Total posts: 1,950
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Your ignorance is exceeded only by the degree of your ostentation. I pity you. If at some point in the future you learn to write coherent sentences, feel free to reply to what I wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
"I don't want to hear any more of these lies. We're changing people's lives!"
Yep, for the worst. The cunt.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Same. INTJ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Wokeness like everything else will run its course. But the pattern will repeat, almost like some sort of eternal recurrence.
There is order and chaos. The right's purpose is to order the world, while the left's purpose is to destroy that order on behalf of those disenfranchised by it. While the particularities of that destruction will change, the impetus towards destruction will not.
Accordingly, there are two options. In the first case, the right could roll back the clock socially. This is unwise, because it will repeat history. In the second case, the direction of the left's destructive impetus could be channeled to something else. I don't know what that is, but doing so is better than the alternative.
I see wokeness as a response to neoconservative social ossification, which itself was an offshoot of the Moral Majority-type movement conservatism of the Reagan era, which was a response to 1970s and 1960s progressivism and the sexual revolution/third-wave feminism. We cannot do that again.
But from a Hegelian perspective, we're in the "thesis" stage. That's what wokeism is. It's their new opening bid. A new anthesis will follow, and its beginnings are in Florida with Ron DeSantis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That English is even inteligible at that time is hardly likely.
Created:
Islam is not a religion of peace.
Created:
God's necessity is the contingency from which the entirety of Western existence depends.
Created:
Arguing over whether God exists is stupid.
Created:
Most atheists tend to be psychologically and psychosocially infantile, compared to their religious counterparts.
Created:
Atheists' need external validation is the primary motivating factor that drives their highly visible, public demonstrations of objection to organized religion.
Created:
Musk derangement syndrome is hilarious.
Created:
Joe Biden is the worst political leader in any country since WWII.
Created:
Jacinda Arderin is a malevolent cunt.
Created:
Justin Trudeau is the worst prime minister in Canadian history.
Created:
Public universities should be defunded.
Created:
Most of DC comics have become shit.
Created:
Marvel is shit. Period.
Created:
Black Panther was a shitty movie.
Created:
People who argue against restrictions on gun ownership or use rights tend to be less stupid than the general population.
Created:
People who argue for gun control tend to be stupid.
Created:
Large scale societal problems cannot be resolved, or even meaningfully improved, by legislative action. Any notion to the contrary is nonsensical.
Created:
Government does not solve problems. It creates them.
Created:
Government has no place meddling in the private affairs of citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Note as well that, without regard to how you reached the conclusions you did, it is clear you lack even a basic understanding of the difference between the physical and the metaphysical. So, without that basic conceptual distinction in place, we cannot productively discuss your ideas.
Watching you talk about God is like watching Gwyneth Paltrow talk about medicine. It's actually pretty funny, at a distance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The only thing that is interesting to me about what you said is how, psychologically, you came to believe it.
I disagree with essentially all of what you wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Vince Flynn, Jack Carr and Brad Thor are all three fantastic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Men developed GOD as a naive explanation for what they couldn't understand.
lol . . . that the best you've got?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
It is unclear to me why you would make any such assumption. I have not said, nor implied, that.
I am a Christian and believe in God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Applying the human construct of "intelligence" to the metaphysical doesn't make much sense. God is over and above the measures men develop to assess themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Your initial response to this thread was correct.
I am constantly amazed at how much atheists need external validation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I don't know that I have a favorite user on DART, actually. I like a handful of people and dislike a few others. But I'm pretty neutral on most overall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You of course realize what that would do to what 90% of what the government presently does?
I have a very good idea, but not obvious we are on the same page in that assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
Together, Chavez and Dickerson make clear that when an un-Mirandized statement is introduced at trial, an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights have been violated.
This is the law.
Created:
Posted in:
actually I guess he isn't a kid, but a professor or whatever . . . .
In any case, Miranda is not going to be overturned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
I think this is what the court will find, and should find. That yale kid who wrote that article missed the ball.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you had the power to add a constitutional amendment, what would you add to limit the scope of government specifically in the area of the government limiting an American's choice as to what they can or cannot buy. Whether it is in the form of corporate or banking subsidies or regulations prohibiting the production or sale of many goods? Do you think we need the Federal government to regulate the economy to such a large extent in order to preserve the Union and how would you stop it from expanding it's power over commerce indefinitely?
