From your lips to God's ears, Chris!
"So I predict the hard right is gonna' take over the Republican Party in 2016 and the nomination is going to Rand Paul," he added. "You watch. This is what I do for a living." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/08/chris-matthews-is-certain-this-person-will-be-the-next-republican-presidential-nominee/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/08/chris-matthews-is-certain-this-person-will-be-the-next-republican-presidential-nominee/)
Why...... is he retiring and shutting his oily mouth?
:popcorn:
Quote from: Yawn on August 08, 2013, 04:55:34 PM
From your lips to God's ears, Chris!
"So I predict the hard right is gonna' take over the Republican Party in 2016 and the nomination is going to Rand Paul," he added. "You watch. This is what I do for a living." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/08/chris-matthews-is-certain-this-person-will-be-the-next-republican-presidential-nominee/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/08/chris-matthews-is-certain-this-person-will-be-the-next-republican-presidential-nominee/)
For once, I hope Matthews is right. However, I know he is wrong. The Republican Machine is going to nominate Jeb Bush, and he is going to lose to a Clinton/Christie ticket.
-Darth
No Chris, what you do for a living is bore 26 people to death every night by being overbearing, obnoxious while drenching your quests in spittle. And that's when you are not making everyone uncomfortable with your borderline homosexual admiration for the president. That is what you do....
Quote from: Darth Fife on August 08, 2013, 05:29:20 PM
For once, I hope Matthews is right. However, I know he is wrong. The Republican Machine is going to nominate Jeb Bush, and he is going to lose to a Clinton/Christie ticket.
-Darth
I think they'll run Bloomberg.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 08, 2013, 05:33:31 PM
No Chris, what you do for a living is bore 26 people to death every night by being overbearing, obnoxious while drenching your quests in spittle. And that's when you are not making everyone uncomfortable with your borderline homosexual admiration for the president. That is what you do....
That pretty much sums it up.
Quote from: Yawn on August 08, 2013, 04:55:34 PM
From your lips to God's ears, Chris!
"So I predict the hard right is gonna' take over the Republican Party in 2016 and the nomination is going to Rand Paul," he added. "You watch. This is what I do for a living." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/08/chris-matthews-is-certain-this-person-will-be-the-next-republican-presidential-nominee/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/08/chris-matthews-is-certain-this-person-will-be-the-next-republican-presidential-nominee/)
This is confirmation of what I've been saying all along, many of those that voted for Hussein, did so because they hated RINO/Bush and the policies of the GOP and now they're gravitating towards libertarianism, for yet another change in direction, and seriously away from socialist/Marxists.
You know Mathews has seen the Dims internal polling, and that's where he got this.
Do you really think he's throwing in with Paul ? That would be bizarre.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 08, 2013, 07:25:09 PM
Do you really think he's throwing in with Paul ? That would be bizarre.
:biggrin:
I hadn't even considered that. :blink:
Do you all really imagine that Rand Paul has the ability to be elected president?
What coalitions has he been able to form, a problem he shares with his father?
Rand Paul's greatest endeavor has been that prominent filibuster. How did that end? It ended with Rand making the statement that the President can appoint whomever he wants to office, which not only is not what the Constitution indicates, but also Rand, by this statement, totally neutered the purpose of his own filibuster!
Where in any of this is the sharp mind, shrewd judgment, keen focused goals, and ability to unite people, that are all necessary skills to lead this country out of the abyss?
Hang on folks Look at what is happening here. MSNBC has a direct line to the White House. That isn't hyperbole that is the truth. Maddow is s frequent guest. This will be the new narrative. In 2012 it was Romney is an evil rich guy who killed people, hated dogs and would ban abortion. Just think of what the talking points will be with Paul. It's starting. Even if Paul does not run. In other words the Tea Party is obviously surging and they are worried.
Quote from: Trip on August 08, 2013, 08:14:21 PM
Do you all really imagine that Rand Paul has the ability to be elected president?
What coalitions has he been able to form, a problem he shares with his father?
Rand Paul's greatest endeavor has been that prominent filibuster. How did that end? It ended with Rand making the statement that the President can appoint whomever he wants to office, which not only is not what the Constitution indicates, but also Rand, by this statement, totally neutered the purpose of his own filibuster!
Where in any of this is the sharp mind, shrewd judgment, keen focused goals, and ability to unite people, that are all necessary skills to lead this country out of the abyss?
Really doesn't matter, the point is, the Dims internals are showing an angry base that is about to kick the RINO out of the party.
The Dims are worried as Hell, this also translates into a beating of the socialist agenda.
Quote from: Solar on August 08, 2013, 09:19:37 PM
Really doesn't matter, the point is, the Dims internals are showing an angry base that is about to kick the RINO out of the party.
The Dims are worried as Hell, this also translates into a beating of the socialist agenda.
Are we really all that certain of those 'internals', and can we even allow ourselves to be at this point?
We allowed ourselves to believe that McCain actually had a shot in 2008, when the guy didn't even challenge Obama's claim in the 2nd Presidential debate that the Repubicans were responsible for the economic collapse.
We then had numerous Right Wing progosticators saying that Romney was going to win, and win in a landslide.
I've even read a thread on this forum that Robert's betrayal of us with ObamaCare was actually a GOOD thing, and a gift, handing us the 2012 election, and making it easier to remove ObamaCare.
The Problem all along has been that the Republican party really doesn't want to fight the effective fight that would win, and that involves returning government to its constitutional "box", and that problem has not changed one bit.
The Republican Leadership still really doesn't want to remove ObamaCare, they're pushing for Amnesty, and still providing cover for Obama's Middle East excursions, and just a week ago voted secretly to give Syrian rebels arms, which is the same thing that got us the Benghazi attack, and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
Why should we now, .... again, believe that the Republicans suddenly look any better to Americans than these Dems?
Quote from: Trip on August 08, 2013, 08:14:21 PM
Do you all really imagine that Rand Paul has the ability to be elected president?
What coalitions has he been able to form, a problem he shares with his father?
Rand Paul's greatest endeavor has been that prominent filibuster. How did that end? It ended with Rand making the statement that the President can appoint whomever he wants to office, which not only is not what the Constitution indicates, but also Rand, by this statement, totally neutered the purpose of his own filibuster!
Where in any of this is the sharp mind, shrewd judgment, keen focused goals, and ability to unite people, that are all necessary skills to lead this country out of the abyss?
He had been talking for a long time; I can't help but wonder if he meant "nominate", rather than appoint.
It really doesn't matter...Obama's appointments are the least of our worries.
He is the culmination of decades of abuse of power.
Laws are now being established by executive order, EPA mandates, OSHA rules, the FDA, the FCC, the USDA, DHS, IRS, and lots more; all of them without congressional approval.
I like Rand Paul. I don't know yet if he's the guy for the job, or even if he can get it. We still have the popular vote, and the constitution isn't very popular these days.
Whoever the next president is, is going to have a hell of a job on their hands. The toilet water is turning.
Obama has managed to:
Contribute to the mid east meltdown.
Socialize the entire student loan industry.
Socialize our medical system, with no clue how to implement it.
Devalue our currency.
Add tens of millions to food stamp and welfare roles, (democrat voters).
Create the largest, (fake), stock bubble in history...with the help of the fed.
Push through everyday warrantless spying on Americans.
Use government agencies to punish political enemies.
I'll never be able to name everything. It's a long list.
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.
Matthews can't even predict when his lip drivel will fall on his lapel much less what will happen in 2016.
Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 12:05:52 AM
Are we really all that certain of those 'internals', and can we even allow ourselves to be at this point?
We allowed ourselves to believe that McCain actually had a shot in 2008, when the guy didn't even challenge Obama's claim in the 2nd Presidential debate that the Repubicans were responsible for the economic collapse.
We then had numerous Right Wing progosticators saying that Romney was going to win, and win in a landslide.
I've even read a thread on this forum that Robert's betrayal of us with ObamaCare was actually a GOOD thing, and a gift, handing us the 2012 election, and making it easier to remove ObamaCare.
The Problem all along has been that the Republican party really doesn't want to fight the effective fight that would win, and that involves returning government to its constitutional "box", and that problem has not changed one bit.
The Republican Leadership still really doesn't want to remove ObamaCare, they're pushing for Amnesty, and still providing cover for Obama's Middle East excursions, and just a week ago voted secretly to give Syrian rebels arms, which is the same thing that got us the Benghazi attack, and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
Why should we now, .... again, believe that the Republicans suddenly look any better to Americans than these Dems?
Have you suddenly forgotten 2010 mid term election? The next will be the total game changer and everything you just mentioned will be moot, the RINO will not be running things after 2014.
The people have been paying attention, they are pissed that the GOP is pushing amnesty after being promised for decades something would be done, Hell, McCon even campaigned on a border fence, it was all lies.
The base is pissed, the Dims know it, and the RINO know it, which is why the big push for amnesty, their backers have called in the chips because even they know their RINO pawns are getting the boot.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 05:48:06 AM
Have you suddenly forgotten 2010 mid term election? The next will be the total game changer and everything you just mentioned will be moot, the RINO will not be running things after 2014.
The people have been paying attention, they are pissed that the GOP is pushing amnesty after being promised for decades something would be done, Hell, McCon even campaigned on a border fence, it was all lies.
The base is pissed, the Dims know it, and the RINO know it, which is why the big push for amnesty, their backers have called in the chips because even they know their RINO pawns are getting the boot.
No, I have not forgotten 2010.
We're pissed, sure. But what are we going to do about it? Replace Republicans with Dems?
We've got a lot of chances to replace incumbents and known RINOs with other candidates, but how are we qualifying these candidates?
In 2010 we had a number of candidates sign the Tea Party pledge, sign it, but not adhere to it. And where is that pledge now? Google "Tea Party Pledge" and see what comes up (https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+pledge). It's leftist criticism of the "tea-bag****" pledge, but no results showing the actual pledge.
Have the Tea Parties become any more unified, and have they focused their agenda at all in a common message? Have they worked to actually teach Americans about the Constitution?
I hear the Tea Parties saying they are now "more grass-roots" than they were before. That's great, but not so great if they don't have a unified honed message. Where's that message? What is that message? The fact is those Tea Parties are still too ego-driven for those bastards to give up their fragile, ephemeral territory and unify with the other groups.
We're pissed, but WHY are we pissed?
For instance, who is actually stating that ObamaCare is grossly unconstitutional, regardless of the bullcrap the Court said, as in my signature? If it's not unconstitutional, then why are we fighting it? Is it just a bad law, a bad "political decision", as Roberts indicated in his own ACA majority opinion that was not his job to protect us from? (Not the minority opinion he also wrote most of.)
Another for instance, in Hyperion's recent topic "Programming Alert" for Beck's interview with Nancy Mace, the challenger for the pernicious evil known as Senator Lindsay Graham. Watch Beck's interview of Nancy Mace. (http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/08/06/could-this-be-the-candidate-to-take-down-lindsay-graham/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013-08-06_242182&utm_content=4295637&utm_term=_242182_242196) While Beck as a couple of specific questions, such as about border security, he really doesn't do all that good of job of getting to specifics.
Beck has a decided problem getting to the specifics of the Constitution in an applied manner, even though he had "Founder's Fridays" on his televised broadcast, and to no surprise so do the Tea Parties themselves, and Conservatives as a whole.
That's why I've focused a message on the Constitution on this forum, and well before coming here.
Originally my intent more than two years ago was to start a forum (http://www.sentinelwatch.com/) with the goal of uniting The Tea Parties (or at least the leadership) in one location, under a common roof, and a blog associated with that forum with important positional articles, written by myself or Tea Party leadership (perhaps known as the "Tripwire", or whatever!). However that whole thing died from infighting, backstabbing, and believe it or not, a real problem among the members with believing we can actually open the eyes of Americans, even only of Conservatives, as to the original constitutional intent.
To paraphrase from Braveheart, "Conservatives cannae agree on the color o'shiete!"
(In case you're wondering, I'm Stephen (http://youtu.be/zs8QKXtCN9w), and this, this is *my* Island.)
And to be blunt, some of those involved, good smart Conservatives, were seriously too scared to expose themselves and their families to that sort of public scrutiny, to real risk, with that concerned even more prevalent now than it was then, and supported by the uncovered scandals and deaths.
We need to focus, laddies, if there's still time.
Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
No, I have not forgotten 2010.
We're pissed, sure. But what are we going to do about it? Replace Republicans with Dems?
We've got a lot of chances to replace incumbents and known RINOs with other candidates, but how are we qualifying these candidates?
This is how different from the past, how?
QuoteIn 2010 we had a number of candidates sign the Tea Party pledge, sign it, but not adhere to it. And where is that pledge now? Google "Tea Party Pledge" and see what comes up (https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+pledge). It's leftist criticism of the "tea-bag****" pledge, but no results showing the actual pledge.
