Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 10:17:00 PM
You didn't answer my question...

Well I would have, except that you should have been able to recognize on your own that it's a dumbass question.

First off, I never said we should not have elections.

Therefore, "how we bring people into the government" is really an ignorant focus, a strawman, a red herring, a canard... and that's just for a start.

The relevant consideration here is that "voting" and those "people in the government" do not have the authority to determine or alter our form of government.

Our form of government is established by the Constitution. You got that part, right?

What those legislators are able to do while in office is determine the specific laws enacting BY and according with the terms of our form of government, and not actually alter our form of government itself. 

This was deliberate on the Founders part, even making it a difficult and lengthy process to alter the Constitution itself.  The reason for this is that such volatile changes in the form of government creates an insecure society, makes people unwilling to invest their money and time in businesses,  lowers hiring, and reduces a country to being a 3rd rate Banana Republic, all of which we suffer from today due to the belief that government can engage in different forms of government that are in no way allowed under the Constitution.

(Quite obviously the way to fix this problem of populist corruption <aka 'Socialism'> is not more voting, or even "voting harder".)

You really should have known this on your own, as an American citizen, without me having to point it out.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 10:28:57 PM
Well I would have, except that you should have been able to recognize on your own that it's a dumbass question.

First off, I never said we should not have elections.

Therefore, "how we bring people into the government" is really an ignorant focus, a strawman, a red herring, a canard... and that's just for a start.

The relevant consideration here is that "voting" and those "people in the government" do not have the authority to determine or alter our form of government.

Our form of government is established by the Constitution. You got that part, right?

What those legislators are able to do while in office is determine the specific laws enacting BY and according with the terms of our form of government, and not actually alter our form of government itself. 

This was deliberate on the Founders part, even making it a difficult and lengthy process to alter the Constitution itself.  The reason for this is that such volatile changes in the form of government creates an insecure society, makes people unwilling to invest their money and time in businesses,  lowers hiring, and reduces a country to being a 3rd rate Banana Republic, all of which we suffer from today due to the belief that government can engage in different forms of government that are in no way allowed under the Constitution.

(Quite obviously the way to fix this problem of populist corruption <aka 'Socialism'> is not more voting, or even "voting harder".)

You really should have known this on your own, as an American citizen, without me having to point it out.

I think this is where you shut your fucking gob and start posting the relevant parts of the constitution to back up your crap.

1...2...3...go!

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 10:49:35 PM
I think this is where you shut your fucking gob and start posting the relevant parts of the constitution to back up your crap.

1...2...3...go!

Tell me, offal byproduct of the socialist public education system, specifically which part of this common knowledge involving  U.S. Constitution are you actually in need of educating regarding?

Evidently you imagined I was somehow being facetious when I stated this was fundamentals of the Constitution you really should have known on your own.  I was not.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 10:51:37 PM

Tell me, offal byproduct of the socialist public education system, specifically which part of this common knowledge involving  U.S. Constitution are you actually in need of educating regarding?

Evidently you imagined I was somehow being facetious when I stated this was fundamentals of the Constitution you really should have known on your own.  I was not.

Tick tock tick tock...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 10:55:34 PM
Tick tock tick tock...

Again, which part of the common knowledge I indicated don't you know yourself?

Playing juvenile games won't get you out of this.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 10:57:51 PM
Again, which part of the common knowledge I indicated don't you know yourself?

Playing juvenile games won't get you out of this.

juvenile? You are the one that can't back up whatever the hell you have been whining about.
If I am so wrong and the raving Socialist you claim I am you can easily prove it by posting the relevant parts of the constitution that refute me and support your argument.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 11:01:13 PM
juvenile? You are the one that can't back up whatever the hell you have been whining about.
If I am so wrong and the raving Socialist you claim I am you can easily prove it by posting the relevant parts of the constitution that refute me and support your argument.

Look, Boo. I stated the simple facts of this country and its governing constitution.  Unless you're a damn High School juvenile, you should know them.   

I stated a whole series of interrelated facts making your challenge for me to provide proof of them, not only ignorant, but silly. I asked you to specify what you are unable to recognize on your own, and thus far you haven't answered.

If our government is determined by vote, then why is there Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which enumerates the only powers given to Congress, and why does Article 1, Section 9  describe the prohibitions to Congress? 

If our government is structured in the manner you say, then neither of those sections should exist, and instead there should be a passage indicating that what government might do is contingent upon populist vote, but that passage is nowhere present!

If you actually believe that elections are an "attempt" to restore Constituton, and that the Constitution might be overthrown by a mere vote, not only do you indulge corrupt socialist  ideology, but you don't know your own damn country.

