Quote from: AndyJackson on August 09, 2013, 03:19:16 PM
Damn son, don't get so bitter and angry that you turn into pure vinegar.

Somebody offered this guy a moderator job   ?  Dang, give your head a shake, then a sharp crack with a stick.  All posts under 5000 words would be deleted.

While working at Pease AFB in Portsmouth I had an oversight manager working, would love to stop by and kibitz.

On this particular day we were doing an extended survey of a UXO (unexploded ordinance) site on the base, in an area with so many varied explosives in the ground, that even drill augers would come up dripping with groundwater, and then would air-dry and form picric acid crystals all over their surface, which is a contact explosive, sort of like those little poppers one can throw, only worse. 

I point  this out only to establish that it was an extremely explosive environment.

On this particular day, this oversight person came up to our crew gathered to discuss issues while juggling an item in his hand.  I immediately took a large step back away from him. On that particular day I was working with two contracted Navy Seals. One of them reached out and put his hand over the object the oversight person had been juggling in the air.  And then calmly explained to him how M-48 grenades work, even those only loaded with paint charges for targeting practice; that they have these tiny  servo-gears inside, and it only takes one of those gears advancing even only 1 tooth to cause a "dud" to detonate.  Such a detonation, even from only a paint marker grenade, is enough to remove a person's hand, and cause severe bodily damage. 

Just out of curiosity, entirely unrelated, do you have all your fingers?

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 07:56:53 PM

And all you've done by this picking and choosing, is validate the deconstruction of the Constitution, and guaranteed your own defeat.  There is nothing stopping the continuing degradation of the constitution, and in fact you've turned it into a battle that will invariably be lost -- and these past 200 years are proof of that.   

You've turned the singular vision of a "specific form" of government which we are guaranteed, with specific limitations on the authority of the federal government, into  "any form of government", and whatever we might take back at any moment, with no vision whatsoever -- thereby ensuring the battle continues, and validating the other side's deconstruction.

This won't work.

What did I say about long winded posts?
So I skipped through to get to the meat of the issue.
I say it took 200 years to screw up the Constitution, and will take far longer than one term to repair the damage.
My plan is to install Conservatives at the ground level in all areas, which is the purpose of the Tea movement, from dog catcher to the House.
I say defund needless bloat and agencies like DOE, EPA etc, let them die through attrition, but if I'm following you correctly, you want it all right now, no compromise.

So tell me, in "short" how you see your plan taking effect without bringing the country to it's knees.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 08:35:57 PM
What did I say about long winded posts?
So I skipped through to get to the meat of the issue.
I say it took 200 years to screw up the Constitution, and will take far longer than one term to repair the damage.
My plan is to install Conservatives at the ground level in all areas, which is the purpose of the Tea movement, from dog catcher to the House.
I say defund needless bloat and agencies like DOE, EPA etc, let them die through attrition, but if I'm following you correctly, you want it all right now, no compromise.

So tell me, in "short" how you see your plan taking effect without bringing the country to it's knees.

You "said" the exact same means that corrupted the Constituition to begin with.

The country is already on its knees, or hadn't you noticed?

Your "plan" doesn't even establish what a conservative is, much less what they are to do, and why,  once these alleged conservatives are optimistically installed at ground level.  Let's everyone vote harder.

We've already done the compromises, and they got us to where we are.  We've already demonstrated our ignorance.  My plan is called the U.S Constitution, whereas your own plan is called "more of the same".

It's only opinion, but your non-plan "plan", having no foundation whatsoever, and no rationale, seems preordained to failure, as established by those previous "200 years".

"Less government" isn't a plan, it's a relative comparison.

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 08:50:01 PM
You "said" the exact same means that corrupted the Constituition to begin with.

The country is already on its knees, or hadn't you noticed?

Your "plan" doesn't even establish what a conservative is, much less what they are to do, and why,  once these alleged conservatives are optimistically installed at ground level.  Let's everyone vote harder.

We've already done the compromises, and they got us to where we are.  We've already demonstrated our ignorance.  My plan is called the U.S Constitution, whereas your own plan is called "more of the same".

It's only opinion, but your non-plan "plan", having no foundation whatsoever, and no rationale, seems preordained to failure, as established by those previous "200 years".

"Less government" isn't a plan, it's a relative comparison.

So that's your plan? Criticize mine?
Still waiting to hear this miraculous plan to save the country in one term.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 09:06:38 PM
So that's your plan? Criticize mine?
Still waiting to hear this miraculous plan to save the country in one term.

"Less government" is not a plan, much less even a specific goal.

You don't have a plan. You're indicating nothing but doing the same thing.

No amount of "terms" could manage to fix what is wrong. No amount of voting will fix what is wrong. 


We managed to fix what was once wrong in less than a generation with "a plan" known as the U.S. Constitution.

You got a plan, much less a better one? What's your problem with the Constitution? Is there something about it you personally reject, or just not yet made its acquaintance?

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 09:44:03 PM
"Less government" is not a plan, much less even a specific goal.

You don't have a plan. You're indicating nothing but doing the same thing.

No amount of "terms" could manage to fix what is wrong. No amount of voting will fix what is wrong. 