First off, who is supposed to write this pledge? To my knowledge, there is not set list of directives outside of smaller Govt and a return to the ideals of the Founders, but your link proves one thing, the left including RINO/libs are scared to death of the Tea party, and I wouldn't be the least surprised to discover many of those sites are a collaborative effort of both party's.
Quote
Have the Tea Parties become any more unified, and have they focused their agenda at all in a common message? Have they worked to actually teach Americans about the Constitution?
Show me where the Tea movement is an actual party first.
But yes, there are many groups out there working on it's behalf, you just have to look for them.
Start here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+organizations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+organizations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
QuoteI hear the Tea Parties saying they are now "more grass-roots" than they were before. That's great, but not so great if they don't have a unified honed message. Where's that message? What is that message? The fact is those Tea Parties are still too ego-driven for those bastards to give up their fragile, ephemeral territory and unify with the other groups.
And I'm certain you can back that up with actual facts, and I do mean facts, not opinion pieces, right?
We're pissed, but WHY are we pissed?
QuoteFor instance, who is actually stating that ObamaCare is grossly unconstitutional, regardless of the bullcrap the Court said, as in my signature? If it's not unconstitutional, then why are we fighting it? Is it just a bad law, a bad "political decision", as Roberts indicated in his own ACA majority opinion that was not his job to protect us from? (Not the minority opinion he also wrote most of.)
Another for instance, in Hyperion's recent topic "Programming Alert" for Beck's interview with Nancy Mace, the challenger for the pernicious evil known as Senator Lindsay Graham. Watch Beck's interview of Nancy Mace. (http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/08/06/could-this-be-the-candidate-to-take-down-lindsay-graham/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013-08-06_242182&utm_content=4295637&utm_term=_242182_242196) While Beck as a couple of specific questions, such as about border security, he really doesn't do all that good of job of getting to specifics.
Beck has a decided problem getting to the specifics of the Constitution in an applied manner, even though he had "Founder's Fridays" on his televised broadcast, and to no surprise so do the Tea Parties themselves, and Conservatives as a whole.
That's why I've focused a message on the Constitution on this forum, and well before coming here.
Which has what to do with anything I said?
Try and not get too long winded and off topic, seriously, try and be a bit more brief, or you'll quickly lose my interest.
QuoteOriginally my intent more than two years ago was to start a forum (http://www.sentinelwatch.com/) with the goal of uniting The Tea Parties (or at least the leadership) in one location, under a common roof, and a blog associated with that forum with important positional articles, written by myself or Tea Party leadership (perhaps known as the "Tripwire", or whatever!). However that whole thing died from infighting, backstabbing, and believe it or not, a real problem among the members with believing we can actually open the eyes of Americans, even only of Conservatives, as to the original constitutional intent.
To paraphrase from Braveheart, "Conservatives cannae agree on the color o'shiete!"
And I see why it failed, you want to dictate and put everyone in a neat little package that you're comfortable with.
But you fail to realize how many Tea supporters may not agree with your set of criteria, not all have the same vision which is why it is so appealing across demographic lines.
Just the thought of a smaller, less intrusive Govt is what made the Tea movement so attractive in the first place, and now you want to try and force all of it's supporters into agreeing with your personal vision.
That's a bit dictatorial, don't you think?
Quote(In case you're wondering, I'm Stephen (http://youtu.be/zs8QKXtCN9w), and this, this is *my* Island.)
And to be blunt, some of those involved, good smart Conservatives, were seriously too scared to expose themselves and their families to that sort of public scrutiny, to real risk, with that concerned even more prevalent now than it was then, and supported by the uncovered scandals and deaths.
We need to focus, laddies, if there's still time.
Ummmm....OK....
But please, try and keep it brief if at all possible, you are not the only one I respond to.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
This is how different from the past, how?
It's NOT different from the past, and that's my point! You can never hope to fix a problem with the same ignorant mindset that created it in the first place. That ignorance has not lessened.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
First off, who is supposed to write this pledge? To my knowledge, there is not set list of directives outside of smaller Govt and a return to the ideals of the Founders, but your link proves one thing, the left including RINO/libs are scared to death of the Tea party, and I wouldn't be the least surprised to discover many of those sites are a collaborative effort of both party's.Show me where the Tea movement is an actual party first.
You're sounding like the leaders of the various tea party groups themselves! They managed to piece together a pledge, or a couple pledges, in 2010, but they couldn't manage to create a unified pledge with all the tea parties signing on.
And "smaller government" is truly an ignorant expectation. It is merely a subjective relative measure, and about on par reducing this problem to mere "dislike" versus "like". The Constitution doesn't mention "smaller" government anywhere; it references specific limitations on government. Here's a thought: how about we go with the Constitution. Deal?
Scared to death of the tea party? Why should they be scared to death of the tea party? They've pushed through thelr legislation, they've corrupted the Court for decades to come. They've gotten Obama elected, not just once, but twice, when he never even should have been on a ballot, but don't worry, we sure fixed them by putting McCain on the ballot when he wasn't qualified to be there either.
They've emplaced spying on every aspect of our lives, and the Republicans, RINOs and even the Tea Party representatives like Michelle Bachmann, are DEFENDING IT! They have us so cowed that no one even refers to the fact of ObamaCare being unconstitutional, despite the fact that it undeniably is so!
Yeah, they're scared to death of the Tea Parties alright!
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
Show me where the Tea movement is an actual party first.
But yes, there are many groups out there working on it's behalf, you just have to look for them.
Start here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+organizations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+organizations&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
HOW, how.... do you imagine that the Tea party not being an "actual party" is even relevant? It's NOT! The purpose of the Tea Party is an advocacy group, advocating for legitimate governance,... as defined by the U.S. Constitution. It has "party" at the end of the name because of those guys that tossed tea into Boston Harbor some time ago, and actually has nothing to do with being a political party, or even Ron Paul, unless he's that old.
"It's behalf"? What ITS? The Tea party? It's no "its". DIdn't you just assert that yourself? "It" is a many-headed hydra, and there's considerable question if it even has a unified body anywhere at all! My point is precisely the fact that there are many tea party groups, and they are not unified.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
Quote from: TripI hear the Tea Parties saying they are now "more grass-roots" than they were before. That's great, but not so great if they don't have a unified honed message. Where's that message? What is that message? The fact is those Tea Parties are still too ego-driven for those bastards to give up their fragile, ephemeral territory and unify with the other groups.
And I'm certain you can back that up with actual facts, and I do mean facts, not opinion pieces, right?
You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up? That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"? And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.
Have you actually listened to the news lately, and actually followed those "tea parties" you're making these generalized statements about?
While they do not speak with any unified voice, and indeed have not indicated this in any sort of unison, at least "some" tea party groups are saying they now have a more effective ground movement in place locally to knock on doors, and approach people - hence "more grassroots."
As far as the possibility that you might be referring to me "backing up" the fact that the Tea Parties do not act together, do not work in unison, and have had major issues in this regard, I assume that you have actually paid attention to the news since 2010, caught the numerous stories about this infighting and competition, and can recognize on your own that there have been no unified statements from all the Tea Parties -- which is major problem.... not to mention one you yourself recognized even citing all the numerous groups, and referencing they are not an "actual party".
But if you imagine that "smaller government" alone is gonna cut it, by God I sure hope that phrase causes absolute fear in the hearts of men.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
Which has what to do with anything I said?
Try and not get too long winded and off topic, seriously, try and be a bit more brief, or you'll quickly lose my interest.
It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything you said, which is why I brought it up. You entirely overlooked the fact that those Tea Parties you believe everyone is so scared of, have no focus whatsoever.
I painted in the picture with detailed references so you could follow along, but evidently those references were too much for you, and you still did not follow along. However at least you're not demanding that I "back it up".
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 10:20:32 AM
And I see why it failed, you want to dictate and put everyone in a neat little package that you're comfortable with.
But you fail to realize how many Tea supporters may not agree with your set of criteria, not all have the same vision which is why it is so appealing across demographic lines.
Just the thought of a smaller, less intrusive Govt is what made the Tea movement so attractive in the first place, and now you want to try and force all of it's supporters into agreeing with your personal vision.
That's a bit dictatorial, don't you think?
If you're going to be a jackass, please don't complain when I treat you as one.
NO, you don't see "why it failed". Nothing I said involved anything about me "dictating" to anyone, nor myself putting people in any sort of neat little package.
In point of fact, I insisted on having NO operational control over the whole thing, and did not want to even be a forum moderator, which I have even declined here on this forum, when offered.
All I did was come up with a plan, a name for the forum, and offered my writing skills, and the idea that these articles written by myself and others from the blog, would serve to fuel the debate and discussion in the forum.
The tea party group leads would actually arrange themselves as they themselves chose, with the forum and site only being a neutral area for them to exercise jointly, without any one group having any original control, a major ego hurdle being bypassed.
That's it! And it's still a pretty damn good plan.
And the source of that "vision" is actually the United States Constitution itself, and not some half-baked subjective idea such as "smaller government". There's no restoring the Constitution piecemeal, only so far as some might like personally. It has to be either all or nothing. And if we do only "part", then what we do will not actually accomplish anything, and that's part of the problem; "smaller government" isn't even a reasonable starting point.
The forum collapse never even made it to approaching the Tea Parties, although I had established contacts with some of them, some going back to their nascence. The problem was the person that volunteered to take the domain name that I and one other came up with, and we all had voted for among numerous names, and then went and applied it to a server, and actually intended to make himself King, and ban some people outright, and promote his buddies to Mods. This was a deal breaker involving deliberate betrayal, and resulted in months of heated discussion,and legal threats, in order to just get back the domain name, and remove the software.
It actually had nothing to do with any action on my part. I'm not the sort to lead by authority, but rather by my ideas and character.
I'm sure those problems are really not all that different from what is going on between the tea party groups themselves, at least when they try to establish some sort of unity.
Next time, before telling us what you think, you might consider actually thinking first.
Quote from: Trip on August 08, 2013, 08:14:21 PM
Do you all really imagine that Rand Paul has the ability to be elected president?
I think he does. I think he's more groomed for the long campaign haul, having been around it. I also think he'll assemble his own campaign team instead of getting swindled by a bunch of scam artists.
Quote
What coalitions has he been able to form, a problem he shares with his father?
I think he pulls in an overlap of various voters. He gets some Paul voters, conservative voters, libertarians, independents, and a good number of Dems. He isn't a proto-typical GOP candidate.
Quote
Rand Paul's greatest endeavor has been that prominent filibuster. How did that end?
The GOP bar is set low, yes, but Rand has at least been standing up and at least bringing up the Constitution in his interviews, etc. Paul is establishing the tone as well.
Quote
It ended with Rand making the statement that the President can appoint whomever he wants to office, which not only is not what the Constitution indicates, but also Rand, by this statement, totally neutered the purpose of his own filibuster!
The President can't nominate who he wants for CIA Director? I may need some edumacation on that.
Quote
Where in any of this is the sharp mind, shrewd judgment, keen focused goals, and ability to unite people, that are all necessary skills to lead this country out of the abyss?
I think Paul possesses all those. He is whip smart, slaps down MSM talking points, and brings up The Constitution in all his interviews and responses. He runs circles around anyone who tries to challenge him. During the campaign, the MSM will hit him hard to be a racist, and he'll eat that up and make them look foolish.
One thing I do like about Paul (or maybe the very few other pure conservatives out there like Cruz, Lee, Goudy) is that this is the kind of environment that Reagan emerged from.
Rejection of the abominations of recent liberalism (Obama-Carter), still full of trepidation regarding the previous GOP guy (Bush-Nixon).
These guys should study how Reagan used this particular dynamic to his advantage. The biggest part was his honesty, clarity, and consistency. But he did take advantage of a basic rejection of both camps.
Reagan was every bit the enemy of the old-guard GOP. They were on a mission to destroy him just like they've done with Palin, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, West, Cain, etc.
Maybe we should study how they did defeat those guys recently, and maybe even how they beat back Goldwater, in contrast to how Reagan kicked their asses.
Food for thought.
It's funny, when I think of how Reagan beat both the GOP establishment and the dems.......it reminds me of the recent thread about using the dems-libs anger and disenfranchisement with Obama, for a TP campaign.
Two things that go together nicely.
Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 11:52:26 AM
You can never hope to fix a problem with the same ignorant mindset that created it in the first place.
And I'm certain you can back that up with actual facts, and I do mean facts, not opinion pieces, right?
You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up? That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"? And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.
Have you actually listened to the news lately, and actually followed those "tea parties" you're making these generalized statements about?
