Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 12:06:08 AM
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".

I served in the Navy under Reagan, and quite frankly, I didn't know why we were, where we were, and I didn't care. We wanted to pull out of Lebanon and go where there were some girls. The Marine barracks got blown up on our way home.

I don't feel like fighting with you, but I'll share this...

I read a letter in Newsmax magazine this morning; it was from a democrat.

To paraphrase; he was disgusted with the democrat party, said the party had been taken by libs, and he was out.

To me, this is good news.

If that letter actually address those controlling the Democratic Party as "Libs", then its author missed the boat, and is unable to identify the problem.

They're not at all libs;  they're statist Marxists - fascists.

I lost faith in the election of 2008 first when Ron Paul was demonized by the other candidates, second when I realized the other candidates except Huckabee were not conservatives at all. Come'on Gulliani? He is politically identical to the norwegian conservative party (classical liberal) with a modern overtone, and John Mccain didn't bring anything, he never challenged Obama. I don't remember the other guys. I don't think many people, even within the GOP expected to win in 2008.

Mitt Romney was a harmless businessman who forgot he needed to carry a big stick if he was going to speak softly, and after watching Bill Whittle I have to agree Mitt Romney does not believe in the conservative american way, he has lived it, but he doesn't dare to profess or preach it publicly. He was scared and intimidated by the liberal media, more focused on being civil and having a smile, but he didn't have the rethoric (the big stick) to back up his civil and decent manner.

I don't buy the argument that conservatives invested all their time and energy in 2008 or 2012, when in fact considering the turnout and lack of enthusiasm most conservatives gave up when the GOP didn't fight for it's own beliefs and instead went allong with the liberal narrative/plan.

Ron Paul

Huckabee

How are these even  conservatives, much less reasonable candidates.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 04:53:59 AM
Ron Paul

Huckabee

How are these even  conservatives, much less reasonable candidates.

They look better when in comparison to the others on stage 

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 12:57:01 AM
If that letter actually address those controlling the Democratic Party as "Libs", then its author missed the boat, and is unable to identify the problem.

They're not at all libs;  they're statist Marxists - fascists.

"The kinder, Gentler Fascist"

The guy did not use the term "libs" in a nice way; I believe his definition was right in line with yours ours.

Do you have any ideas for pushback, or are you just going to keep posting defeatist thoughts on how we have already lost?

The constitution is a good thing; I disagree with your notion that a small group of diehards can keep it alive. There are a couple of generations of people that don't know what it is, and the left either wants to keep it in a box, or use it to justify, talking stupid people into killing their offspring.

Popular culture is ripe for making fun of leftists. The sheer amount of material could keep hundreds of stand up acts, going for decades.

I like you Trip, but I'm not going to fall into a state of perpetual depression. We can beat the leftists, and the message to send, is in the constitution itself...along with the declaration...along with the bill of rights. There is no reason for those concepts to lose. None.

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?

Do you even understand the term "consequence"? Having important effects or influence, an effect on an outcome, your plan is, for a lack of a better term, insane..

Of course I'd love to return to a truly Constitutional America, but I'm not so foolish as to risk a Civil war to feed my ego over it.
How would you deal with more than a 50% UE rate, business closing down over night, a Nation with bank runs, runs on stores for supplies because of panic buying over fear of Civil war?

You see, there is always reaction to an action, and your action would have a tidal wave effect on the economy of the Nation, making drastic changes over night is akin to installing a dictatorship in the same fashion. You cannot disrupt business and a cultural way of life in such a short time period.

Insulting me about the Constitution exposes your lack of knowledge of human behavior.
Are you willing to go back and remove the 15th Amendment where only property owners be allowed to vote?

Do you even perceive the aftermath of your actions?

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 07:24:53 AM

Are you willing to go back and remove the 15th Amendment where only property owners be allowed to vote?

YES!  A thousand times YES! But it'll never happen. Too bad. That alone could solve so many problems!  After that, we'll only allow men to vote. The man represents the head of his own sovereign kingdom. His vote is for his Family/Kingdom. And yes, I'm serious about this.  Yeah, I know it'll never happen, but that only shows how far we've slipped.

