What we need is a dictator

[Sneakers]

and a unitard bathing suit

Does my flannel union suit count? I really like that butt flap....

 

[vraiblonde]

I have to add a small codicil here, if you’re going to be trans don’t go half way. Lia says he’s trans, but other than getting a manicure and a unitard bathing suit nothing. At least try to look like you’re trying to be the sex you’re claiming.

See, and I don't care about some guy with a beard and smeary red lipstick saying he's a woman. He could say he was a wombat and I wouldn't care. I only care when he comes waltzing into female accommodations, invading my space and making himself my problem. I care when he wants to be the woman's MMA champion or the woman's weightlifting champion, because he's making himself someone else's problem.

 

[spr1975wshs]

because he's making himself someone else's problem

I do not care what someone wants to do with themself, just keep it to yourself and not bother others.

 

[GURPS]

just keep it to yourself and not bother others.

IMHO that includes these freak flag pride marches ... keep your kinks private

 

[Gilligan]

.... activisty .....

I try to add at least one new word to my lexicon every day. Today's is done.

 

[SamSpade]

I don't see any number of your suggestions being possible WITHOUT trampling on the Constitution, even if a dictator were possible.
And there is not a single soul I believe to have ever lived on the planet who could carry most of those out, benignly. No matter how kind the intent, it would still be a reign of terror.

It's important to consider the original purpose of dictator as outligned in the old Roman Republic - the idea was he was to be appointed in times of extreme emergency - such as a foreign invasion (and in Roman Republic days, that meant the Celts running through your capitol killing and looting). He was to be given complete authority over everything - for six months - or until the emergency ended. Either way, the term was short. It was used often (but usually in very specific cases, like appointing a general, or ruling a religious festival, or the appointing of magistrates).

The instance of dictatorship as WE tend to think - that didn't happen often. But they ended up with lunatic tyrants like Sulla and Caesar who refused to relinquish power. They claimed they were still needed.

This is why I prefer the way we do it - at least as it should be, no one able to control everything. Otherwise, it would be gone, for good, as in the case of the Roman Republic turning into Empire.

 

[SamSpade]

I do think we need a more active citizenry. The last time I know where the citizens were wholly engaged together was WW2, and that's because all of our asses were on the line. We do need term limits to change the entire strata that runs the government - with no more permanent staff. You come into office - you hire your own guys, no more re-hiring old staff. You come, you serve, you leave. What we don't need is a permanent society of politicians who have no connection to the rest of the world, but only to Washington.

Right now, we have Congressman sipping wine in Paris, ostensibly raising cash from citizens living abroad - what they SHOULD BE DOING is talking to their constituents! We have people in Washington who once ensconced there - feel no obligation to their voters but only to their DONORS - and their party.

Term limits will do this but only if the rest of the swamp leaves with them. We cannot have an unelected mass of bureaucrats switching Congressman and Senators but forever lodged in DC to make policy. They have to go with the people they work for also.

 

[Kyle]

I try to add at least one new word to my lexicon every day. Today's is done.

In order to make it stick, you'll need to use it in a sentence with cattywampus, bumfuzzle and fibbertigibbit.

 

[Gilligan]

In order to make it stick, you'll need to use it in a sentence with cattywampus, bumfuzzle and fibbertigibbit.

 

[Grumpy]

I do think we need a more active citizenry. The last time I know where the citizens were wholly engaged together was WW2, and that's because all of our asses were on the line. We do need term limits to change the entire strata that runs the government - with no more permanent staff. You come into office - you hire your own guys, no more re-hiring old staff. You come, you serve, you leave. What we don't need is a permanent society of politicians who have no connection to the rest of the world, but only to Washington.

Right now, we have Congressman sipping wine in Paris, ostensibly raising cash from citizens living abroad - what they SHOULD BE DOING is talking to their constituents! We have people in Washington who once ensconced there - feel no obligation to their voters but only to their DONORS - and their party.

Term limits will do this but only if the rest of the swamp leaves with them. We cannot have an unelected mass of bureaucrats switching Congressman and Senators but forever lodged in DC to make policy. They have to go with the people they work for also.

The country was fully engaged for about 2 days after 9/11.

Term limits - Reps and Senators given 6 yr terms, with 1/3 of states voting every 2 years. Presidential term of 6 yrs and gone.

 

[Hijinx]

Some say the death penalty is no deterrent.
And the way it is used today it is not.
Some say it is expensive
And the way it is used today it is .

I have said this before, I repeat it now

Anyone given the death penalty should get a new trial withing 6 months.
New judge new jury.
If given the death penalty again they get 2 in the back of the head the same day.

 

[vraiblonde]

IMHO that includes these freak flag pride marches ... keep your kinks private

See and if they want to march and protest, good for them. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is block traffic or business entries and prevent others from going about their lives. Why should I be impeded because a pack of whiny babies want to sit in the middle of the road bitching about climate change?

They can talk all they want. What they can't do is force anyone to listen.

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't see any number of your suggestions being possible WITHOUT trampling on the Constitution

Some of them are just hyperbole, but most of them are well within the rights as enumerated in our Constitution.

We ALL have rights, not just the Democrat activists, illegal aliens, and criminals.

 

[Kyle]

 

[BOP]

Hear me out:

What if we had an iron fisted tyrant who, instead of lining his own pockets like Democrats do, actually used his power to protect and serve America?