If you're going to be a jackass, please don't complain when I treat you as one.
In point of fact, I insisted on having NO operational control over the whole thing, and did not want to even be a forum moderator, which I have even declined here on this forum, when offered.
Next time, before telling us what you think, you might consider actually thinking first.
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.
The thing I liked most about Reagan, was that he was a happy warrior. He never seemed to get angry. He was always confident in what he was doing and that the American People would come around -- and they did. A few are like him, but I doubt we'll see another that can motivate the People the way he did.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 09, 2013, 03:08:37 PM
One thing I do like about Paul (or maybe the very few other pure conservatives out there like Cruz, Lee, Goudy) is that this is the kind of environment that Reagan emerged from.
Rejection of the abominations of recent liberalism (Obama-Carter), still full of trepidation regarding the previous GOP guy (Bush-Nixon).
These guys should study how Reagan used this particular dynamic to his advantage. The biggest part was his honesty, clarity, and consistency. But he did take advantage of a basic rejection of both camps.
Reagan was every bit the enemy of the old-guard GOP. They were on a mission to destroy him just like they've done with Palin, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, West, Cain, etc.
Maybe we should study how they did defeat those guys recently, and maybe even how they beat back Goldwater, in contrast to how Reagan kicked their asses.
Food for thought.
Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 11:52:26 AM
It's NOT different from the past, and that's my point! You can never hope to fix a problem with the same ignorant mindset that created it in the first place. That ignorance has not lessened.
Which is why I posed the question. Wh was 2010 so different than the previous mid term?
Now apply that to 2014, and you have your answer.
QuoteYou're sounding like the leaders of the various tea party groups themselves! They managed to piece together a pledge, or a couple pledges, in 2010, but they couldn't manage to create a unified pledge with all the tea parties signing on.
Believe it or not, that's a good thing, alienating certain people with strict standards has never worked.
The idea is to first get people elected and the incumbents out, it's those incumbents that get too comfortable.
Am I making any sense here?
QuoteAnd "smaller government" is truly an ignorant expectation. It is merely a subjective relative measure, and about on par reducing this problem to mere "dislike" versus "like". The Constitution doesn't mention "smaller" government anywhere; it references specific limitations on government. Here's a thought: how about we go with the Constitution. Deal?
Man, you really are a bit thick. If we were to have a candidate campaign on your platform, they'd never see the light of day, that is just a reality. First you have to get elected, then we can start to shrink Govt in so many ways, simply quit funding programs, it really is that simple, but we have to get people elected first.
QuoteScared to death of the tea party? Why should they be scared to death of the tea party? They've pushed through thelr legislation, they've corrupted the Court for decades to come. They've gotten Obama elected, not just once, but twice, when he never even should have been on a ballot, but don't worry, we sure fixed them by putting McCain on the ballot when he wasn't qualified to be there either.
Apples and oranges, you're talking about the Presidential election, I'm talking about the mid term, a time when libs turnout is low.
QuoteThey've emplaced spying on every aspect of our lives, and the Republicans, RINOs and even the Tea Party representatives like Michelle Bachmann, are DEFENDING IT! They have us so cowed that no one even refers to the fact of ObamaCare being unconstitutional, despite the fact that it undeniably is so!
Yeah, they're scared to death of the Tea Parties alright!
And they got caught redhanded, didn't they?
QuoteHOW, how.... do you imagine that the Tea party not being an "actual party" is even relevant? It's NOT! The purpose of the Tea Party is an advocacy group, advocating for legitimate governance,... as defined by the U.S. Constitution. It has "party" at the end of the name because of those guys that tossed tea into Boston Harbor some time ago, and actually has nothing to do with being a political party, or even Ron Paul, unless he's that old.
You can't be serious, I know you're brighter than that statement.
If the Tea movement was so insignificant, why was the IRS targeting such an undistinguished rag tag gorup[?
Quote"It's behalf"? What ITS? The Tea party? It's no "its". DIdn't you just assert that yourself? "It" is a many-headed hydra, and there's considerable question if it even has a unified body anywhere at all! My point is precisely the fact that there are many tea party groups, and they are not unified.
And I'm certain you can back that up with actual facts, and I do mean facts, not opinion pieces, right?
You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up? That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"? And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.
Geeez, settle down and get down off the table, I asked only because no one in my group said anything about being anything but a grassroots movement, many times people say shit like that, and it gets applied to the entire movement.
This is why I asked for actual facts, and not some moron speaking out his ass, got it?
You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up? That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"? And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.
QuoteHave you actually listened to the news lately, and actually followed those "tea parties" you're making these generalized statements about?
While they do not speak with any unified voice, and indeed have not indicated this in any sort of unison, at least "some" tea party groups are saying they now have a more effective ground movement in place locally to knock on doors, and approach people - hence "more grassroots."
Yes, I'm in one of them, we do that and far more, some groups were'nt as organized early on, it only makes sense that they are honing ways to get their message out.
Does that make them more grassroots, or more organized, I believe "more grassroots" infers returning to ones roots, not growing.
QuoteAs far as the possibility that you might be referring to me "backing up" the fact that the Tea Parties do not act together, do not work in unison, and have had major issues in this regard, I assume that you have actually paid attention to the news since 2010, caught the numerous stories about this infighting and competition, and can recognize on your own that there have been no unified statements from all the Tea Parties -- which is major problem.... not to mention one you yourself recognized even citing all the numerous groups, and referencing they are not an "actual party".
Wait, you actually heard this on the news? Really? Are you actually admitting you believe the shit the media puts out, without question?
Geee, got me, it must be true then, it was on the NEWS. :rolleyes:
QuoteBut if you imagine that "smaller government" alone is gonna cut it, by God I sure hope that phrase causes absolute fear in the hearts of men.
It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything you said, which is why I brought it up. You entirely overlooked the fact that those Tea Parties you believe everyone is so scared of, have no focus whatsoever.
I painted in the picture with detailed references so you could follow along, but evidently those references were too much for you, and you still did not follow along. However at least you're not demanding that I "back it up".
If you're going to be a jackass, please don't complain when I treat you as one.
Do you always take everything so negatively personal, do you think everyone is attacking you?
QuoteNO, you don't see "why it failed". Nothing I said involved anything about me "dictating" to anyone, nor myself putting people in any sort of neat little package.
In point of fact, I insisted on having NO operational control over the whole thing, and did not want to even be a forum moderator, which I have even declined here on this forum, when offered.
All I did was come up with a plan, a name for the forum, and offered my writing skills, and the idea that these articles written by myself and others from the blog, would serve to fuel the debate and discussion in the forum.
OK
QuoteThe tea party group leads would actually arrange themselves as they themselves chose, with the forum and site only being a neutral area for them to exercise jointly, without any one group having any original control, a major ego hurdle being bypassed.
That's it! And it's still a pretty damn good plan.
Excellent idea.
QuoteAnd the source of that "vision" is actually the United States Constitution itself, and not some half-baked subjective idea such as "smaller government". There's no restoring the Constitution piecemeal, only so far as some might like personally. It has to be either all or nothing. And if we do only "part", then what we do will not actually accomplish anything, and that's part of the problem; "smaller government" isn't even a reasonable starting point.
Seriously.... All or nothing? It took 200 years to crew it it up, there is no way in Hell anyone is going to reverse that in one term.
You start out slow, you simply defund the big ones first, EPA, DOE and so on, but to simply eliminate all Govt bureaucracy in one term is certain suicide for the movement, any movement no matter how much support they have.
At least I'm being realistic.
QuoteThe forum collapse never even made it to approaching the Tea Parties, although I had established contacts with some of them, some going back to their nascence. The problem was the person that volunteered to take the domain name that I and one other came up with, and we all had voted for among numerous names, and then went and applied it to a server, and actually intended to make himself King, and ban some people outright, and promote his buddies to Mods. This was a deal breaker involving deliberate betrayal, and resulted in months of heated discussion,and legal threats, in order to just get back the domain name, and remove the software.
It actually had nothing to do with any action on my part. I'm not the sort to lead by authority, but rather by my ideas and character.
Partners can be a problem, I'm blessed with Taxed, couldn't ask for a better partner.
QuoteI'm sure those problems are really not all that different from what is going on between the tea party groups themselves, at least when they try to establish some sort of unity.
Welcome to the real world.
QuoteNext time, before telling us what you think, you might consider actually thinking first.
All I had to go on was your posts here, and yes, it reflected upon my conclusion.
I don't know why this quoted within a quote box, my bad.
Quote from: Yawn on August 09, 2013, 03:35:51 PM
The thing I liked most about Reagan, was that he was a happy warrior. He never seemed to get angry. He was always confident in what he was doing and that the American People would come around -- and they did. A few are like him, but I doubt we'll see another that can motivate the People the way he did.
Reagan was a reformed Hollywood liberal democrat.
It pisses me off, that people think that all democrat voters are a lost cause.
It
really pisses me off, that the GOP steadfastly refuses to present a conservative, small government message. There are a lot of democrat voters that wake up and go to work every day, that are yearning for another Reagan.
Quote from: Yawn on August 09, 2013, 03:35:51 PM
The thing I liked most about Reagan, was that he was a happy warrior. He never seemed to get angry. He was always confident in what he was doing and that the American People would come around -- and they did. A few are like him, but I doubt we'll see another that can motivate the People the way he did.
This is true. The guy LOVED America, and was happy about it. That may have been his secret weapon, people of all stripes were happy about this, themselves. Bush 1 was a pale copycat with "points of light", and Bush 2 seems to have been more globalist than American, the GOP version of old money-Bildeberger vs. liberal one-world socialism.
It's too bad that the Clintons, then Obama on steroids, decided to sell hating America.
We should be at a point where 60-80% of America are sick of that shit. A real hero could run with it. Personally I like West, Cain, Condi Rice as people who could sell the positive version. Maybe Paul, Cruz, and pals can.
Quote from: Trip on August 09, 2013, 07:44:18 AM
In 2010 we had a number of candidates sign the Tea Party pledge, sign it, but not adhere to it. And where is that pledge now? Google "Tea Party Pledge" and see what comes up (https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+pledge). It's leftist criticism of the "tea-bag****" pledge, but no results showing the actual pledge.
Trip,
Is this the pledge you're talking about?
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/24/a-tea-party-pledge-to-the-112th-congress/ (http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/24/a-tea-party-pledge-to-the-112th-congress/)
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Believe it or not, that's a good thing, alienating certain people with strict standards has never worked.
The idea is to first get people elected and the incumbents out, it's those incumbents that get too comfortable.
Am I making any sense here?
Man, you really are a bit thick. If we were to have a candidate campaign on your platform, they'd never see the light of day, that is just a reality. First you have to get elected, then we can start to shrink Govt in so many ways, simply quit funding programs, it really is that simple, but we have to get people elected first.
Apples and oranges, you're talking about the Presidential election, I'm talking about the mid term, a time when libs turnout is low.
You are, but only to a certain level, and in a very limited sense, while ignoring the broader picture.
It's not as if I'm pulling those "strict standards" out of a hat, and as I tried to point out, it's not as if the Constitution picks and chooses the limits on government randomly. In other posts in other threads, I've tried to demonstrate that the Constitution is all inter-constructed and inter-reliant, involving the same philosophy throughout, and not by just random barriers. . That "we" in general don't understand this fact has repeatedly, over this country's history (particularly since the Civil War) worked in the favor of those Progressives, and worked against our own position, and we've actually given away our freedoms - repeatedly.
That's the big picture - generally.
If we "got" that big picture, there wouldn't be a 16th Amendment, because the tax on income is not only a direct tax prohibited by the Constitution, but also it enables the government to institute agendas against individuals and groups. Yet there are "conservatives" today who don't get that, and view the more-full argument, when I present it, as if I were presenting some fringe tax protestor's argument. They act like dutiful government cogs, in believing it is somehow their patriotic duty to pay income tax, and that if income tax on their wages ever were unconstitutional, it was made so by the 16th amendment's ratification. They're incapable of recognizing that certain amendments are actually still in conflict with the Constitution, regardless of their ratification.
We cannot simply just pick and choose parts of the Constitution that we want to institute, because in the process we're throwing out the whole of the document, invalidating it on our own, and in the process validating the Constitution's continuing de-construction, and invalidation.
As far as those incumbents, it seems a valid approach on paper, but it really doesn't work in practice, and has never worked throughout history. And it won't ever work, because we only replace a lesser portion of those in either house of Congress at any given time, and the corruptions that we need to reject are institutionalized.