We managed to fix what was once wrong in less than a generation with "a plan" known as the U.S. Constitution.

You got a plan, much less a better one? What's your problem with the Constitution? Is there something about it you personally reject, or just not yet made its acquaintance?

The constitution is as close to a perfect document as humans can conceive.
No amount of voting will fix what is wrong?

Are you suggesting that we eliminate the vote, in order to get closer to the constitution?

Maybe in a push to get closer to the constitution, we should collect and process all libs into dog food, eh?

Great mind Trip, but you are getting beyond yourself...and the constitution.

I can sell constitutional freedom to anyone, without lies.

You are suggesting unconstitutional means to a constitutional end. Does not compute.

If the US constitution has to be force fed to the population, there is nothing left to fight for...it is already dead.

Quote from: kramarat on August 09, 2013, 10:05:13 PM
The constitution is as close to a perfect document as humans can conceive.
No amount of voting will fix what is wrong?

Are you suggesting that we eliminate the vote, in order to get closer to the constitution?

Maybe in a push to get closer to the constitution, we should collect and process all libs into dog food, eh?

Great mind Trip, but you are getting beyond yourself...and the constitution.

I can sell constitutional freedom to anyone, without lies.

You are suggesting unconstitutional means to a constitutional end. Does not compute.

The "vote" isn't supposed to determine our form of government, much less enable agendas prohibited by that form of government.


That "vote" is not actually integral to the Constitution, and is in fact deliberately minimized in importance, effect and possible impact.

The United States of America is deliberately not a Democracy, and for good reason.  If you doubt this for some strange reason, then a good place to start is Federalist #10, which even manages to detail the Progressive agenda decades before Marx put pen to paper, and identify it as incompatible with liberty.

Unfortunately our government and Constitution have been so thoroughly corrupted that we now operate as both a Democracy and oligarchy, without any reference to the Constitution at all.

Which returns  us to the original problem: the fact that too few actually know and regard what the Constitution indicates, and instead buy into some populist ideology promoted by socialist public schooling.


How these progressive fascists get processed will be determined by history.  If we treat their agendas if  valid, then the only persons we have to condemn is ourselves.

Nothing I've actually indicated is even remotely unconstitutional, and is suggested by the Constitution, and this country's other foundering documents.

Don't pretend to be responding to what I say when you insert things I never stated, nor implied.    That's dishonest argumentation, and known as a strawman, among other things.

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 10:14:44 PM
The "vote" isn't supposed to determine our form of government, much less enable agendas prohibited by that form of government.


That "vote" is not actually integral to the Constitution, and is in fact deliberately minimized in importance, effect and possible impact.

The United States of America is deliberately not a Democracy, and for good reason.  If you doubt this for some strange reason, then a good place to start is Federalist #10, which even manages to detail the Progressive agenda decades before Marx put pen to paper, and identify it as incompatible with liberty.

Unfortunately our government and Constitution have been so thoroughly corrupted that we now operate as both a Democracy and oligarchy, without any reference to the Constitution at all.

Which returns  us to the original problem: the fact that too few actually know and regard what the Constitution indicates, and instead buy into some populist ideology promoted by socialist public schooling.


How these progressive fascists get processed will be determined by history.  If we treat their agendas if  valid, then the only persons we have to condemn is ourselves.

Nothing I've actually indicated is even remotely unconstitutional, and is suggested by the Constitution, and this country's other foundering documents.

Don't pretend to be responding to what I say when you insert things I never stated, nor implied.    That's dishonest argumentation, and known as a strawman, among other things.

Obama, his teachers, and his friends, know that the US constitution is just a piece of paper.

He watches in glee, as countries fall, and get completely taken over by a new regime. He sees the US as just another country...waiting to fall. Waiting to be taken.

Strawman?
We really don't have time for that; at least I don't.

We are on the cusp of a f**kin' that we will never recover from...so no; I try not to waste my time with bullshit.

Quote from: kramarat on August 09, 2013, 10:41:15 PM
Obama, his teachers, and his friends, know that the US constitution is just a piece of paper.

He watches in glee, as countries fall, and get completely taken over by a new regime. He sees the US as just another country...waiting to fall. Waiting to be taken.

Strawman?
We really don't have time for that; at least I don't.

We are on the cusp of a f**kin' that we will never recover from...so no; I try not to waste my time with bullshit.

Then I'm sure that you've no time to insert things into my argument that I never stated, nor implied.

If we are indeed, as you say, "on the cups of a f**kin'" that we will never recover from, then how is it reasonable that our response is "smaller government"?   That's like being in a torture room and screaming, "Don't hurt me that much!".

While we're at it,  I peviously described Jenny Beth Martin, of the Tea Party Express, describing them as becoming more "grass roots" and establishing more local to go door to door, rather than having a national presence.

How does this make sense?  While I'm sure it's an admirable thing to adopt the tactic of one's enemy, it doesn't make sense to do so when that tactic goes against one's own intention and goals.

The Tea Parties are, allegedly, promoting the Constitution, and constituitonal government.  Nowhere in the philosophy of that document is there any sort of populism, and in fact that populist dictate is rejected. 