I'm going to indirectly answer that, then directly answer it. The indirect answer to your question's assumed question (whether I would amend the constitution for any purpose) is that I would add an explicit constitutional right to privacy.
"The people's right of privacy shall not be infringed."
A right to privacy is presumed by the 10th amendment, both against the federal government and the states. But that, for some reason, has been controversial for many years. Asking colonists about privacy is like asking a fish about water. It was an expectation so foundational it could not even be precisely recognized as necessary to commit to paper. Clearly, that was not enough even though at common law even dating back to the Magna Carta, the concept of privacy was understood essentially to mean "the right to be left alone." It was a right to be free from the alienation, molestation and intrusion of others, as people conducted their lives in whatever way they chose. The right of privacy was so deeply presumed at common law it was thought self evident by the framers. However, the anti-federalists correctly pointed out the risk that strict textualism would later manifest: that risk being, a judicial theory beginning from the proposition that the bill of rights was a ceiling, not a floor.
An infringement on the people's right to privacy would include, domestic commercial activity (such as contracting, banking, products to be purchased, created, produced or distributed).
I think what you're getting at is what I think about the kind of proposed programmable digital currencies that the antichrists at the World Economic Forum and Federal Reserve are proposing. And to specifically address that issue, any kind of programmable digital currency that is controlled by the government would inherently violate individuals' right to privacy. As to other commercial activity, I think most regulations exist to serve commercial interests. The problem is that many of them serve only certain commercial interests at the expense of others. This is anticompetitive; an alienation on free trade by definition, and therefore improper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you had the power to amend the constitution, how would you amend it to make abortion legal or illegal if at all?
On a personal level, I oppose abortion of any kind after conception. But this is an issue that is best resolved on an individual level, or, otherwise, at a level no higher than the state level. I really believe abortion is a political question best left to the states, that should not be the subject of either a constitutional amendment or supreme court's judicial intervention in the political process. Even Sunstein and RBG said the same thing, back in the 1970s and 80s.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
- Ambiguous
- "The 2A does not provide an individual right to self defense." No, but it does guarantee an individual right to own firearms of any kind, up to and including the most lethal weapons a soldier would use in war.
- "The U.S. should take in more refugees." From where?
- "Abolish ICE and other big government surveillance." Those two are not even close to the same thing.
- "Israel is an apartheid state." And your point?
- "Section 230 should NOT be repealed." So . . . keep as is?
- "Teachers (especially in blue states) are not underpaid." Depends on the state and the school. Nearly all teachers now, for the most part, are incompetent and insufficiently qualified.
- "Suggesting that the LGBT community has the goal of 'grooming' children is disgusting bigotry." Which is why, in no uncertain terms, calling Florida's restraint on gender identity discussion a "don't say gay" bill is vile, toxic and reprehensible . . . not to mention incalculably stupid.
- "Every single teacher should be allowed to say GAY including pre-school and nursery school teachers." See above comment.
- "Defund the police." Only if by "defund" you mean "demilitarize."
- "Servers should be paid regular wages so we don't have to tip at restaurants." Don't care. Servers should be paid what their labor is worth on an open market, on terms to which they consent.
- "PBA cards exist for the sole purpose of nepotism and should be completely banned." What is a PBA card?
- "Cemeteries are a waste of space." Depends on the space.
- "Lesbian sex is better than hetero sex." Both are gross.
- Disagree
- "Open the borders; get rid of countries and standing armies." Nonsense. And you know it.
- "Jordan Peterson is a little sally but his stans are way more insufferable." A predictable response from a woke lesbian New Yorker without kids.
- "Dave Chapelle was never funny." See above comment.
- "Disband public unions, specifically police and teacher unions." People have the right to freely associate, even if their paycheck comes from a bloated administratively ossified state apparatus. Use of state power to violate constitutional rights is verboten.