In application, we see this in what the Politicians are willing to say, and do, even the "Tea Party" candidates. For instance, I fully believe that Michelle Bachmann recognized Romney's "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" to be a gross corruption of the 10th Amwendment, and her comments after the election furthered my suspicion. However Bachmann was unwilling to remove herself from the pack, and put focus on herself to stand for an important issue, because ultimately pointing out that issue, 'impaling herself" on that ground, was not going to change the issue's corrupt application, even though it was a real chance for Bachmann to differentiate herself from the other 6 or so candidates on stage, beyond being just "the woman".
This process continues unabated whether an interim election, or a presidential election. Obama just complicates the process because he is a symbol, a token for the black oppression and civil rights, even before he does anything.
You say you think I'm the one that's thick, but you're the one ignoring that big picture, and comforting yourself with vapid platitudes that really don't work, have never worked except in a very small scale, and only further the causes and problems that we face. It's like relieving yourself in a dark serge suit; it may make you feel warm and comfy for the moment, but in the long run it only furthers the problems.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
And they got caught redhanded, didn't they?
You can't be serious, I know you're brighter than that statement.
If the Tea movement was so insignificant, why was the IRS targeting such an undistinguished rag tag gorup?
They got caught. Big deal!
What did the news this past week show? The IRS continues to target tea party groups despite being caught. Adn the NSA is still continuing its data collection. Did you honestly believe that the IRS was going to suddenly stop prejudicial targeting of the Tea Parties and other patriot groups? Are we really that naive?
The IRS was targeting the Tea Parties because they represent the represent a real chance to get the Truth out, unflitered by an alphet-soup government controlled media. As a multi-headed hydra they are very difficult to control, but this ignores the fact that those Tea Parties are nowhere near as effective as they should be, as a result of being that multi-headed hydra -- which is pretty much undeniable.
The IRS is targeting tea party groups because we have an uncontrolled criminal government, and a controlled compliant media.
And frankly, I think you're smart enough to recognize this, but you're making your perspective contingent upon idealized platitudes, rather than the facts repeatedly before you. You're deliberately not thinking, not applying even simple reason. While this may be immediately comforting, it is not all that effective (reference to that "dark serge suit" again).
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Geeez, settle down and get down off the table, I asked only because no one in my group said anything about being anything but a grassroots movement, many times people say shit like that, and it gets applied to the entire movement.
This is why I asked for actual facts, and not some moron speaking out his ass, got it?
You gotta be f***ing kidding me. Back what up? That they're stating they are now more "grass roots"? And you imagine that you even need to challenge that, as if I made some extraordinary claim? "And I do mean facts". You gotta be f****** kidding me.
In actual fact, simple, generalized statements do not require being "backed up" and cannot legitimately be met with demand for facts. What requires factual support and backup reference are extraordinary statements.
The recognition that the Tea Parties are a "grass roots" movement is not in any way an extraordinary statement. As such, the appropriate response is "what do you mean by that?", or "how is that relevant?", not an officious and inappropriate, "And I do mean facts".
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Yes, I'm in one of them, we do that and far more, some groups were'nt as organized early on, it only makes sense that they are honing ways to get their message out.
Does that make them more grassroots, or more organized, I believe "more grassroots" infers returning to ones roots, not growing.
You can believe whatever the flock you want, and you're apparently inclined to do so regardless of fact. However in context of the application of "grassroots", there is no associated meaning that implies they are not growing. It is meant to show they are pursing more local methods of affect, rather than national visibility. While this approach may show some limited positive result, it is still ignoring the enormous problem of those many hydra heads, no matter how small and local, not having a unified vision.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Wait, you actually heard this on the news? Really? Are you actually admitting you believe the shit the media puts out, without question?
Geee, got me, it must be true then, it was on the NEWS. :rolleyes:
I'm comfortable with going with a Tea Party Patriots representative, Jenny Beth Martin, speaking out on several conservative programs, at least so far as that organization itself, but not necessarily for the the other heads of the hydra. You're applying a gross generalization here, without being aware of the particular facts, and instead only choosing to ignore them (despite your call for proof), and that never achieves a valid result, much less constitutes an effective approach.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Do you always take everything so negatively personal, do you think everyone is attacking you?
You were attacking me personally, and your condemnation of me regarding that previous forum, which you knew nothing about, and this personalization has continued on into this post with repeated digs such as "brighter than that" and "a bit thick", when from my own perspective, the problem rests with your own naive and even desperate reliance on general platitudes, when the history of these past 200 years show that these really don't work, and are actually the problem itself.
As I stated, one can never fix a problem with the same mind-set and methods that created the problem to begin with.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Seriously.... All or nothing? It took 200 years to crew it it up, there is no way in Hell anyone is going to reverse that in one term.
You start out slow, you simply defund the big ones first, EPA, DOE and so on, but to simply eliminate all Govt bureaucracy in one term is certain suicide for the movement, any movement no matter how much support they have.
At least I'm being realistic.
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.
Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2013, 03:48:15 PM
Partners can be a problem, I'm blessed with Taxed, couldn't ask for a better partner.
Welcome to the real world.All I had to go on was your posts here, and yes, it reflected upon my conclusion.
Taxed is a good man. I've recognized a rare sense about him to go for less heavy-handed and "hands off", which is a valuable commodity, and I told him so early on. I also forewarned him that I am a bit of a Catalyst, but that has its pluses, because it get's people thinking. My approach is rather deliberate and unapologetic. If I were to apologize for putting a definitive argument on the table with a "by your leave", while I might keep the waters calm, there would be no winds to change our position.
And we most certainly need to change our position.
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.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1007.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf192%2Fgolferbill48%2Fbth_Bored.jpg&hash=96f5a22efd2ba4e21bf084c6bfa029addeb3bc66)
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. :wink:
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. :wink:
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!
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.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi425.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp337%2Ftjmccann%2Fliberal-fascism.gif&hash=ae917a4362737a0e6dbb22fe678d82699b244a9d)
"The kinder, Gentler Fascist"
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.
:drool:
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 04:53:59 AM
Ron Paul
Huckabee
How are these even conservatives, much less reasonable candidates.
:drool:
They look better when in comparison to the others on stage :laugh:
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.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi425.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp337%2Ftjmccann%2Fliberal-fascism.gif&hash=ae917a4362737a0e6dbb22fe678d82699b244a9d)
"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! :biggrin: 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...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 06:13:49 PM
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...
If the tea party is relying on elections, then how are we going to establish what the Constitution actually indicates as "law of the land"?
That only serves to validate the voting process and populist opinion, which is what got us to the corruption of the Constitution in the first place.
Baring the alternatives of 1) nullification 2) Grand Jury, and 3) civil disobedience, the only think that can restore the Constitution, and even its place before the Supreme Court, is revolution.
If we don't reject government as it now is, then we are undeniably validating it.
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 07:35:07 PM
If the tea party is relying on elections, then how are we going to establish what the Constitution actually indicates as "law of the land"?
That only serves to validate the voting process and populist opinion, which is what got us to the corruption of the Constitution in the first place.
Baring the alternatives of 1) nullification 2) Grand Jury, and 3) civil disobedience, the only think that can restore the Constitution, and even its place before the Supreme Court, is revolution.
If we don't reject government as it now is, then we are undeniably validating it.
You answered your own question.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 07:56:37 PM
You answered your own question.
Unfortunately the application of the Constitution is not contingent upon populist elections.
Can you point me to where in the Constitution it indicates its application is dependent upon election results?
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:22:26 PM
Unfortunately the application of the Constitution is not contingent upon populist elections.
Can you point me to where in the Constitution it indicates its application is dependent upon election results?
Who enforces the constitution?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:26:20 PM
Who enforces the constitution?
The same authority that created the Constitution and brought the fiction of the federal government into existence.
The people do.
And we have been lax for about a century.
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:29:55 PM
The same authority that created the Constitution and brought the fiction of the federal government into existence.
The people do.
And we have been lax for about a century.
If that were specifically true we wouldn't have a government...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:33:45 PM
If that were specifically true we wouldn't have a government...
What exactly do you mean by that?
"Specifically true"? It is specifically true, and we don't have a legitimate government because we've not been doing our job.
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:36:07 PM
What exactly do you mean by that?
"Specifically true"? It is specifically true, and we don't have a legitimate government because we've not been doing our job.
We the people attempt to enforce the constitution by electing political figures...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:38:06 PM
We the people attempt to enforce the constitution by electing political figures...
Again, where exactly is that concept described in the Constitution, or even by the founders someplace like the Federalist papers?
"A vote" is not done in order to 'attempt to enforce the constitution", and such an inherently involves the perverse idea is that that constitution might be overthrown by a mere election. Where does the Constitution indicate that?
It's beliefs such as this that are why Republicans are fetid, inept and destined for failure.
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:44:59 PM
Again, where exactly is that concept described in the Constitution, or even by the founders someplace like the Federalist papers?
"A vote" is not done in order to 'attempt to enforce the constitution", and such an inherently involves the perverse idea is that that constitution might be overthrown by a mere election. Where does the Constitution indicate that?
It's beliefs such as this that are why Republicans are fetid, inept and destined for failure.
Does the Constitution describe the the separation and powers of government?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:50:50 PM
Does the Constitution describe the the separation and powers of government?
That has nothing whatsoever do with voting being an 'attempt to enforce the constitution", and we should not even try to use an election to restore the Constitution, nor shore it up.
And neither arguments nor answers end with a question mark.
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 08:57:21 PM
That has nothing whatsoever do with voting being an 'attempt to enforce the constitution", and we should not even try to use an election to restore the Constitution, nor shore it up.
And neither arguments nor answers end with a question mark.
Alright then. Explain how we without elections and a government achieve a constitutional government...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 09:01:59 PM
Alright then. Explain how we without elections and a government achieve a constitutional government...
I've already explained that a constitutional government cannot be achieved by, and is not contingent upon, any sort of election.
Are you actually trying to assert (by a question, without a question mark) that a constitutional government therefore needs to be achieved by government itself?
REALLY? Seriously?
No problem can ever be remedied by the same means that resulted in its creation.
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 09:06:07 PM
I've already explained that a constitutional government cannot be achieved by, and is not contingent upon, any sort of election.
Are you actually trying to assert (by a question, without a question mark) that a constitutional government therefore needs to be achieved by government itself?
REALLY? Seriously?
No problem can ever be remedied by the same means that resulted in its creation.
I am simply saying a Constitutional government is only possible and will only be lasting if the people vote into power constitutional minded people on all levels...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 09:12:56 PM
I am simply saying a Constitutional government is only possible and will only be lasting if the people vote into power constitutional minded people on all levels...
What you're saying is ... the form of government we are guaranteed, and which is not contingent upon populist will, needs to be restored with populist will and elections?
That's blithering nonsense, and can only result in failure.
If this nation's founders operated in this fashion, we'd end up like France, with one revolution after another and bodies piled up.
Did it ever occur to you why the Constitution was not put in place with populace elections in the first place? How was it they were able to refer as "we, the people"?
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 09:16:09 PM
What you're saying is ... the form of government we are guaranteed, and which is not contingent upon populist will, needs to be restored with populist will and elections?
That's blithering nonsense, and can only result in failure.
If this nation's founders operated in this fashion, we'd end up like France, with one revolution after another and bodies piled up.
Did it ever occur to you why the Constitution was not put in place with populace elections in the first place? How was it they were able to refer as "we, the people"?
Oh I see! Voting is nonsense. Thanks for enlightening me. I won't waste my time in the future...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 09:17:51 PM
Oh I see! Voting is nonsense. Thanks for enlightening me. I won't waste my time in the future...
No, you clearly don't see. You've established yourself as among the contingent of socialist idiots that believe we're a democracy, and imagine that voting is some sacred right to determine our form of government.
Take a damn bow, and maybe you'll have better luck removing your head from Obama's posterior.
"yes, we're conservative, and believe in the will of the people 'attempting' to determine our form of government"
I've never heard such stupidity coming form the alleged "Right" in my entire life!
How the hell did you get that out of what he said? When losing an argument, just call your opponent a socialist. That'll shut him up!
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 09:22:34 PM
No, you clearly don't see. You've established yourself as among the contingent of socialist idiots that believe we're a democracy, and imagine that voting is some sacred right to determine our form of government.
Take a damn bow, and maybe you'll have better luck removing your head from Obama's posterior.
Really? I'm a Socialist because I believe we are responsible for the government we elect?
That is hilarious.
Now unlike you I won't label you a communist or a socialist or even a Belgian cellist. You are just a dumb low rent version of Shenanigans...
Quote from: Yawn on August 10, 2013, 09:26:57 PM
How the hell did you get that out of what he said? When losing an argument, just call your opponent a socialist. That'll shut him up!
He's Super Conservative Guy! He has a cape and everything...
Quote from: Yawn on August 10, 2013, 09:26:57 PM
How the hell did you get that out of what he said? When losing an argument, just call your opponent a socialist. That'll shut him up!