While the founders sought populist numbers in Lexington, Concord, and the Revolutionary war itself, this wasn't to establish an ideology of government.  When they wanted to establish that ideology of government, they chose to use the few, to recognize the shared common interests of every American.

When the founders wanted to alert the people to the cause of Revolution, they went for the bully pulpits of the churches, and had the clergy appeal to, educate, and inspire  the populace. 

Shouldn't the tea parties be educating and inspiring the people, rather than usign the tool of their enemy and the means to corrupt the Constitution, reaching out to mass populist goals?  The only people that will respond to the Tea Party's efforts, are those with some grasp of the Constitution, but not necessarily a good grasp.

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 11:02:12 PM

Then I'm sure that you've no time to insert things into my argument that I never stated, nor implied.

If we are indeed, as you say, "on the cups of a f**kin'" that we will never recover from, then how is it reasonable that our response is "smaller government"?   That's like being in a torture room and screaming, "Don't hurt me that much!".

While we're at it,  I peviously described Jenny Beth Martin, of the Tea Party Express, describing them as becoming more "grass roots" and establishing more local to go door to door, rather than having a national presence.

How does this make sense?  While I'm sure it's an admirable thing to adopt the tactic of one's enemy, it doesn't make sense to do so when that tactic goes against one's own intention and goals.

The Tea Parties are, allegedly, promoting the Constitution, and constituitonal government.  Nowhere in the philosophy of that document is there any sort of populism, and in fact that populist dictate is rejected. 

While the founders sought populist numbers in Lexington, Concord, and the Revolutionary war itself, this wasn't to establish an ideology of government.  When they wanted to establish that ideology of government, they chose to use the few, to recognize the shared common interests of every American.

When the founders wanted to alert the people to the cause of Revolution, they went for the bully pulpits of the churches, and had the clergy appeal to, educate, and inspire  the populace. 

Shouldn't the tea parties be educating and inspiring the people, rather than usign the tool of their enemy and the means to corrupt the Constitution, reaching out to mass populist goals?  The only people that will respond to the Tea Party's efforts, are those with some grasp of the Constitution, but not necessarily a good grasp.

Brevity...

Have a couple of drinks, (or not), and hug a lib; followed by conversation.

I'll do it my way; you do it your way.

So far, your ability to build an army, is a dismal failure.....and you're on a conservative forum.

Chill.

Quote from: kramarat on August 09, 2013, 11:17:20 PM
Brevity...

Have a couple of drinks, (or not), and hug a lib; followed by conversation.

I'll do it my way; you do it your way.

So far, your ability to build an army, is a dismal failure.....and you're on a conservative forum.

Chill.

I don't write more, for myself.

I write more to right the flawed understandings of others, and make my perspective clear. 

Perhaps you could do with grasping for less drink, and taking in a more clear grasp.   Sure, knowledge is an acquired appetite, but one's tolerance increases with their exposure.

You've made a point of making comment about my attitude from early on.   How about you try to show your own attitude has some point to it by providing some argument founded in fact?

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 11:26:39 PM
I don't write more, for myself.

I wright more to right the flawed understandings of others, and make my perspective clear. 

Perhaps you could do with grasping for less drink, and taking in a more clear grasp.   Sure, knowledge is an acquired appetite, but one's tolerance increases with their exposure.

You've made a point of making comment about my attitude from early on.   How about you try to show your own attitude has some point to it by providing some argument founded in fact?

I like to drink. It's a fact.

Apparently my comment about brevity had an impact. Thank You!!

I guess you haven't been reading my posts.

Fact: Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood liberal that woke up and realized he was wrong.

Please counter....

Quote from: kramarat on August 09, 2013, 11:49:48 PM
I like to drink. It's a fact.

Apparently my comment about brevity had an impact. Thank You!!

I guess you haven't been reading my posts.

Fact: Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood liberal that woke up and realized he was wrong.

Please counter....

Yes,  I read that point, and meant to respond to it but got distracted.

Those times were far different under Ronald Reagan.   Liberals were actually liberal then, and not just Marxists masquerading under gross misnomer.

Since then, real liberals, who embrace an ideology compatible with the Constitution,  such as Zel Miller,  have come and gone.  Miller nailed iy with "A National Party No More" describing the demise of the Democratic Party, but unfortunately did not foresee the takeover of that party by radicalized Marxists with ideologies in no way compatible with this country, and entirely hostile to the Constitution.

In brief, there really isn't any sort of valid comparison with Ronald Reagan having been a Democrat, and what's going on now.  Apparently you're not actually all that familiar with Reagan, or what has constituted a "liberal".

Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 04:13:07 AM
Speaking of long lists, I have a long list of Obama's impeachable offenses which began after he first took office,  with G.M., and I generally stopped keeping it up sometime around the Gulf oil disaster.

But will we see him ever impeached? Not on your life.

The Dems will not allow his impeachment so long as the control even one house of Congress, and even then, if we were to hold both houses,  the Republicans would not impeach him for fear of fallout. ...  and really they're not all that against what Obama is doing, as current events have shown. 

They've actually handed Obama power that only they have authority to wield under the Constitution.

That would be a good thread!