- "Treasonous Trump should be disqualified from running for office in any future political elections." Convict him of that felony in a court of law by due process, maybe. But it won't happen, because the facts needed to support that characterization are little more than the fantasies of tight-assed leftist nut jobs who watched too much Maddow.
- "Taking kids to a drag show is less indoctrinating and less harmful than taking them to church." Every claim of that statement is incoherent nonsense.
- "There should be no restrictions on abortion. Heartbeat bills are deplorable." Viability standard should remain, government should not have the power to do more.
- "Morality is subjective." The man upstairs says otherwise.
- "'Cancel culture' is the free market at work for better or worse, and conservatives are the whiniest, biggest cry baby cancelers of all time." By that logic, Goebels was nothing more than an architect of the marketplace of ideas' vitality.
- "Religious people put way too much stock in their ridiculous, fabricated delusions." Who are you trying to convince there, Dani? lol
- "Student loan debt should not be forgiven." The issue, now, is whether it is escapable in bankruptcy. No one has any serious proposal for "forgiving" student loan debt.
- "The universe is predetermined. Free will doesn't exist." Nonsense.
- Agree
- "Gun control is racist and ineffective in practice." Just wait until red flag laws become a thing. They are the most plain and clear violation of a person's 4th amendment rights in decades.
- "Abolish civil asset forfeiture." Of course.
- "ABOLISH QUALIFIED IMMUNITY." Of course.
- "Big Tech has the right and the responsibility to employ censorship on their social sites." Of course, so long as they are willing to bear liability as publishers. But that's the problem. They want to act as publishers without being held to the standards of publishers.
- "Elon Musk will continue to apply censorship and police content on twitter assuming he ever buys it, which will prove all the fanboy whining about 'freeze peach' to be nonsensical hypocrisy." Censorship, as such? Yes. Of the same kind as the current leadership? Doubtful.
- "Freer trade is better for humanity and the economy. " Generally, in theory. Sure.
- "Giuliani and the rest of Trump's crony lawyers should be disbarred, even the ones that don't practice law anymore." Probably. But so should the entire DNC team at a certain firm that rhymes with Jerkins.
- "The LGBT flag/movement should not be expected to include other issues like racism." Of course.
- "Hate speech is not illegal nor should it be." Of course.
- "All drugs should be legal." Sure.
- "Get rid of the minimum wage." Probably a good idea.
- "Rent control is a terrible idea. Obliterate exclusionary zoning and build more housing instead." Agree.
- "Grade advancement in school should not be determined by age." Agree.
- "Prostitution should be legal." Agree.
- "Consensual incest should be legal." Agree.
- "Cultural appropriation is A-OK." Agree.
- "Capitalism is the best economic system, responsible for the technological, educational and medicinal advancement which has drastically and unequivocally increased the quality of people's lives." Obviously.
- "Most people should not go to college." Agree.
- "The luxury of western society has embedded a deep sense of unnatural entitlement." She said, after arguing her political enemy should be disqualified from holding public office without ever having been charged with, much less convicted of, a felony.
- "Humans aren't special and will ultimately be little more than a blip on the geological scale." Probably, but that doesn't mean much.
- "You should have to show ID to vote." Obviously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Energy is a speculative market, not a linear market. Immediate Prices reflect future supply uncertainty, not present stockpiles.
Correct. You and Pie have both made worthwhile contributions on this topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I have made no argument so as usual, you are arguing with a figment of your imagination.
It turns out that the buck stops with the guy at the top. So, the default assumption is that if you're in charge, you're responsible for what happens on your watch. Your OP contends: (1) there are problems on Biden's watch, yet (2) the burden of proof for causation is somehow on those who claim he is responsible for things that occur on his watch. Further, you OP inquires what Biden's alternative might have done, implicitly contending (3) these events were inevitable (i.e., not the result of Biden's doing).
Biden either is or isn't [responsible] for gas prices and inflation. Whether he is or isn't is not an argument, it's a matter of fact.
Responsibility is not that simple. In a complex government, economy and public/private interplay, numerous stakeholders bear overlapping levels of responsibility for macro-level outcomes. Lean into the complexity to understand causation, but realize the buck still stops with the guy in charge.