I lost that argument? You're talking to me?
So reliance on the will of the populist majority, ya know, that "Democracy" that has nothing to do with our form of government, but that Obama and Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer are always praising the virtues of in the Middle East, is not socialist?
If you don't understand any of these terms, or the factors that are at play in our government, just ask, and I'm more than happy to explain them.
Would either of you two political intellectuals care to explain how the Constitution says "We, the people" and we're a government, "of the people, by the people, and for the people" when we did not ever have a populist election to establish the Constitution?
HOW is that possible?
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 09:31:54 PM
I lost that argument? You're talking to me?
So reliance on the will of the populist majority, ya know, that "Democracy" that has nothing to do with our form of government, but that Obama and Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer are always praising the virtues of in the Middle East, is not socialist?
If you don't understand any of these terms, or the factors that are at play in our government, just ask, and I'm more than happy to explain them.
Hey looks folks, it's Henry the Eighth!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 09:39:26 PM
Hey looks folks, it's Henry the Eighth!
I'm glad you didn't pause at all to think on that, Boo. I wouldn't want you to strain something in search for a valid answer, and maybe be forced to come to terms with why our Constitution is structured the way it is.
You could have just thrown up some graphic with a character doing a face palm, or something like that, in an attempt to save your own face.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 09:28:40 PM
Really? I'm a Socialist because I believe we are responsible for the government we elect?
That is hilarious.
Now unlike you I won't label you a communist or a socialist or even a Belgian cellist. You are just a dumb low rent version of Shenanigans...
Please show me the article or clause of the U.S. Constitution that indicates that we, the people are responsible by our vote for the form of government we have exerted upon us?
It doesn't exist.
That's almost as bad as Chief Justice John Roberts claiming in the PPACA decision (the second one he wrote, not the one rejecting it) that it's not the Supreme Court's job to protect us from bad political choices, ... as if he did not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
The reason we, the people are to blame is because of this level of stupidity so prevalent in our country. It is just this perspective that provides license to those politicians corrupting the Constitution and confiscating your own dumbass rights.
We're not a Democracy, not even a partial Democracy, and deliberately so. We're a Constitutional Republic. You really ought to take some time and research what that actually means.
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 09:41:46 PM
I'm glad you didn't pause at all to think on that, Boo. I wouldn't want you to strain something in search for a valid answer, and maybe be forced to come to terms with why our Constitution is structured the way it is.
You could have just thrown up some graphic with a character doing a face palm, or something like that, in an attempt to save your own face.
And yet you are the one who doesn't want the people to vote...
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 10:04:07 PM
Please show me the article or clause of the U.S. Constitution that indicates that we, the people are responsible by our vote for the form of government we have exerted upon us?
It doesn't exist.
That's almost as bad as Chief Justice John Roberts claiming in the PPACA decision (the second one he wrote, not the one rejecting it) that it's not the Supreme Court's job to protect us from bad political choices, ... as if he did not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
The reason we, the people are to blame is because of this level of stupidity so prevalent in our country. It is just this perspective that provides license to those politicians corrupting the Constitution and confiscating your own dumbass rights.
We're not a Democracy, not even a partial Democracy, and deliberately so. We're a Constitutional Republic. You really ought to take some time and research what that actually means.
Okay then Henry or should I call you Mr Eight? Explain to me how you intend to bring people into government...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 10:04:21 PM
And yet you are the one who doesn't want the people to vote...
Yet I never saaid I don't want the people to vote. Ill give you a clue to help your obvious troubles regarding this, but it's in the form of a question:
What is voting actually applicable to?
Hint: It's not our form of government.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 10:05:40 PM
Okay then Henry or should I call you Mr Eight? Explain to me how you intend to bring people into government...
You're trying to impress everyone with your keen political intellect, aren't you?
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 10:12:39 PM
You're trying to impress everyone with your keen political intellect, aren't you?
You didn't answer my question...
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg#)
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".
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.
So it wasn't just me ? Everybody on CPF is a socialist save Trip ?
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 11, 2013, 06:49:20 AM
So it wasn't just me ? Everybody on CPF is a socialist save Trip ?
It's refreshing to see that your only contribution is personal address, and focus on "Trip".
In this day and age, with all we're facing, it's important to be able to rely on something.
Well, we've winnowed you down to two sentences. It was worth the yeoman effort and heartache.
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
Quote
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."
Do you still believe slavery should return?
Leading questions are bull shit ways of debating, knock it off!
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.
QuoteIt'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.
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.
So you're fine if women lose their Right of vote, correct?
Just want to be clear on this.
QuoteIf you're going to argue the Constitution", how about you not make it up, and then confuse it with statutory law.
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.
And what makes you think under your strict adherence we will be able to do it right a second time around?
It's why I advocate deconstructing govt slowly. For the same reason the people never felt the changes the first time around, the country won't go through shock if slowly implemented.
QuoteThe 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.
Like letting caged lions out all at once, there will be problems.
QuoteYour perspective actually brings about the very revolution (civil war) you allegedly reject.
Wait, my reversal will bring on civil war, and yours won't? :laugh:
QuoteTARD, 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.
Then why were Amendments necessary to afford said Rights?
Of one returns to it's ideals, then a reversal need apply as well.
Remember, it was you that wants only property owners to have the Right of vote, yet now you don't?
And I'm the tard?
QuoteHaving '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.
All your whining , and now you change the rules?
I'm done.
Debating with you is like debating with a lib, you simply move the goal posts when shown you're wrong.
Find another to argue with, and I'm certain that won't take long.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 11, 2013, 06:49:20 AM
So it wasn't just me ? Everybody on CPF is a socialist save Trip ?
A "capitalist" would be happy with a million people operating independently, each doing their own thing based on their abilities and goals. A "socialist" would want to "unite" these individuals and small groups with himself as their leader to accomplish the leader's personal goal. Now follow ME dammit!
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Do you still believe slavery should return?
Leading questions are bull shit ways of debating, knock it off!
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.
So you're fine if women lose their Right of vote, correct?
Just want to be clear on this.
And what makes you think under your strict adherence we will be able to do it right a second time around?
It's why I advocate deconstructing govt slowly. For the same reason the people never felt the changes the first time around, the country won't go through shock if slowly implemented.
Like letting caged lions out all at once, there will be problems.Wait, my reversal will bring on civil war, and yours won't? :laugh:
Then why were Amendments necessary to afford said Rights?
Of one returns to it's ideals, then a reversal need apply as well.
Remember, it was you that wants only property owners to have the Right of vote, yet now you don't?
And I'm the tard?
All your whining , and now you change the rules?
I'm done.
Debating with you is like debating with a lib, you simply move the goal posts when shown you're wrong.
Find another to argue with, and I'm certain that won't take long.
I'm probably guilty of having very unconstitutional thoughts.
One of my big ones, is that I think that only people that pay taxes should be able to vote, with possible removal of voting rights for public sector unionized workers...the other unmentioned dependents on big government.
It may be unconstitutional, but after seeing Obama's massive expansion of the welfare state, at the rate we're going, the takers will be a rock solid majority within a decade, with the payers having no say in anything. :sad:
What would we have with little to no federal controls, and little to no state controls ?
And local govts. subject to the same disdain / suspicion ?
In the end, we'd have nothing but millions of little communes, here there and everywhere.
This sounds more like the basic theoretical endpoint of marxism, than anything else.
A capitalist, constitutional, republic of independent states......needs a smattering of basic governing mechanisms at each level.
Just as our constitution provides.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Do you still believe slavery should return?
Leading questions are bull shit ways of debating, knock it off!
The difference between my question, and your own, and this example, is that my own asks you to specify something that is directly related to what you've indicated, whereas yours involves fabrication of things I never indicated, such as disallowing women or blacks to vote. Their right to vote is now established in the Constitution, and restoring the Constitution will not deny that vote. We do however have to recognizing that voting does not alter our form of government, nor enable agendas against various people, or interests.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Quote from: Trip on August 10, 2013, 04:21:59 PMAnd 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.
So you're fine if women lose their Right of vote, correct?
Just want to be clear on this.
Evidently your "knock it off" only applies to me, when what you're doing is far worse.
The fact that "voting" is not described in the Constitution as any sort of positive right -- for everyone, has nothing whatsoever to do with women losing the right to vote.
No, you don't want to be clear on this. You want to make it unclear by yet again asserting the "women lose the right to vote" which is not even possibly extrapolated from anything I've indicated.
This is the sort of dishonest bullcrap we get from the rabid left, like Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, with claims that the GOP wants to have old people eating cat food, blacks back in chains, and women pregnant and in the kitchen, .... so "knock it off".
"Does your Constitution bite"? No, your view of the Constitution doesn't even allow it a backbone.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
And what makes you think under your strict adherence we will be able to do it right a second time around?
It's why I advocate deconstructing govt slowly. For the same reason the people never felt the changes the first time around, the country won't go through shock if slowly implemented.
There's no logical connection whatsoever between the assertion that the government went wrong once (currently) and any positive benefit from "deconstructing government slowly".
Furthermore, we got to where we are by a lack of vigilance on the part of the people. It is irrational assert that partial vigilance, and restoring the constitution only in gradual parts, will hold the attention of the people to any long-term end. Do you plan to provide a schedule for this gradual transition, and should people consult some sort of calendar, "okay, what part of legitimate government have we restored today?"
Yeah, gradual restoration is going to profoundly establish the idea of a clear boundary between illegitimate and legitimate government that our founders outline in the Constitution (Yes, that's sarcasm.) Your argument is not just wrong, it's insipid.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Like letting caged lions out all at once, there will be problems.
Wait, my reversal will bring on civil war, and yours won't? :laugh:
The problem is that the lions are already out, already biting you, and you're already suffering from massive bleeding. The idea that if we slowwwwwwwwwwwly restore the lions to the cage that things might be restored to normal without any problems just is not rational.
Civil War may already be inevitable, but making it "acceptable" by agreement that government is operating outside the box, teaches people that they can no longer rely on the Constitution, nor the rule of law, and violence is really the only course of action to obtain justice.
At least with revolution there might be an overall goal involving order and the rule of law; we did it once, unlike many other nations.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Then why were Amendments necessary to afford said Rights?
You're really not all that familiar with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or this nation's history.
The Bill of Rights was not necessary for those rights to be "afforded". IN fact those rights do not come from that Bill of Rights itself at all! Rights are not grants, nor provisions from the Bill of Rights (and they cannot be denied by altering that Bill of Rights with further amendments)
I suggest you read and endeavor to actually understand
Hamilton's Federalist #84 (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed84.htm) in which he argues that a Bill of Rights was not necessary and even "dangerous", as it provides "a colorable pretext to claim more <federal authorities> than were granted." Hamilton argued that no Bill of Rights was necessary, because the Federal government was already limited to specifically enumerated powers tp specifically protect those rigths, and nowhere in those enumerated powers is the authority to deny the freedom of the press, nor to deny the right to bear arms, nor to limit the freedom of religion, and many other things protected by rights.
Unfortunately Hamilton was spot-on, with this being exactly what has happened with "Rights". Government has used the Bill of Rights, intended to preclude government action and effect, as an excuse ("colorable pretext") to police rights and provide rights by federal authority, and this is how government began legislating over the territory that is the states, when that is authority over the States nowhere allowed in any instance by the Constitution.
As a result of this corruption, the right to association, has become the government's authority to mandate busing, and compel individuals to associate with others. The freedom of religion, has allowed government to fabricate a right to be free of religion. And theright to security and safety has been used an excuse to deny people the right to keep and bear arms, as well as to spy on all of our personal information with the NSA.
And the President, a singular entity of the Government, now has given himself the authority to deny all rights, under the claim of national security - that being the preservation of government, not the people's security, and institute Martial Law! The result is it make our rights be in service to the government, rather than making the government in service of our rights, as intended.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
Of one returns to it's ideals, then a reversal need apply as well.
Remember, it was you that wants only property owners to have the Right of vote, yet now you don't?
And I'm the tard?
No, there's no such physical law of political mechanics that says that gradual corruption requires gradual remedy of that corruption, and in fact such a gradual remedy only serves to validate that corruption.
I was arguing that universal suffrage, and the sanctity of the vote, was not any sort of sacred plank of this country's principles. The elevation of the populist vote is invariably tied to socialism, and Democratic tyranny of the majority, and that is in fact the repeated cry we hear from the Marxist left, even willing to have non-citizens vote, and open borders. The founders denial of the right to vote to non-responsible persons of society, was not from some prejudicial disregard for rights, but rather intended to protect those rights and freedoms.
Actually I indicated it was important for the voters to have a vested interest in the stability of society, i.e own property or at least earn an income, and to no surprise that is what the founders recognized too.