• Armed guards on the border with instructions to shoot to kill.
• Firebomb the hard Left cities and exterminate everyone in them.
• Caught trafficking in drugs or child sex? Immediate death penalty right then and there.
• Tough against other countries and won't take their chit. Build the biggest, strongest military, then act like it.
• Tell prog whiners with their gender bullshit and science denials to STFU, and shoot them in the head if they refuse.
• Allow Americans to live free to pursue their happiness as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. Hurt feefees don't count as an infringement.
• Do you - drugs, crazy, homeless, whatever floats your boat - but the second you make it someone else's problem.....boom, out you go.
• Wipe out all the roaches in Congress and start over with men and women of honor. And if they begin to behave dishonorably....well, you know the drill....
• Same with lawyers who rep frivolous lawsuits (like suing because Texas Pete isn't actually made in Texas).
• Strict adherence to the Constitution. If it's not in there, it goes to the States. Don't like that? Get shot in the head.
• Violent crimes will be punished by death. Non-violent crimes will get one warning; do it again and it's bye bye time.
• Finally, shut down the punditry. Americans shouldn't need anyone telling them what to think. News should be just that - here's what's going on in the world without steering and manipulation. The second a news person dips a toe in the waters of bias.....I'd give them one warning, and if they decide to deep dive anyway, out they go. Social media tards can still spew their garbage, but those we rely on to keep us informed must be honest.

You'll note that there's a lot of death involved in my plan - that's because there must be painful consequences until everyone straightens up. House cleaning, if you will.
Then, when the house is clean, keep it that way - tidying up as you go - and not let it become a trash pit again.

I used to think that even sociopaths and morons deserved representation in government, but the progs have changed my mind. They contribute nothing to our country, just a bunch of whiny unappreciative parasites resentful of the host and trying to kill it. We can be free and pursue happiness without infringing on anyone else's rights. And if your happiness is based on infringing on someone else, then I guess you just don't get to be happy.

It's a pipe dream, I know, because there would be humans involved and they are largely greedy and prone to corruption. Great power can turn even the most honorable person bad. But straight up, our national problems are simple and fairly easy to solve. We just don't have anyone with a vested interest in solving them, and in fact they are invested in creating problems.

Any normally abled folks have a problem with my utopia? Pick my bullet points apart and tell me why they're a bad idea. I'll ignore the dipshit progs because they're the problem and of course they're going to bitch and moan.

I would chage it to: Tell prog whiners with their gender bullshit and science denials to STFU, and cut their twigs and berries off if they refuse.

 

[Merlin99]

See, and I don't care about some guy with a beard and smeary red lipstick saying he's a woman. He could say he was a wombat and I wouldn't care. I only care when he comes waltzing into female accommodations, invading my space and making himself my problem. I care when he wants to be the woman's MMA champion or the woman's weightlifting champion, because he's making himself someone else's problem.

See if he goes out of his way to really look like a woman you’d probably have no issue with him waltzing in to your accommodations (you’d probably not notice him). It’s only the ones that make the half hearted attempts that annoy people.

 

[vraiblonde]

See if he goes out of his way to really look like a woman you’d probably have no issue with him waltzing in to your accommodations (you’d probably not notice him). It’s only the ones that make the half hearted attempts that annoy people.

I have no doubt that I've shared a restroom with trans people before. But if they make an effort to fit in, nobody cares. It's when they openly come rolling in all combative and "whaddaya gonna do about it?" that makes me combative back. I don't respond well to that sort of thing.

 

[Toxick]

They key being "as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else."

Of course it is.

I honestly don't care about trans people. They have nothing to do with me, and yet they are making themselves my problem. Be trans. Nobody cares. But that's not good enough for them - they have to be all activisty and demand special considerations.

They can demand all they want. They can protest and wave rainbow flags and spread mayonnaise on their nipples, and run down the street with nothing on, but a bandana around their pecker and a party noise-maker sticking out of their buttholes for all I care.

As long as they don't block traffic, and as long as people can continue to ignore them, let 'er rip.

But the minute their running amok infringes on anyone else's rights, that's when we should exercise our Constitutionally protected second amendment rights with impunity.

However, I do not think they deserve a bullethole in the head for making themselves heard, as you seem to suggest in your first post..

I couldn't care less if people want to kill themselves with drugs. My problem is when they want to rob others for their drug money, and commit acts of violence while under the influence, and lay around in the streets on their nodding asses being a nuisance.

Again 2nd amendments rights should be freely exercised as necessary.

You acknowledged that there would be a lot of death in your plan. This is true, and collateral damage is sad, but growing pains are a part of the process, and to get to perfection, some innocent blood will be spilled. But it may be worth it for the rest of us to swim in the streets running red with the blood of those who deserve it.

I also don't want to pay for their treatment or their Narcan or whatever.

I never said you should.

As I said earlier about junkies and overdosers.... **** 'em.

Why should I have to pay for some stranger's substance abuse problem? AND I don't want to pay for their clean needles. I could give a chit if they drop dead of HIV or hepatitis - they shouldn't be my problem.

Nope. If they want to waste their life fixing and bumping and go out with a vomit-coated unconscious bang - let em.

But let them pay for it:

If they steal to feed their monkey - off with their goddamned heads.
If they drive their tweaking ass into an innocent bystander - off with their goddamned heads.
If they steal paraphernalia or supplies to fix - you know the drill.

Legalizing all drugs does not equal funding and supporting their habit, and people should be free to defend themselves to make sure they don't become the aforementioned collateral damage.

Violently and lethally if necessary.

 

[Sneakers]

I still think it's asinine that a minor percentage of the populous has the majority wrapped around their fingers. The whole world has been up-ended for a few individuals.

 

[Grumpy]

I still think it's asinine that a minor percentage of the populous has the majority wrapped around their fingers. The whole world has been up-ended for a few individuals.

Because they scream the loudest. GettingYourWay 101