Funny how I started a thread on the January 6th hearings and all the Trumpers wanted to talk about was gas prices and inflation, so I create a thread on gas prices and inflation and they all vanish. Suddenly they're not interested. I wonder why.
I don't care why. What happened on January 6th was regretful, but it is a far cry from the fiasco as portrayed in the media. Assigning blame for the fiction created by democrats in the media is beneath futility.
Do you have any thoughts on the topic?
Yes. And I suppose we (the forum, collectively, not just you and I) aren't going to get to those items because I haven't seen anyone touch on them yet. Disappointing.
In any case . . .
- Domestic policy. Biden is singularly responsible for setting the legislative agenda, as the head of his political party (or figurehead, as it may be).
- "Green New Deal." The legislative agenda's top priority is a so called "Green New Deal." Numerous aspects of the so called "Green New Deal" impact gas prices, directly and indirectly.
- Directly, the "Green New Deal" reduces supply. For example, when Biden delayed decisions on new oil and gas drilling on federal land and other energy-related actions, including indefinitely delaying planned oil and gas lease sales on public lands in a half-dozen states in the West, including Wyoming, Montana and Utah, that clearly signalled to the market that less oil would be domestically produced. Biden has done the same thing for offshore drilling. And that is one example of many such actions that have acutely undermined the domestic supply, and anticipated future supply, of petrochemical resources (e.g., Biden's idiocy over Keystone).
- Indirectly, the "Green New Deal" signals the end of robust federal support for domestic drilling. The American oil industry is very heavily subsidized, often to the extent that most investment in expanded drilling capacity amounts to a low or no-risk proposition. The Green New Deal guts the support the oil industry has received since forever, that it has always relied on. With these developments, expanded oil production capacity is almost totally off the table. Even if expansion was possible, capital markets are a disaster right now and no one can get financing.
- So, even if a company wanted to bet against political trends and expand, for example, offshore drilling in Alaska, managed somehow (despite the Biden Administration's best efforts) to secure new leases on federal lands and actually managed approval through the process despite the Green New Deal's new regulatory throttling, they still probably couldn't even get funding at rates that are commercially acceptable.
- You've got to consider this five, ten or twenty years down the road. There is a concept called "peak oil." "Peak oil" is when we have produced the most oil we ever will. After that time, oil production declines as the world transitions to an alternative energy replacement (whatever that might be, remains to be seen). We probably hit peak oil in 2019, assuming Biden's "green" bullshit isn't reversed by the next administration, because of how prematurely Biden's incompetent advisors moved.
- Often, these harms manifest in other bizarre ways. For example, Biden's Department of the Interior conginues to "reform" oil and gas leases throughout the United States, based on its purported commitment to "ensure" that such leases "account for climate impacts." Basically, interior is trying to strap a present-day excise on drilling rights (i.e., money that has to be paid to pump oil out of the ground, because of the hypothesized "climate impact" of doing so). This is the stupidest thing any administration has ever done, and even Obama opposed it because he, aside from recognizing its stupidity, realized the harm it would cause as those costs radiated throughout the economy as a whole. Despite this known risks, the Biden Administration and congressional democrats have pushed through this ridiculous excise policy that is going to artificially increase the cost of oil production. Wanna guess who will pay for it? Consumers, of course. All of this tells speculators that the domestic supply of oil is going to be acutely reduced, yet we have not and will not in any near term move to a world where there's something like any kind of viable alternative. Demand is going to remain. That just means everything --- and I mean literally, everything --- is going to cost more to produce, because oil prices are at the bottom of all of it.
- Economic policy. Biden is responsible for the country's economic policy. Period. There are so many aspects to this I don't have time to list them all in appropriate detail. But here's something to keep in mind . . . .
- Oil is --- or was, before Joe Biden --- bought and sold only in United States Dollars. The dollar is a commodity-backed fiat currency, more or less. This means that the United States has a competitive advantage in purchasing oil internationally, to the extent it cannot meet its domestic needs (however close we got under Obama and Trump).