- "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
~ Ben Franklin
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
~ Alexander Tytler
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 06:58:06 AM
I'm done.
Debating with you is like debating with a lib, you simply move the goal posts when shown you're wrong.
Find another to argue with, and I'm certain that won't take long.
You really have no room to make comment about 'debating with a lib" until you actually first understand the Constitution, and stop actually using the Lib's own arguments which have corrupted this Republic, such as the importance of voting, and rights coming from the Bill of Rights.
You have not shown I'm wrong; you've shown why the mindset you suffer from got us to where we are, and cannot possibly remedy the situation now.
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 08:06:22 AM
The difference between my question, and your own, and this example, is that my own asks you to specify something that is directly related to what you've indicated, whereas yours involves fabrication of things I never indicated, such as disallowing women or blacks to vote. Their right to vote is now established in the Constitution, and restoring the Constitution will not deny that vote. We do however have to recognizing that voting does not alter our form of government, nor enable agendas against various people, or interests.
So you're fine if women lose their Right of vote, correct?
Just want to be clear on this.
Evidently your "knock it off" only applies to me, when what you're doing is far worse.
The fact that "voting" is not described in the Constitution as any sort of positive right -- for everyone, has nothing whatsoever to do with women losing the right to vote.
No, you don't want to be clear on this. You want to make it unclear by yet again asserting the "women lose the right to vote" which is not even possibly extrapolated from anything I've indicated.
This is the sort of dishonest bullcrap we get from the rabid left, like Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, with claims that the GOP wants to have old people eating cat food, blacks back in chains, and women pregnant and in the kitchen, .... so "knock it off".
"Does your Constitution bite"? No, your view of the Constitution doesn't even allow it a backbone.
There's no logical connection whatsoever between the assertion that the government went wrong once (currently) and any positive benefit from "deconstructing government slowly".
Furthermore, we got to where we are by a lack of vigilance on the part of the people. It is irrational assert that partial vigilance, and restoring the constitution only in gradual parts, will hold the attention of the people to any long-term end. Do you plan to provide a schedule for this gradual transition, and should people consult some sort of calendar, "okay, what part of legitimate government have we restored today?"
Yeah, gradual restoration is going to profoundly establish the idea of a clear boundary between illegitimate and legitimate government that our founders outline in the Constitution (Yes, that's sarcasm.) Your argument is not just wrong, it's insipid.
The problem is that the lions are already out, already biting you, and you're already suffering from massive bleeding. The idea that if we slowwwwwwwwwwwly restore the lions to the cage that things might be restored to normal without any problems just is not rational.
Civil War may already be inevitable, but making it "acceptable" by agreement that government is operating outside the box, teaches people that they can no longer rely on the Constitution, nor the rule of law, and violence is really the only course of action to obtain justice.
At least with revolution there might be an overall goal involving order and the rule of law; we did it once, unlike many other nations.
You're really not all that familiar with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or this nation's history.
The Bill of Rights was not necessary for those rights to be "afforded". IN fact those rights do not come from that Bill of Rights itself at all! Rights are not grants, nor provisions from the Bill of Rights (and they cannot be denied by altering that Bill of Rights with further amendments)
I suggest you read and endeavor to actually understand Hamilton's Federalist #84 (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed84.htm) in which he argues that a Bill of Rights was not necessary and even "dangerous", as it provides "a colorable pretext to claim more <federal authorities> than were granted." Hamilton argued that no Bill of Rights was necessary, because the Federal government was already limited to specifically enumerated powers tp specifically protect those rigths, and nowhere in those enumerated powers is the authority to deny the freedom of the press, nor to deny the right to bear arms, nor to limit the freedom of religion, and many other things protected by rights.
Unfortunately Hamilton was spot-on, with this being exactly what has happened with "Rights". Government has used the Bill of Rights, intended to preclude government action and effect, as an excuse ("colorable pretext") to police rights and provide rights by federal authority, and this is how government began legislating over the territory that is the states, when that is authority over the States nowhere allowed in any instance by the Constitution.
As a result of this corruption, the right to association, has become the government's authority to mandate busing, and compel individuals to associate with others. The freedom of religion, has allowed government to fabricate a right to be free of religion. And theright to security and safety has been used an excuse to deny people the right to keep and bear arms, as well as to spy on all of our personal information with the NSA.
And the President, a singular entity of the Government, now has given himself the authority to deny all rights, under the claim of national security - that being the preservation of government, not the people's security, and institute Martial Law! The result is it make our rights be in service to the government, rather than making the government in service of our rights, as intended.
No, there's no such physical law of political mechanics that says that gradual corruption requires gradual remedy of that corruption, and in fact such a gradual remedy only serves to validate that corruption.
I was arguing that universal suffrage, and the sanctity of the vote, was not any sort of sacred plank of this country's principles. The elevation of the populist vote is invariably tied to socialism, and Democratic tyranny of the majority, and that is in fact the repeated cry we hear from the Marxist left, even willing to have non-citizens vote, and open borders. The founders denial of the right to vote to non-responsible persons of society, was not from some prejudicial disregard for rights, but rather intended to protect those rights and freedoms.
Actually I indicated it was important for the voters to have a vested interest in the stability of society, i.e own property or at least earn an income, and to no surprise that is what the founders recognized too.
- "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
~ Ben Franklin
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
~ Alexander Tytler
You really have no room to make comment about 'debating with a lib" until you actually first understand the Constitution, and stop actually using the Lib's own arguments which have corrupted this Republic, such as the importance of voting, and rights coming from the Bill of Rights.
You have not shown I'm wrong; you've shown why the mindset you suffer from got us to where we are, and cannot possibly remedy the situation now.
I still don't see what choice we have, but to do everything we can to vote in constitutional conservatives, which, by it's very nature, will be a slow process, since we appear to have little interest in the constitution, from either party, nor the supreme court, nor the voting public.
I'm sure Obama would love to see some type of uprising, in fact, he seems to taunt people into trying it. At worst, it would be suicide, and at best, conservatives would be the first guests at the razor wire fenced FEMA camps....with much of the country cheering.
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 08:06:22 AM
You have not shown I'm wrong; you've shown why the mindset you suffer from got us to where we are, and cannot possibly remedy the situation now.
Yes I have, your assertion that we need to remove all Govt of the last 200 years would be a complete and utter catastrophe.
You have yet to prove your case that it wouldn't.
It's your lack of business sense that destroys your case, you just can't cut business of at the knees and expect the country to prosper, let alone survive.
Unfortunately people have come dependent on Govt, like VA benefits, even though they too are unconstitutional.
Show how your plan will not result in a complete collapse of the country, and again, keep it short, I didn't even read the crap you just posted, more long winded BS.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 10:08:00 AM
Yes I have, your assertion that we need to remove all Govt of the last 200 years would be a complete and utter catastrophe.
You have yet to prove your case that it wouldn't.
What's wrong with you? Is this some problematic understanding on your part, or are you deliberately stating things I've nowhere said, going from denying women and blacks the vote, to this?
No, I never said "we need to remove all government". THere's a major difference between "all government" and "illegitimate government", and it doesn't involve "of the last 200 years" which is nothing but a heavy-handed addition that you added for effect, having no relevance either.
This claim of "removing all government" is exactly what Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Polisi and all the leftists say when we indicate the need to remove illegitimate government! Then they make claims like "polluted water and air", and returning blacks to slavery, and going back to "live by lamplight".... all nothing but unfounded hysteria!
You're spouting nonsense and fabricating strawmen.
I don't need to prove the case that it wouldn't, because I've never made that argument, or anything like it!
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 10:08:00 AM
It's your lack of business sense that destroys your case, you just can't cut business of at the knees and expect the country to prosper, let alone survive.
Unfortunately people have come dependent on Govt, like VA benefits, even though they too are unconstitutional.
Lack of business sense.... cut business off at the knees...! Wow!
More astonishing strawmen!
First off, I not only have business sense, but have a Masters, not that it's relevant
Secondly. Government does not create "business". Government stifles business, throttles business and chokes business. The reason we have such a prolonged economic decline now, is the same reason the Great Depression endured so long, and that is that the Democrats created the collapse, and then plied it with even more regulation, more mandate, more government dictate, and more burden on the economy, with things like ObamaCare. All this and ongoing uncertainties keeping business in a state of trepidation as to what to do next, not to mention every individual American wondering what's happening with their government and freedoms!
You're spouting even more socialist progressive nonsense! This is all the crap that the big-government Leftists are saying. At least first wipe the stain from around your face if you're going to drink so heavily from their trough!
This is precisely WHY the Constitution and Limits on government MUST be completely restored, and not ANY sort of argument why they can be disregarded with and pretend nothing wrong is going on!
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 10:08:00 AM
Show how your plan will not result in a complete collapse of the country, and again, keep it short, I didn't even read the crap you just posted, more long winded BS.
The growth and prosperity of this country up through the roaring twenties shows how this plan will not result in the complete collapse of the country.!
Your plan is nothing but the certain death of the country, economy and freedom, and spouting nothing but statist nonsense, and we've got every single totalitarian fascist regime to support that too.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 11, 2013, 06:49:20 AM
So it wasn't just me ? Everybody on CPF is a socialist save Trip ?
Yep. We're thinking of changing the name to the Trotsky Memorial Forum..
QuoteThis is precisely WHY the Constitution and Limits on government MUST be completely restored
How?
It will have to involve at least hundreds of thousands of citizens, marching on Washington...and staying there. That's my opinion anyway.
We shouldn't even be having this conversation; granted, government's illegitimacy has been decades, (or more), in the making, but I really thought that either congress or the supreme court would have neutered Obama by now. He only grows bolder. :blink:
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 10:32:51 AM
What's wrong with you? Is this some problematic understanding on your part, or are you deliberately stating things I've nowhere said, going from denying women and blacks the vote, to this?
No, I never said "we need to remove all government". THere's a major difference between "all government" and "illegitimate government", and it doesn't involve "of the last 200 years" which is nothing but a heavy-handed addition that you added for effect, having no relevance either.
This claim of "removing all government" is exactly what Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Polisi and all the leftists say when we indicate the need to remove illegitimate government! Then they make claims like "polluted water and air", and returning blacks to slavery, and going back to "live by lamplight".... all nothing but unfounded hysteria!
You're spouting nonsense and fabricating strawmen.
I don't need to prove the case that it wouldn't, because I've never made that argument, or anything like it!
Lack of business sense.... cut business off at the knees...! Wow!
More astonishing strawmen!
First off, I not only have business sense, but have a Masters, not that it's relevant
Secondly. Government does not create "business". Government stifles business, throttles business and chokes business. The reason we have such a prolonged economic decline now, is the same reason the Great Depression endured so long, and that is that the Democrats created the collapse, and then plied it with even more regulation, more mandate, more government dictate, and more burden on the economy, with things like ObamaCare. All this and ongoing uncertainties keeping business in a state of trepidation as to what to do next, not to mention every individual American wondering what's happening with their government and freedoms!
You're spouting even more socialist progressive nonsense! This is all the crap that the big-government Leftists are saying. At least first wipe the stain from around your face if you're going to drink so heavily from their trough!
This is precisely WHY the Constitution and Limits on government MUST be completely restored, and not ANY sort of argument why they can be disregarded with and pretend nothing wrong is going on!
The growth and prosperity of this country up through the roaring twenties shows how this plan will not result in the complete collapse of the country.!
Your plan is nothing but the certain death of the country, economy and freedom, and spouting nothing but statist nonsense, and we've got every single totalitarian fascist regime to support that too.
More nonsense, and you're right, a Masters means nothing.
As a retired defense contractor, I have a good understanding of the leach symbiotic relationship between Govt and the people, many rely on this leach kinship for their livelihood, and as unconstitutional as most of it is, it's part of our business culture now, and to end it over night is pure suicide.
You do know that even those that have absolutely nothing to do with Govt are also suppliers to those that are, it has a long reach into our business community.
Did you learn nothing in your college pursuit towards your masters?
You simply can't reverse 200 years of culture over night and expect people to just move on, then there is the issue of a weakened America in the eyes of our enemies, our soldiers worried about family and friends back home struggling for a daily meal, a return to soup lines supplied by churches, since Federal help is out of the question.
Your approach is beyond stupid, it's freakin crazy, not one economist anywhere would ever agree that starting over from scratch would work.
Just try and put yourself in the place of an unemployable person due to disability, now multiply that by millions, because that's what the country would look like, a crippled mess of unemployabe, many of those currently employed only know Govt work.
Do you think these people won't go down without a fight? Of course they won't, they will survive anyway they can, whether it's simple theft, to murder, the country would be in total turmoil.
Remember our enemies? They will see this as an opportunity as well.