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 07:24:53 AM
Do you even understand the term "consequence"? Having important effects or influence, an effect on an outcome, your plan is, for a lack of a better term, insane..

Of course I'd love to return to a truly Constitutional America, but I'm not so foolish as to risk a Civil war to feed my ego over it.
How would you deal with more than a 50% UE rate, business closing down over night, a Nation with bank runs, runs on stores for supplies because of panic buying over fear of Civil war?

You see, there is always reaction to an action, and your action would have a tidal wave effect on the economy of the Nation, making drastic changes over night is akin to installing a dictatorship in the same fashion. You cannot disrupt business and a cultural way of life in such a short time period.

Insulting me about the Constitution exposes your lack of knowledge of human behavior.
Are you willing to go back and remove the 15th Amendment where only property owners be allowed to vote?

Do you even perceive the aftermath of your actions?

FIrst off, I have not in any way "insulted" you by disagreeing with you. And it is rather peculiar for a guy who repeatedly needed to personal his responses with little aside digs to accuse me of having insulted him by disagreeing.

Overall, you say that you are taking into account "human nature", but it is that very human nature, and its effect in government, that I am taking into account.

What specifically are the individual rights, and what specifically are the limitatations on government, that you are prepared to overlook and write-off in your view of what is "reasonable"? 

Perhaps overlook our right to self-ownership to allow the government to dictate health care, by result, when we must die by determination of the state? or perhaps rights that stem from that self-ownership, such as property ownership?

You give the term "consequence" lip-service, and imply I am overlooking it, but it seems that you are willing to entirely ignore consequence in the very subjective perspective of government you want to subject us all to, and pretend this is somehow more "reasonable".

Where is this "line" you want to draw between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable" that you have conspicuously failed to specify yourself? And Who is to make that determination? Are you prepared to also sacrifice the Rule of Law, to our being under the subjective Rule of Man also?

Why should we even dishonestly pretend to be operating by the Constitution? Why don't we just vote to nullify it entirely, since you're truly not willing to abide by it?

These determinations were made more than 200 years ago, and done to prohibit the Rule of Man, to limit subjective judgments -- just  the very sort of subjective judgments  that you yourself are advocating, and you seem to imply that you are uniquely qualified to make for others. 

You seem to want to put the burden of civil war onto my own shoulders, and for only advocating that the people receive what they are not just stated to have by the Constitution, but are guaranteed thereby.   

Why are you unwilling to put the responsibility for such a Civil War on the shoulders of those who bear responsibility, the criminal and tyrannous federal government, and recognize such a civil war is long overdue?

And, yes, I would be willing to have voting limited to property ownership, or at least those who pay individual income  tax, if we allow that corruption to still exist.  This nations founders deliberately did not want us to be subject to populist majority rule, and in these modern times we've repeatedly seen the cause as to why this is so, with people awarding themselves others property from sort of right.

Yes, there might be a "tidal wave effect" on the economy and nation from this restoration of Freedom, but not the destructive effect you seem to posit.   It seems that the basis for your thesis is "too much freedom is a dangerous thing", which has been the argument of despots and tyrants over centuries, and just the ideology embraced by Progressive fascists of all stripes, and precisely what our government was created to prohibit.

Quote from: kramarat on August 10, 2013, 05:26:39 AM
The guy did not use the term "libs" in a nice way; I believe his definition was right in line with yours ours.

Do you have any ideas for pushback, or are you just going to keep posting defeatist thoughts on how we have already lost?

The constitution is a good thing; I disagree with your notion that a small group of diehards can keep it alive. There are a couple of generations of people that don't know what it is, and the left either wants to keep it in a box, or use it to justify, talking stupid people into killing their offspring.

Popular culture is ripe for making fun of leftists. The sheer amount of material could keep hundreds of stand up acts, going for decades.

I like you Trip, but I'm not going to fall into a state of perpetual depression. We can beat the leftists, and the message to send, is in the constitution itself...along with the declaration...along with the bill of rights. There is no reason for those concepts to lose. None.

Recognizing "where we are" is not any sort of "defeatist thought". It is the first step to achieving where we want to be.   

You being depressed by where we are is an unfortunate result of recognizing reality, rather than pretending it does not exist.  My pointing out where we are has not created that reality.