Have you ever read Article V of the Constitution?  It describes the only legitimate means to alter the Constitution - the amendment process.  If the vote determined what government might do, then there would be no need for an amendment process!

Are you yourself able to point to any place in the Constitution where it indicates that the limits placed on government might be dismissed based on populist vote?

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 11:12:58 PM
Look, Boo. I stated the simple facts of this country and its governing constitution.  Unless you're a damn High School juvenile, you should know them.   

I stated a whole series of interrelated facts making your challenge for me to provide proof of them, not only ignorant, but silly. I asked you to specify what you are unable to recognize on your own, and thus far you haven't answered.

If our government is determined by vote, then why is there Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which enumerates the only powers given to Congress, and why does Article 1, Section 9  describe the prohibitions to Congress? 

If our government is structured in the manner you say, then neither of those sections should exist, and instead there should be a passage indicating that what government might do is contingent upon populist vote, but that passage is nowhere present!

If you actually believe that elections are an "attempt" to restore Constituton, and that the Constitution might be overthrown by a mere vote, not only do you indulge corrupt socialist  ideology, but you don't know your own damn country.

Have you ever read Article V of the Constitution?  It describes the only legitimate means to alter the Constitution - the amendment process.  If the vote determined what government might do, then there would be no need for an amendment process!

Are you yourself able to point to any place in the Constitution where it indicates that the limits placed on government might be dismissed based on populist vote?

Either you have it or you don't and at this point we can safely say you don't.

Go away...

Cricket Sound

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 11:12:58 PM
Look, Boo. I stated the simple facts of this country and its governing constitution.  Unless you're a damn High School juvenile, you should know them.   

I stated a whole series of interrelated facts making your challenge for me to provide proof of them, not only ignorant, but silly. I asked you to specify what you are unable to recognize on your own, and thus far you haven't answered.

If our government is determined by vote, then why is there Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which enumerates the only powers given to Congress, and why does Article 1, Section 9  describe the prohibitions to Congress? 

If our government is structured in the manner you say, then neither of those sections should exist, and instead there should be a passage indicating that what government might do is contingent upon populist vote, but that passage is nowhere present!

If you actually believe that elections are an "attempt" to restore Constituton, and that the Constitution might be overthrown by a mere vote, not only do you indulge corrupt socialist  ideology, but you don't know your own damn country.

Have you ever read Article V of the Constitution?  It describes the only legitimate means to alter the Constitution - the amendment process.  If the vote determined what government might do, then there would be no need for an amendment process!

Are you yourself able to point to any place in the Constitution where it indicates that the limits placed on government might be dismissed based on populist vote?

I agree with you on all this, but I don't see an answer. How can you limit the government when the "force" lies with the president?
Clearly the people will not depose the president when stepping out of his bounds, and should they be able too? What if the majority wants to expropriate the property of the minority?
The Supreme court does not have any "force" to enforce its judgements, like Andrew jackson said "they have made their ruling, now let them enforce it". And even if they did a supreme court of individuals that does not adhere or straight out dislike the constitution would be even more dangerous than a president that does not adhere to the constitution.

The congress can defund the government, this seems to me to be the only way to stop an out of touch with constitution government. But that takes some serious balls of steel.

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 11, 2013, 03:25:25 AM
I agree with you on all this, but I don't see an answer. How can you limit the government when the "force" lies with the president?
Clearly the people will not depose the president when stepping out of his bounds, and should they be able too? What if the majority wants to expropriate the property of the minority?

The Supreme court does not have any "force" to enforce its judgements, like Andrew jackson said "they have made their ruling, now let them enforce it". And even if they did a supreme court of individuals that does not adhere or straight out dislike the constitution would be even more dangerous than a president that does not adhere to the constitution.

The congress can defund the government, this seems to me to be the only way to stop an out of touch with constitution government. But that takes some serious balls of steel.

You've somewhat shifted the focus of this discussion from the government in general, to the President in particular.   We're  not just faced with a corrupt President acting in an illegitimate fashion, but all branches of government acting illegitimately.  Each branch of government is refusing to act as a check to the other, and in some cases the branches are actually turning over authority that only they can wield, to another branch, particularly to the Presidency and government organizations, which they have no authority to do.   ... Not that this shifted focus makes the job any easier.

However the focus is not just deposing the President, but essentially deposing the government.  Most certainly the Supreme Court is not about to act in behalf of the Constitution, so recognizing the limits on the Court's action is a moot point.

There are legitimate questions how this came about,  particularly in this most current years, such as is this just these bodies acting illegitimately on their own, or are there unseen forces that actually control our government, as some allege, but that's for another discussion.