Take off the rose colored glasses, your Utopia would never survive beyond a week, no different than a nuclear attack.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 01:18:25 PM
More nonsense, and you're right, a Masters means nothing.
As a retired defense contractor, I have a good understanding of the leach symbiotic relationship between Govt and the people, many rely on this leach kinship for their livelihood, and as unconstitutional as most of it is, it's part of our business culture now, and to end it over night is pure suicide.
You do know that even those that have absolutely nothing to do with Govt are also suppliers to those that are, it has a long reach into our business community.
Did you learn nothing in your college pursuit towards your masters?
You simply can't reverse 200 years of culture over night and expect people to just move on, then there is the issue of a weakened America in the eyes of our enemies, our soldiers worried about family and friends back home struggling for a daily meal, a return to soup lines supplied by churches, since Federal help is out of the question.
Your approach is beyond stupid, it's freakin crazy, not one economist anywhere would ever agree that starting over from scratch would work.
Just try and put yourself in the place of an unemployable person due to disability, now multiply that by millions, because that's what the country would look like, a crippled mess of unemployabe, many of those currently employed only know Govt work.
Do you think these people won't go down without a fight? Of course they won't, they will survive anyway they can, whether it's simple theft, to murder, the country would be in total turmoil.
Remember our enemies? They will see this as an opportunity as well.
Take off the rose colored glasses, your Utopia would never survive beyond a week, no different than a nuclear attack.
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
I would love to see a quick return to constitutional government, but the logistics make it impossible...unless I'm missing something.
The victims of the democrat created welfare state, cannot be ignored. They number in the millions, and lack any education, skills, or motivation to become gainfully employed. They have become fully dependent, and not by choice...the democrats have convinced them that they have a right to do absolutely nothing, and be cared for by society.
It's hard to describe how ill this makes me; and the democrats win elections by promising that it will continue forever. :cry:
America decided too long ago to work a little socialism into the mix, with SS, welfare, unemployment, disability, and so on. And to address past wrongs on the taxpayer dime, with things like AA / EEO.
We won't be able to get back to 1850 no matter what, so all we can hope for is mostly conservatism with those things to remain as a small burden on our success and wealth.
We CAN stop the growth and hopefully sunset something someday, but no, no 1850 anytime soon.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 11, 2013, 02:37:53 PM
America decided too long ago to work a little socialism into the mix, with SS, welfare, unemployment, disability, and so on. And to address past wrongs on the taxpayer dime, with things like AA / EEO.
We won't be able to get back to 1850 no matter what, so all we can hope for is mostly conservatism with those things to remain as a small burden on our success and wealth.
We CAN stop the growth and hopefully sunset something someday, but no, no 1850 anytime soon.
At the risk of exposing my lack of knowledge on certain things, after observing Obama's handiwork, I can't help but wonder if the Depression was intentionally orchestrated by the democrat party, with the New Deal preconceived beforehand...setting the groundwork for generations of government dependents.
It makes sense. Without victims, the democrat party would have been gone a long time ago. They last thing they want, is a nation of hard working, self reliant people.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 01:18:25 PM
More nonsense, and you're right, a Masters means nothing.
As a retired defense contractor, I have a good understanding of the leach symbiotic relationship between Govt and the people, many rely on this leach kinship for their livelihood, and as unconstitutional as most of it is, it's part of our business culture now, and to end it over night is pure suicide.
You do know that even those that have absolutely nothing to do with Govt are also suppliers to those that are, it has a long reach into our business community.
Did you learn nothing in your college pursuit towards your masters?
You simply can't reverse 200 years of culture over night and expect people to just move on, then there is the issue of a weakened America in the eyes of our enemies, our soldiers worried about family and friends back home struggling for a daily meal, a return to soup lines supplied by churches, since Federal help is out of the question.
Your approach is beyond stupid, it's freakin crazy, not one economist anywhere would ever agree that starting over from scratch would work.
Just try and put yourself in the place of an unemployable person due to disability, now multiply that by millions, because that's what the country would look like, a crippled mess of unemployabe, many of those currently employed only know Govt work.
Do you think these people won't go down without a fight? Of course they won't, they will survive anyway they can, whether it's simple theft, to murder, the country would be in total turmoil.
Remember our enemies? They will see this as an opportunity as well.
Take off the rose colored glasses, your Utopia would never survive beyond a week, no different than a nuclear attack.
Again, who said cutting government suppliers? More nonsense stawmen, which is what your argument consists of.
What i am referring to is the government organizations (GO's) that have no business in existence, Everything from the EPA, FDA, ATF and othes, to a DOJ that applies itself primarily occupies itself with a a redundancy of laws to the states that were and applied to private industry and indviduals that were never allowed under the Constitution in the first place - with hate crimes, and involving various militarized aspects of of the federal government imposing them, such as hate crimes, or kids being unable to accept a common dress code in schools or else it becomes a "freedom of speech" issue, and a whole array of things that are extraordinarily asinine, not to mention an intrusion. Do we really need any army of FDA individuals to pursue single farmers that are lawfully producting non-pasteurized cheese or milk, or to prosecute Amish under federal hate crime lesgislation, and put them into federal prision for decades, for having cut the hair or beards of other Amish? Do we really need the Department of Agriculture, as well as range of other departments, running mortgage programs? This is just one of the ways we got government leeches like Shirley Sherrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Sherrod), who won a lawsuit for her black farming group against the Dept of Ag for not giving them loans, the government settled out of court giving that groups miliions of dollars, and then the guy she sued by name Tom Vilsack, gave her a job in the Dept of Agriculture, and she shot her mouth off with racism there too.
The EPA does this same fake court hearing game in which they rollover for the environmentalists too. And we saw the same thing done with regard to DOMA, involving another kangaroo court hearing intended only for the corrupt court to make a decision in favor of more social engineering by the government!
The States cannot do these things under existing legislation, really?
ANd before you start off on another tangent, what might be necessary, then the States themselves can take up the slack, and do so with money they're not sending to the federal government. Ya know, that "States Rights" but without the states actually denying those individual rights of citizens.
Yes the military contracts are,generally necessary, but then I never mentioned cutting them, and there is a provision in the Constitutiion for the military.
This doesn't provide a license the secret black budgets, and enormous projects that are done contrary to the freedom of the American people, but revolve entirely around catering to government at the expense of the people, and have resulted in the creation of an untouchable criminal government-business class that even various Presidents have warned about, and in all likelihood some were assassinated by.
Your mentality involves the acceptance of a whole range of criminality and tyranny that is unacceptable and should be outrageous to each and every American citizen.
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 02:59:27 PM
Again, who said cutting government suppliers? More nonsense stawmen, which is what your argument consists of.
What i am referring to is the government organizations (GO's) that have no business in existence, Everything from the EPA, FDA, ATF and othes, to a DOJ that applies itself primarily occupies itself with a a redundancy of laws to the states that were and applied to private industry and indviduals that were never allowed under the Constitution in the first place - with hate crimes, and involving various militarized aspects of of the federal government imposing them, such as hate crimes, or kids being unable to accept a common dress code in schools or else it becomes a "freedom of speech" issue, and a whole array of things that are extraordinarily asinine, not to mention an intrusion. Do we really need any army of FDA individuals to pursue single farmers that are lawfully producting non-pasteurized cheese or milk, or to prosecute Amish under federal hate crime lesgislation, and put them into federal prision for decades, for having cut the hair or beards of other Amish? The States cannot do that under existing legislation, really?
ANd before you start off on another tangent, what might be necessary, then the States themselves can take up the slack, and do so with money they're not sending to the federal government. Ya know, that "States Rights" but without the states actually denying those individual rights of citizens.
Yes the military contracts are,generally necessary, but then I never mentioned cutting them, and there is a provision in the Constitutiion for the military.
This doesn't provide a license the secret black budgets, and enormous projects that are done contrary to the freedom of the American people, but revolve entirely around catering to government at the expense of the people, and have resulted in the creation of an untouchable criminal government-business class that even various Presidents have warned about, and in all likelihood some were assassinated by.
Your mentality involves the acceptance of a whole range of criminality and tyranny that is unacceptable and should be outrageous to each and every American citizen.
What they have done to the Amish people should have the entire country outraged.
Between the haircuts, and the destruction of the dairy...those alone are proof of an illegitimate government.
Of course, I thought this administration was finished with fast & furious. They were arming the criminal drug cartels, without one iota of tracking the arms. They were actively aiding and abetting criminals...and the country gave a collective yawn when Obama made the questions stop.
Quote from: kramarat on August 11, 2013, 03:12:11 PM
What they have done to the Amish people should have the entire country outraged.
Between the haircuts, and the destruction of the dairy...those alone are proof of an illegitimate government.
Yes, it should, and they only did it by corruption of the "interstate commerce" clause, which was never meant to involve things done in the States, and only the tariffs applied by the States themselves to the traffic of goods, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
For instance, we don't need the Department of Agriculture, as well as range of other departments, running their own specialized mortgage programs, in addition to the corruptions run by overt government programs that are themselves corrupt.
This corruption is just one of the ways we got government leeches like Shirley Sherrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Sherrod) in a comfy position with government complicity, and a corrupt out-of-court decision with American taxpayer money in her pocket. You all might remember Shirley Sherrod for her racist commentary in front of the NAACP (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNArUTCo0Q), and Dept of Agriculture employee for her incendiary statements made at a public speech that had the whole nation debating her words.
Sherrod originally began her government career by winning a lawsuit for her black farming group against the Dept of Ag for not giving them loans. The government settled out of court giving that group millions of dollars, and then the guy Sherrod sued by name, Tom Vilsack, gave Sherrod a job in the Dept of Agriculture (more than strange), only to have her shoot off her mouth off with racist comments to the NAACP.
Shirley Sherrod was eventually fired by the Obama Admin, but not because of her comments, but rather so that she wouldn't become an issue and that administration would get mud on its face. They didn't want any in the media digging into how Shirley Sherrod got there in the first place, and the trumped-up, corrupt court decision that was involved.
The EPA does this same fake court hearing game in which they rollover for the environmentalists too. And we saw the same thing done with regard to DOMA, involving another kangaroo court hearing, that the Court didn't have any authority to hear; and ObamaCare being an example that we will probably never know the Truth regarding, with the last minute flip-ruling by Roberts about a government dictate literally overthrowing the Constitution, and making people subservient to that government, even owned by it, which no Court could support with any legitmacy. All of these and more have the common ground of a corrupt court making illegitimate yet binding decisions in favor of more social engineering by the government!
This goes on all over the place in government, and the American people are not only paying for those who profit from this, paying for a whole array of criminal enterprises, but paying literally and figuratively for the corruption of our legal system, the theft of money from a free economy, and the deterioration of their own freedom and way of life.
So how do you get people to understand that they would be FAR better off without all of this government involvement. Most people think this abuse is rare and it never touches them, so they don't care. They think the personal benefits of a big government far outweigh the occasional abuse.
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 03:38:44 PM
Yes, it should, and they only did it by corruption of the "interstate commerce" clause, which was never meant to involve things done in the States, and only the tariffs applied by the States themselves to the traffic of goods, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
For instance, we don't need the Department of Agriculture, as well as range of other departments, running their own specialized mortgage programs, in addition to the corruptions run by overt government programs that are themselves corrupt.
This corruption is just one of the ways we got government leeches like Shirley Sherrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Sherrod) in a comfy position with government complicity, and a corrupt out-of-court decision with American taxpayer money in her pocket. You all might remember Shirley Sherrod for her racist commentary in front of the NAACP (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNArUTCo0Q), and Dept of Agriculture employee for her incendiary statements made at a public speech that had the whole nation debating her words.
Sherrod originally began her government career by winning a lawsuit for her black farming group against the Dept of Ag for not giving them loans. The government settled out of court giving that group millions of dollars, and then the guy Sherrod sued by name, Tom Vilsack, gave Sherrod a job in the Dept of Agriculture (more than strange), only to have her shoot off her mouth off with racist comments to the NAACP.
Shirley Sherrod was eventually fired by the Obama Admin, but not because of her comments, but rather so that she wouldn't become an issue and that administration would get mud on its face. They didn't want any in the media digging into how Shirley Sherrod got there in the first place, and the trumped-up, corrupt court decision that was involved.
The EPA does this same fake court hearing game in which they rollover for the environmentalists too. And we saw the same thing done with regard to DOMA, involving another kangaroo court hearing, that the Court didn't have any authority to hear, and ObamaCare being an example that we will probably never know the Truth regarding withe last minute ruling by Roberts about a government dictate overthrowing the Constitution, and no court could legitimately support. All of these and more have the common ground of a corrupt court making illegitimate yet binding decisions in favor of more social engineering by the government!