The recognition of where those concepts of the Bill of Rights and Constitution have been "lost" is not at all arguing for them to "lose".

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 01:18:32 PM
FIrst off, I have not in any way "insulted" you by disagreeing with you. And it is rather peculiar for a guy who repeatedly needed to personal his responses with little aside digs to accuse me of having insulted him by disagreeing.

Where did I say that in my post?

QuoteOverall, you say that you are taking into account "human nature", but it is that very human nature, and its effect in government, that I am taking into account.

What specifically are the individual rights, and what specifically are the limitatations on government, that you are prepared to overlook and write-off in your view of what is "reasonable"? 

I clearly explained a slow return, as opposed to your shock and awe on our economy, employment, business.

QuotePerhaps overlook our right to self-ownership to allow the government to dictate health care, by result, when we must die by determination of the state? or perhaps rights that stem from that self-ownership, such as property ownership?

Don't try putting words in my mouth, it won't fly.

QuoteYou give the term "consequence" lip-service, and imply I am overlooking it, but it seems that you are willing to entirely ignore consequence in the very subjective perspective of government you want to subject us all to, and pretend this is somehow more "reasonable".

Yet you ignore the consequence of your half cocked idea that we can undue 200 years of corruption of the Constitution in one single term, or in one day as you imply.

QuoteWhere is this "line" you want to draw between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable" that you have conspicuously failed to specify yourself? And Who is to make that determination? Are you prepared to also sacrifice the Rule of Law, to our being under the subjective Rule of Man also?

You mean the law as in allowing women the right to vote, that law?

QuoteWhy should we even dishonestly pretend to be operating by the Constitution? Why don't we just vote to nullify it entirely, since you're truly not willing to abide by it?

And replace it with what?

QuoteThese determinations were made more than 200 years ago, and done to prohibit the Rule of Man, to limit subjective judgments -- just  the very sort of subjective judgments  that you yourself are advocating, and you seem to imply that you are uniquely qualified to make for others. 

And you are?

QuoteYou seem to want to put the burden of civil war onto my own shoulders, and for only advocating that the people receive what they are not just stated to have by the Constitution, but are guaranteed thereby.   

You think taking away the Right of the Black man to vote will go swimmingly?

QuoteWhy are you unwilling to put the responsibility for such a Civil War on the shoulders of those who bear responsibility, the criminal and tyrannous federal government, and recognize such a civil war is long overdue?

Because most of those responsible are dead, it is you that wants to throw the country into anarchy.

QuoteAnd, yes, I would be willing to have voting limited to property ownership, or at least those who pay individual income  tax, if we allow that corruption to still exist.  This nations founders deliberately did not want us to be subject to populist majority rule, and in these modern times we've repeatedly seen the cause as to why this is so, with people awarding themselves others property from sort of right.

No, you can't have your cake and eat it to, you are the one that demands a return to 1776, when there was no income tax.

QuoteYes, there might be a "tidal wave effect" on the economy and nation from this restoration of Freedom, but not the destructive effect you seem to posit.   It seems that the basis for your thesis is "too much freedom is a dangerous thing", which has been the argument of despots and tyrants over centuries, and just the ideology embraced by Progressive fascists of all stripes, and precisely what our government was created to prohibit.

LOL, so now I'm a despot?

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
Where did I say that in my post?

Quote "Insulting me about the Constitution exposes your lack of knowledge of human behavior."

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
I clearly explained a slow return, as opposed to your shock and awe on our economy, employment, business.

You repeatedly argued for it, and claimed it was rational and that strict adherence to the Constitution was "insane", but you never provided a rational argument for it, much less 'explain' it.

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
Don't try putting words in my mouth, it won't fly.

My  asking a QUESTION about what you exactly mean, prompting for your response, is not "putting words in your mouth".   If had attempted to rephrase your argument as a statement, or even a question, and did so inaccurately, that would be "putting words in your mouth."

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
Yet you ignore the consequence of your half cocked idea that we can undue 200 years of corruption of the Constitution in one single term, or in one day as you imply.

There is only ONE consequence of a government bound by the limits of the Constitut9ion, and that is FREEDOM.    Some don't want freedom, theirs or others, and may create a stink, but they're not entitled to that stink, nor the involuntary servitude of others in their behalf.