- However, that competitive advantage is lost when the dollar's strength relative to other global currencies declines. As you may be aware, the dollar's purchasing power relative to other currencies --- even to the extent inflated by global COVID idiocy --- has declined acutely. We are talking like 7% inflation, which is mortifying. And it's probably worse than that. So, when oil is bought on international markets, all of that means it costs more American currency than it did before. That means consumers pay a higher price at the pump.
- Foreign policy. Biden is singularly responsible for setting American foreign policy, as the "sole organ" thereof, commander in chief and all that jazz. Biden's foreign policy has been catastrophic for oil at numerous levels, a handful of which I'll discuss below.
- Ukraine. With the possible exception of the OPEC embargo in the 1970s, Ukraine has been the most singularly catastrophic geopolitical development for world energy markets. The reasons why are obvious. Russia is one of the world's largest oil exporters, and it exercises control over numerous major stakeholders which themselves have tremendous market influence. Iran is the figure that you should be thinking about, there. Together, they can drive the global price of oil to a very considerable extent --- and they have, with incredible force since Biden failed to prevent Putin's invasion of that country.
- To be clear, Biden is not the only president who failed to check Russian aggression. Fault for that predates him by multiple administrations, from Bush, to Obama to Trump, and now Biden. But Biden made the same mistake as his three recent predecessors, albeit to an even more egregious degree. When Russia stacked 100k and then nearly 200k troops on Ukraine's border on all sides, the best he could do is send Antony Blinken to threaten economic sanctions. Mark Milley was too busy being a pathetic gimp.
- Biden's failure to defend Ukraine militarily was a green light to invasion. Which is exactly what happened. That alone would have been sufficient to disrupt global oil supply, and acutely drive up gas prices. But insead, Biden had the brilliant idea to kick Russia off of SWIFT, and otherwise segregate that country from the world financial system. Turns out that when you kick one of the world's largest oil producers off the world's banking regime, that disrupts oil markets, resulting in higher prices. Shocker.
- But the harm to American gas prices did not end there. When Biden sanctioned Russia, Russia and other countries started trading in currencies that were NOT THE DOLLAR, which further (and will continue to erode) the United States' advantage in global energy markets overall. For some reason, Biden's people missed that elephant in the room.
- Saudi Arabia. When Obama played economic warfare on Iran, Venezuela and Russia by flooding global markets with American domestically produced crude, at the same time he sweet-talked the Saudis into a race to the bottom. It was brilliant. Knee-capped Iran, Venezuela and Russia, all at once. The Saudis ramped up production, American drillers were fracking like never before and oil flowed from Canada's tar sands like water over Niagara Falls. Good. Times. That destroyed the economies of Iran, Venezuela and Russia, because the per-barrel price bottomed out to such an extent that those countries could not even make a profit pumping it out of the ground. Biden did basically the opposite. He passed a so called "Green New Deal," while allowing a war to foment in Iran and managing to piss off the Saudis whose response to Biden's current efforts to increase global supplies amount to no more than "Get fucked." So we're not getting any help there.
Overall, the sum of these things approaches levels of irresponsibility and reckless stupidity never seen before.
This is what happens when complete fucking idiots are making decisions.
And we are only seeing the beginning.
It will get worse. Far worse.
Created:
Posted in:
I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020, do not support Trump's candidacy in 2024 and will not vote for him where and to the extent any acceptable alternative exists.
I am indifferent to the "hearings" concerning purported events of January 6th:
- The January 6th hearings are a transparently partisan exercise, specifically oriented for the purpose of preventing Donald Trump's re-election through political theatrics of the same sort as, among other things, the so-called "Russiagage" manufactured scandal.
- The January 6th hearings are of the same type as Trey Gowdy's behavior during the Benghazi hearings. Nothing more is taking place here than a poorly-organized partisan stunt. However, unlike the Benghazi hearings, aren't even serving their orchestrating party's intended purpose. Whereas Trey Gowdy functionally kneecapped Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected --- which no one realized until after Trump's election in 2016 --- the Democrats' best case is that this exercise in political theatrics temporarily distracts the American people from the extent of Joe Biden's failures.
- If the ratings are any indicator, the January 6th hearings have failed to achieve their intended purpose.