What we can rely in is that there are people in the government, and quite likely many more outside the government,  willing to speak out and act against what's going on.   

We are literally now straddling the "continental divide", where if we move one way, our country might be restored, and another way it will sink into a totalitarian police state that will make Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China pale by comparison.  Until critical mass of the American population is able to recognize this, then that populace won't act.

That critical mass is likely to come narrowly, in regard to a particular issue,  but not overall, such as government's claim it can legitimately take de facto ownership of each and every American -- ObamaCare.  And this narrow recognition will likely force a broader recognition, particularly given government's response.

One thing is for certain:  no election (vote), or series of elections, is going to change our position, and pretending that it might is only forestalling us doing what must be done, while it can be done - educating the American people, and then acting.

Those directing our government want it to go to that police state - full martial law, and they are aware that we are at the brink, and are prepared to quell that inevitable event that might become the second "shot heard round the world", and to do so using with lethal force.   The purchase of enough hollow point rounds to kill every American four times over, and the military exercises in concert with a militarized police in our major cities makes this inescapable.

• Los Angeles Jan 26 2012,
  Chicago April 17 2012,
  St Louis July 3 2012,
  Minneapolis Aug 28 2012,
  Miami January 24, 2013,
  Houston January 28 2013,
  
  If the American military is training for mountainous terrain they go to the mountains; if they are training for desert terrain, they go to the desert; if they are training for coastal terrain they go to the coasts. The reason they are going to American cities, is they plan to operate in American cities.  Not only are they training the military to act against American citizens on American soil, and desensitizing the citizens to the military command, they are also militarizing the police, and training them to accept directions from the military, and to not protect the citizenry.

We are no longer a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" and elections are irrelevant, particularly in so far as restoring the Constitution and our freedoms.   Unless the Tea Parties are able to wake up and become actual revolutionaries, they will serve no purpose. Those who imagine they might be our salvation now just do not have a reasonable grasp of our overall condition.

I see, but focusing back on the tea party like you did.

With "actual revolutionaries" do you mean

- Change focus from politics to culture
Working within the educational system, getting inside existing government directorates to determine application of government from within, conservative NGO's with focus on social activities, citizen education and maybe charity activities promoting constiutitonal enlightement.

or

- Armed Conflict
Civil war, armed resistance to the government.

Or something else?

With regards to creating real constitutional barriers to tyranny I guess we can discuss in another thread.

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 11, 2013, 05:51:14 AM
I see, but focusing back on the tea party like you did.

With "actual revolutionaries" do you mean

- Change focus from politics to culture
Working within the educational system, getting inside existing government directorates to determine application of government from within, conservative NGO's with focus on social activities, citizen education and maybe charity activities promoting constiutitonal enlightement.

or

- Armed Conflict
Civil war, armed resistance to the government.

Or something else?

With regards to creating real constitutional barriers to tyranny I guess we can discuss in another thread.

Well, I mean changing the focus from election process, to  social education and action.

Until they increase awareness of what legtimate government is, and why, then pushing people to vote merely for "less government" is largely a waste of time and money, that will only serve to validate illegitimate government as if it were a valid choice, while we slide further away from that legitimate government.  Working within the GOP also serves to undermine the distinction between illegitimate and legitimate government, and is  a byproduct of trying to win elections. 

It does not help these confused goals and perspectives if tea party candidates, such as Michele Bachmann, can ignore the corruption of the 10th Amendment, as she did with Romney's "Fifty Flavors" in the Republican Primary debates, and also get out front in supporting the NSA's data collection, arguing that the warehousing of every bit of people's digital data is legitimate and necessary.

Armed resistance to government is the domain of militia, and not really the tea party's forte.

So seven pages of all this just to tell us if the "masses" aren't with us, a focus on pure politics won't work?  Okay, got it and agree.  I've always said, if we each reached ONE other person, we'd win in a landslide. We lose elections by about 5%.  Doubling ourselves thru education would drive the Left back to hell where they belong.

Quote from: Yawn on August 11, 2013, 06:32:52 AM
So seven pages of all this just to tell us if the "masses" aren't with us, a focus on pure politics won't work?  Okay, got it and agree.  I've always said, if we each reached ONE other person, we'd win in a landslide. We lose elections by about 5%.  Doubling ourselves thru education would drive the Left back to hell where they belong.

We've been discussing lots of things, and varying aspects.

However while essentially getting it, it should be pointed out that you've gone right back to discussing elections again, such as "win in a landslide", as if the Constitution and our freedoms were subject to election results.

This is part of the problem, and is a result of "framing", how we are habituated to view the issue.

Our rights, which are ensured by limited government, should not be on the table as part of "politics".