It's irrelevant that the violation of the Constitution occurred progressively over time. That progressive corruption had to occur in that fashion due to a general respect for the Constitution's terms.

Your slow restoration of the Constitution over time, involves ZERO respect for the Constitution's terms, and indicates that  it's okay that we be outside the terms of that Constitution, and that the "Law of the Land" isn't really the law of the land at all.

And, as stated, you reduce the objective Rule of Law, to the subjective Rule of Man.

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
You mean the law as in allowing women the right to vote, that law?

And you whine about my "putting words in your mouth", but here you're implying what i "mean" by restoring the Constitution, and implying that anything i said denies women the right to vote?

The equal access to the voting franchise is something recognized by the Constitution, not just law.   In fact the Constitution nowhere provided that 1) voting was a positive right (and still doesn't), and 2) never indicated who might receive or not receive that franchise, inclusive of women and blacks.

If you're going to argue the Constitution", how about you not make it up, and then confuse it with statutory law.

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
And replace it with what?

Evidently you believe we replace it with some sort of sliding scale outside of that Constitution, and that it be subjectively applied, regularly changing, and open to despotic abuse and interpretation.  That is in fact what YOU are arguing. 

The intent of the Constitution is that it be a "form" of government only, not the details of that government. But we cannot even adhere to only that form. 

The overall  problem we now face is that when the rule of law is no longer reliable, which is the net effect of what you advocate, then men seek justice by their own hand - revolution. 

Your perspective actually brings about the very revolution (civil war) you allegedly reject.

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
You think taking away the Right of the Black man to vote will go swimmingly?

TARD, go gather your wits. Have a cup of coffee or something. Seriously. 

NOWHERE did I indicate the denial of the (non-existent "right") to vote for blacks or women. That is only YOU creating these strawman arguments, nowhere indicated by me, and sounding like nothing but an enormous LIB in the process!

IGNORING  the fact that no positive right to vote has ever been recognized by the Constitution, not even the amended current constitution,  voting really is not the backbone of our society.  We're a Republic, not a damn Democracy, but you seem to have sat at the trough and heavily imbibed in the swill from the socialist media about "the right to vote", and "will of the people", and all that nonsense, none of which alters the legitimate authority of government.

Nothing about adherence to the Constitution involves the denial of rights.


But since you want to talk about "rights", where exactly is the athority for the federal government to police rights in the states, especially against private individuals and institutions, particularly given that the recognition of Rights is specifically to prohibit the government from any action involving them?

How you imagine that restoration of the Constitution somehow involves the denial of real rights, is mind-boggling.

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
Because most of those responsible are dead, it is you that wants to throw the country into anarchy.

Those that are responsible are those that continue to exercise government that is nowhere in agreement with the Constitution.

We have a "controlled" anarchy going on now due to not only the invalidation of the Constitution, but the invalidation of the rule of law under subjective terms of "Social Justice", which TWO of the most recent additions to the Supreme Court have openly indicated supporting.

Your argument is tantamount to a modified Nuremberg defense, amounting to the idea that it is legitimate simply because it has been done.. which tends to tag your outlook as that of a Progressive Republican, and not really Conservative at all.

Quote from: Solar on August 10, 2013, 02:30:36 PM
No, you can't have your cake and eat it to, you are the one that demands a return to 1776, when there was no income tax.
LOL, so now I'm a despot?

Having 'your cake and eating it to" is claiming the Constitution is still valid, but rejecting adherence to that Constitution.

I'm not arguing return to the 1776, or even the return to the un-amended Constitution of 1787.   What I *am* arguing is for return to the Constitution and its uncorrupted principles.

The reason that direct individual income tax is relevant, is an idea that I'm sure is quite alien to you, that the Constitution itself might be 'unconstitutional" - i.e. in conflict with the tenets of the Constituton.

The fact that the direct individual income tax was prohibited by the founders, is not just some random prohibition to government, but resulting from the fact that allowing a direct tax to individuals enables the government to engage in agendas - which as history has shown, have quickly become despotic and tyrannous.   