- Make no mistake on this point: Trump exercised fantastically poor judgment at numerous turning points, before and during January 6th.
- But, the facts do not now, nor have they ever, supported the asinine claims by Trump's political opponents relating to any alleged "insurrection," or incitement thereof.
- Moreover, any discussion on the facts is impossible, where the American media have selectively covered those events so as to advance the Democratic Party's political narratives.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Do you believe in a political party system?
Not clear on what you're asking here, specifically. If you're asking whether I support the American two-party system, I don't think it's wholly without merit or virtue. The same two party system is also far from flawless.
Though, it's worth considering whether there are better alternatives.
It's less worse here in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada or anywhere in the commonwealth. And Europe is no better, on the continent. Throughout the Western world, every other country seems to be afflicted with the same strange virus of the mind that has so pervasively infected the American political establishment. Ideations of "building back better." Grand delusions of "systemic racism." Support for fantastical idiocy, such so called "green" measures that are self-evidently anti-human. Coordinated vitiation of liberty, under the false pretext of "public health."
Outside the Western world, what else is there? One party rule? I'll take our system to one-party rule, 10/10 times. Vladimir Putin's United Russia is no viable alternative. Xi Jinping's Chinese Communist Party is little more than a more docile, but resilient combination of the Third Reich and Bolsheviks, with ambitions that would put to shame even the most egregiously dystopian hellscapes of modern fiction.
Even still, the Democratic Party in the United States is a threat to the American People's life, liberty and prosperity. For the current time, certain Republicans may be a better alternative. But in the end, ours is a crisis of value. Not in a pecuniary sense, but a normative sense. In this country, we have become far too comfortable with the idea that whenever any manufactured crisis is reported in the corrupt, dishonest left-wing media, it is fitting and proper that the federal government's power should be expanded in some way to solve it.
If we learned nothing else from the so called COVID-19 pandemic, it is that any such notion is nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Depends on what I was in charge of. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to regulate abortion. So, if I was in Congress or the Senate, I could not uphold my constitutional oath while knowingly violating it. On the other hand, if I was in a state legislature, I would probably oppose restraints on abortion after 15 weeks. But in general, I have no problem with heartbeat bills.
If a governor, I can't imagine allocating much of my state's budget to enforcing measures designed to curtail abortion. My personal opposition to the practice notwithstanding, I am existentially opposed to using the state's power to interfere with people's lives unnecessarily. This issue falls into that category.
Created:
Posted in:
The world burns in nearly all possible ways that it can, and the best you can do is argue that the guy in charge isn't responsible because it's out of his hands?
I have known you since Barack Obama was in office. And I recall what you have laid at each presidents' feet since then, and before going back to W's earliest days since 9/11.
Is this seriously the best argument you can make? Should the focus really be one of incessant excuses for why the world is burning on Biden's watch, and there's just nothing he could do?
It's been a long, long time commin' but I know . . . . A change gonn' come. Oh, yes it will. And this is why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
The extent of your historical illiteracy is such that no response is required.
How dare you speak to me.
Created:
Posted in:
Well regulated did not mean subject to "regulation" from a centralized authority, because there was no such centralized authority at the time of this country's founding. The phrase "well regulated" did refer, however, to something specific that was outlined in the Federalist Papers I and the other guy have cited above.
Well regulated meant non-inferior to a standing army in skill, aptitude and discipline. Hamilton specifically voiced this concern in Federalist No. 29, arguing that:
[As compared to standing armies, the militias should be] . . . little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
The idea that "well regulated" meant "subject to restraint by the state" is in direct contravention of what purpose the militias were supposed to serve. The idea was that not just some, but all American males of sufficient age should be not only able to use firearms, but should bear them so as to stand ready to defend their rights as well of those of their fellow citizens. The degree of their skill and discipline (i.e., regulation) should be little, if at all, inferior to the skill of a professional soldier.
This concept is further understood in the context of the struggles Washington faced when leading the colonial army, to repel the British before a certain Prussian general (whose name I forget) taught Washington the concept of standard troop regulation. Before then, colonial armies were subject to the same level of desertion and incompetence as Russia's draftees in Ukraine, now.
Created: