they believe in there personal lives and have changes made be made just because they object. No one has the right to force you to except their ideals, religion, or anything else that is non violent or destructive. If you wish it worship differently, eat differently, or watch the news instead of a movie, etc., that is your right, but do not try to force this on others. I am married to a Philippine national and spend as much time there as I do here, and for sure the cultures, foods, way of living is different, I accept that wholeheartedly and thrive in the parts I believe in, but don't try to change their ways just to benefit me even in the parts I don't and I truly live in peace and comfort with the people there. Ask my opinion, first thing I will tell you is I would rather not say as it may be directly against yours and create problems so I would rather accept and. shut up, because I will continue to believe I am right until you show proof I am wrong. I have done enough and lived long enough to know almost everyone disagrees on some things, but trying to change everyone to my way of thinking and my beliefs is totally wrong. A lot of those on RP disagree, but most discuss their disagreements rather than go for the throat. Agreeing to disagree to me is the best solution if you can not find a middle mark.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 12:52 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:52:52 -0400

We blame society, but we are society.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 7:22 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:22:19 -0400

Um... I am not going there. I will say if you want your liberty back, get it back at the ballot box. Stop assuming Rs are good - they're not. Change your yourself, your family, and your community. Your state. The country, in that order. Hold yourself to a high standard and demand it of others. Take care of your own crap and help those that can't. Encourage personal responsibility. This isn't "seizing a government" but reforming the culture. It is reclaiming our true birth right and origin of our liberties. Arms isn't the answer, love for your fellow man and a return to principles is.

Response by LCpl Tom Goudey made Mar 19 at 2015 9:09 AM

LCpl Tom Goudey — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:09:43 -0400

How do you propose that we take the country back? Do you have a plan so to speak or are you promoting awareness? I am curious about anything that you may have to say or more information on this on this subject.

Response by SSgt Randy Saulsberry made Mar 21 at 2015 1:49 AM

SSgt Randy Saulsberry — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 01:49:11 -0400

i dont understand nor have i ever uderstood the outcries to take our country back. take it back from who or what? because to different people that means diferent things. People love to complain that the liberals or progressives are destroyiong the country. when in all actuality, historically, it is the liberal and progressive minded people that are the ones that bring the change that leads to more freedoms. voting rights act, civil rights act, fair housing act, womens rights, gay rights, marriage equality and so on. and i know for the first few, were done in the late and mid 20th centurey and by the republican party. that is because back then the republican party was the progressive and liberal party. so it has nothing to do with a political party, per se, but with the progressive mindedness of individuals. because at no time in history is there more freedom than now. so when you say take it back, to me you are idealizing a moment in time. so what moment in time are you wanting to freeze progress in because for the group i come from any moment other than right now is not a good time.

when you wanna take it back you are basically complaining that people have too many freedoms, which is ironic seeing that we live in the so called land of the free.

to end, we have only been united in the country a couple times. the pearl harbor attack and the 911 attacks. other than that we have never been truly united. there are too many scars that run too deep that have never been truly acknowledged or corrected. and until America wakes up and truly accepts its blame and addresses is wrongs from the past as well as the ones that continue to this day, we will never be truly united.