Amending the Constitution to allow a tax on "income from whatever source derived" does not make it inherently constitutional.  A tax on the income of a corporation, which is how income tax was sold to the American people, is not at all the same as an income tax on people's labor.   That individual's labor is the equal exchange of work, for remuneration, and the taxation of one side of that equation is the government essentially saying that the labor has no inherent value, and is all profit.  It's not; by definition it is an equal exchange of value for value, no profit.

The entire point of the Constitution is to prohibit those agendas, to prohibit the targeting of individuals, and to prohibit the redistribution of wealth and  property -- to promote a thing called "Freedom". 

In this argument you've repeatedly shown yourself to be no sort of conservative, not someone wanting to adhere to the Constitution,  but one wanting to only subjectively limit the government to be "smaller", and have "less spending", inherently inserting your own subjective measure of what is good and what is bad.

FORTUNATELY all of that has already been established and defined, and we don't need to rely on your sanctified subjective judgment, nor that of any other wizened "angel", and that definition  is called the United States Constitution.

Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 01:34:33 PM
Recognizing "where we are" is not any sort of "defeatist thought". It is the first step to achieving where we want to be.   

You being depressed by where we are is an unfortunate result of recognizing reality, rather than pretending it does not exist.  My pointing out where we are has not created that reality.

The recognition of where those concepts of the Bill of Rights and Constitution have been "lost" is not at all arguing for them to "lose".

I was depressed about the state of our nation, long before I started talking to you.

No offense, but your thoughts on achieving , "Where we want to be", not only precludes all rational democrat voters, but all of us on this forum...at one point or another.

While you have shown no signs of being a collectivist, who is it that comprises your army?

All three branches of government have been dry humping the constitution, for decades.

They will not be stopped by posts to a forum. Lots of people have to get angry.

I'm attempting to make sure that the anger is focused on the right people, for the right reasons.

The government is screwing all of us...some just haven't realized it yet.

Quote from: kramarat on August 10, 2013, 05:27:22 PM
I was depressed about the state of our nation, long before I started talking to you.

No offense, but your thoughts on achieving , "Where we want to be", not only precludes all rational democrat voters, but all of us on this forum...at one point or another.

While you have shown no signs of being a collectivist, who is it that comprises your army?

All three branches of government have been dry humping the constitution, for decades.

They will not be stopped by posts to a forum. Lots of people have to get angry.

I'm attempting to make sure that the anger is focused on the right people, for the right reasons.

The government is screwing all of us...some just haven't realized it yet.

When the Democratic Party so thoroughly embraces Social Engineering, Social Justice,  Political Correctness. redistribution of wealth, hate crimes,  environmental fascism, catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, militant feminism, social dictate, gay marriage, open borders, global communalism,  and a whole range of other rabid ideological agendas,   ....

... then it is not all that likely to find these Democrats who suddenly open their eyes and have an epiphany about this country and our freedoms.

There may be one or two, but they're rare.   What we see in the Democratic Party is not "liberal" at all, and is the exact same socialistic dictate that we saw rise up in Nazi Germany, and was all too prevalent in this country during the prelude to that war.

Why do you imagine that I should have some sort of more inclusive perspective?  It's not as if I myself am picking and choosing arbitrary terms.   These ARE and have been the terms of this country.

Even such a simple thing as citizenship has been corrupted, but not by corruption of the legislature, but by fabrication the court engaging deliberate, open, flagrant malfeasance.

Our country isn't going to be regained by playing softball, and looking for soft appealing arguments.  There's no spot to draw the line other than the Constitution itself. 

Our would you like to suggest some other line, and if so, then what is the rationale for that line, and when do you propose officially abandoning the Constitution, since it is no longer being applied?

Well this thread took a turn to the weeds. I haven't read through this tangled pastiche because after a few posts I got a headache. But I'll add my two-penneth anyway. No plan, civil war, protest, election, usurpation etc will be meaningful without a good solid foundation. And plan to put to return a small, constitutional government will only be temporary unless we have already addressed the local, state and federal seats. That is the only way and it is going to be a long frustrating slog. The Tea Party began that long suffering slog in 2009 and made major strides in 2010. They have proven it's possible and it's working. It will get worse before it gets better. But it will get better if we stay the course...