This goes on all over the place in government, and the American people are not only paying for those who profit from this, paying for a whole array of criminal enterprises, but paying literally and figuratively for the corruption of our legal system, the theft of money from a free economy, and the deterioration of their own freedom and way of life.
You're preaching to the choir here Trip.
The outrage never seems to come. When Biden made his blatantly racist remark, there were nothing but crickets...I couldn't believe it!!!!
When Biden had the audacity to say, in front of a black audience, that republicans wanted to put them back in chains, he was telling them to their faces, that they were too stupid to amount to anything on their own, and that government had a responsibility to take care of them.
They freaking applauded!!!!!
WTF????? :scared:
Quote from: kramarat on August 11, 2013, 02:13:35 PM
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
I would love to see a quick return to constitutional government, but the logistics make it impossible...unless I'm missing something.
The victims of the democrat created welfare state, cannot be ignored. They number in the millions, and lack any education, skills, or motivation to become gainfully employed. They have become fully dependent, and not by choice...the democrats have convinced them that they have a right to do absolutely nothing, and be cared for by society.
It's hard to describe how ill this makes me; and the democrats win elections by promising that it will continue forever. :cry:
Exactly, I too would love nothing more than to wave a wand and make it all better, but that's just not reality.
Returning our country to saner times will unfortunately take a generation in the least, these people need to be weened off, and simply cutting off their only source of income will be the quickest way to turn them into animals, and proof of this is in mob looting of stores happening today, but imagine crowds in the 1000nds, that's exactly what would happen.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 01:18:25 PM
.... I have a good understanding of the leach symbiotic relationship between Govt and the people, many rely on this leach kinship ....
You simply can't reverse 200 years of culture over night and expect people to just move on, then there is the issue of a weakened America in the eyes of our enemies, our soldiers worried about family and friends back home struggling for a daily meal, a return to soup lines supplied by churches, since Federal help is out of the question.
<snip>
Your approach is beyond stupid, it's freakin crazy, not one economist anywhere would ever agree that starting over from scratch would work.
Take off the rose colored glasses, your Utopia would never survive beyond a week, no different than a nuclear attack.
I've snipped your post here and there to highlight what can only be recognized as, at minimal, the corrupt voice of the Rublican Progressive establishment, and is virtually inline with the Democrat Progressives.
Basically you start off admitting there is a problem, ....a "leach symbiotic relationsip"..... but you just don't want to fix it.
THen you actually have the audacity to call this
"culture", when it is not culture at all, but rathre our corrupt government corrupting the very direction of society!. We're actually on the verge of our society declaring CO2 to be a pollutant, and imposing this on every aspect of our lives, and the people paid with their taxes for corrupt environmental scientists to promote this non-science, so that government can limit carbon coal plants, raise the cost of power, kill tens and even hundreds of millions of people, both directly and indirectly, and decrease the standard of living of everyone, all to make once free citizens more dependent upon and subservient to government -- without there being ANY environmental threat whatsoever!
But this is "culture", and you don't want to stop the leeches.
The fact is, without that federal 'help', our economy would be more robust, there'd be more jobs, people would be better educated for those jobs, and we'd actually have something called "freedom", and not just vague reference to a pale and sickly thing once called freedom, now drawing its last breath.
And those
"economists", every single one of them that is actually running on fact, not ideology, agree with me. Let's start off with a known one, like Milton Friedman, and a whole host of others.
The only economists that agree with this government-centric economy are Keynesians, and they're the only ones government and media give face-time to nowadays. The amusing thing is the only thing supporting Keynesian centralized government perspective is an the entirely arbitrary definition of GDP including government spending, when government output does not create any real production and real industry, and the best it produces is undermine and corrupt the optimized free market Capitalism choices, decelerating and even halting the real economy.
Once again you've bought into the very ideology provided by the Marxists big-government Socialists and present it as if it were universal reality, in this case regarding "economy". (But don't worry you're not one of them because you call yourself "Conservative")
Then you have the absolute gall to apply gross Orwellian inversion of fact and logic, calling this freedom from government
"Utopian" when the reality is that this current lack of freedom came from the Utopian Machiavellian Totalitarian dictate of every aspect of our lives, by government exceeding its bounds, and resulting in EVER DECREASING productivity, opportunity, options, lifestyle, and freedoms.
THEY talk about "sustainability", but none of what government is doing is sustainable, and they're going at a brick wall at Mach1. And even worse, they know it! They know we're going to have economic collapse, societal collapse, and violent revolution in the streets. And from that revolution, they PLAN to then institute martial law, and dictate the terms of society, abandoning the Constitution entirely.
By allowing their corruptions to continue, and indulging those corruptions as if they were necessary, you yourself are in fact aiding and abetting the overthrow of this country! This isn't hyperbole on my part; this is what's going on and the side you've chosen.
Government is now to the point that that it is threatening our lives, not just indirectly by deliberately things such as making the cost of energy "skyrocket", but also directly by government's own hand!
THAT isn't AMERICAN! And it sure as hell is not "Conservative"!
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 02:59:27 PM
EPA, FDA, ATF and othes, to a DOJ
Which is my point, and that's only scratching the surface.
All would have to be eliminated with the exception of the military, all those other support business, an entire industry built around the Govt would collapse over night, and millions would be out of a job.
Look at the Govt contractor website sometime, it pisses me off every time I get a referral for a bid, and see crap like hosting, limousine, services etc.
But I truly wish we could kill 90% of the govt yesterday, but it's the angry mobs burning business' and all the killing that would take place that makes me say we just can't do it too quickly.
Lets start small, DOE, EPA, IRS (fair tax), cut their budget by 90%, over a two year span and let them work it out, after two years, we simply eliminate them altogether, I think that's a fair compromise.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 05:44:50 PM
Which is my point, and that's only scratching the surface.
All would have to be eliminated with the exception of the military, all those other support business, an entire industry built around the Govt would collapse over night, and millions would be out of a job.
Look at the Govt contractor website sometime, it pisses me off every time I get a referral for a bid, and see crap like hosting, limousine, services etc.
But I truly wish we could kill 90% of the govt yesterday, but it's the angry mobs burning business' and all the killing that would take place that makes me say we just can't do it too quickly.
Lets start small, DOE, EPA, IRS (fair tax), cut their budget by 90%, over a two year span and let them work it out, after two years, we simply eliminate them altogether, I think that's a fair compromise.
Already by this "starting small" you're giving up ground that will soon take is back to where we are right now.
That "IRS(fair tax)" is dutifully allowing the direct income tax on individuals that is the most pivotal factor in allowing government to engage in agendas. Apparently you ignored my explanation of that earlier.
Just the switch from progressive income tax, to that "fair tax", will cause the country to go into revolution. The Left won't allow it. Their entire message involves a lack of fairness now, even under the progressive income tax. Why should we have a violent war over only partial alteration of the tax code, rather than the whole restoration of legitimate government?
You speak of things being "insane", but what's insane is doing the same things again and again and expecting the results to change.
What's the point of closing the barn doors at all, even slightly, if you've already let the cows out and given the prize bull away?
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 05:50:34 PM
Already by this "starting small" you're giving up ground that will soon take is back to where we are right now.
That "IRS(fair tax)" is dutifully allowing the direct income tax on individuals that is the most pivotal factor in allowing government to engage in agendas. Apparently you ignored my explanation of that earlier.
You speak of things being "insane", but what's insane is doing the same things again and again and expecting the results to change.
What's the point of closing the barn doors at all, even slightly, if you've already let the cows out and given the prize bull away?
Okay, lets forget any potential fallout.
Once again...how?
Demands from the public fall on deaf ears, and it seems like most of the public doesn't even care. Government surely isn't going to do it.
I'm not convinced that Obama wouldn't have the planners of such an exercise, simply exterminated. He's had much too much success at undermining the constitution, to just sit back and watch it rear it's ugly head again.
Tell me how it can be done without a clear majority demanding it; otherwise, it's just a theoretical exercise. A neat one to think about though.
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 05:50:34 PM
Already by this "starting small" you're giving up ground that will soon take is back to where we are right now.
That "IRS(fair tax)" is dutifully allowing the direct income tax on individuals that is the most pivotal factor in allowing government to engage in agendas. Apparently you ignored my explanation of that earlier.
Just the switch from progressive income tax, to that "fair tax", will cause the country to go into revolution. The Left won't allow it. Their entire message involves a lack of fairness now, even under the progressive income tax. Why should we have a violent war over only partial alteration of the tax code, rather than the whole restoration of legitimate government?
You speak of things being "insane", but what's insane is doing the same things again and again and expecting the results to change.
What's the point of closing the barn doors at all, even slightly, if you've already let the cows out and given the prize bull away?
Trip, show me where anyone else supports your grandiose scheme, someone with real credibility.
Quote from: Solar on August 11, 2013, 07:53:24 PM
Trip, show me where anyone else supports your grandiose scheme, someone with real credibility.
The actual application of the U.S. Constitution is a "grandiose scheme"? A scheme? REALLY?
I thought we hit rock bottom when someone, presumably a member in good standing of this conservative forum, actually indicated that we have elections on whether or not to "implement" the Constitution. I could have closed my eyes, and been on any radical liberal forum anywhere on the fruited plain of the Internet.
But now you think the actual application of the Constitution is a "grandiose scheme"?
This is pathetic. This country is done for, and I gotta say some deserve to be nothing but dutiful servants to a despotic government. This nation's founders put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors on the line, taking on the most powerful empire in the world, and did so when they were entitled under law to nothing. And yet what we get here describes what they blessed this nation with as a "grandiose scheme".
There's really no other way to recognize that other than it being truly pathetic.
"Don't make waves, that's insane. Let's just tell them we want a 'fair tax'. Maybe they'll buy into that", after these communists regularly pronounce on national media that the existing graduated income tax is grossly unfair.
I'm sure I can find people that think that elections are to determine whatever agenda wins, and "elections have consequences", "what a damn shame, it appears the Constitution lost! You lost, so quit your whining, but Obama, he's still a Constitutional expert." However to find these people one generally does not go to a conservative crew.
I got news for you, there are people all over this country who do know what the constitution is, and what it means, and they do support its continuous "implementation", and they're prepared to lay down their very lives for it. I'm not alone. I'm not even sure I'm alone on this forum. But you, you're quite sure you don't want to make any waves to restore the liberty you and your family are guaranteed by that document, and were blessed with that liberty, handed it, by men that put everything on the line. But don't worry, you've got backup that these ideals are unwise from the likes of Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris "tingle down my leg and urine colored hair" Matthews, who will be shouting how radical this ideology is.
But the fact is this was only radical more than 200 years ago, before that ink was plied to the parchment some revere to this day.
What you won't find is this nation's founders ever indicating that 'elections have consequences", and that the vote is a sacred thing to this Republic!
I wonder why I cannot find these fucking beliefs anywhere in those founder's prolific writings, not anywhere in the 85 articles and 189,954 words that constitute Federalist papers! This doesn't really matter though, because too many that call themselves Conservatives have not read even one of those articles, and elections are just popularity contests of no consequence,....
... and we certainly don't want to allow those founders to be tyrants imposing their "grandiose scheme" of individual liberty on our present day! Let's hold a damn sacred election to see if we implement that old, outdated Constitution those racist bastards gave us ... but if it wins women and blacks don't get to vote, and old people get to eat cat food, and have no health care!
.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 11, 2013, 12:07:37 PM
Yep. We're thinking of changing the name to the Trotsky Memorial Forum..
He'd certainly approve of the unreadably long posts lately trying to prove points of little interest to any save the poster. Oi, if I wanted a brain-numbing lecture I'd ask for Newt Gingrich.
Quote from: quiller on August 11, 2013, 09:34:46 PM
He'd certainly approve of the unreadably long posts lately trying to prove points of little interest to any save the poster. Oi, if I wanted a brain-numbing lecture I'd ask for Newt Gingrich.
I hear EZPortal has an addon that allows pictures and speech bubbles, just like your comic books.
It's pretty clear you've never read even one of those Federalist papers either, too many pesky words.
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 09:43:35 PM
I hear EZPortal has an addon that allows pictures and speech bubbles, just like your comic books.
It's pretty clear you've never read even one of those Federalist papers either, too many pesky words.
I don't read cut-and-paste epics scarcely tailored for the specific occasion.
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 09:32:29 PM
The actual application of the U.S. Constitution is a "grandiose scheme"? A scheme? REALLY?
I thought we hit rock bottom when someone, presumably a member in good standing of this conservative forum, actually indicated that we have elections on whether or not to "implement" the Constitution. I could have closed my eyes, and been on any radical liberal forum anywhere on the fruited plain of the Internet.
But now you think the actual application of the Constitution is a "grandiose scheme"?
This is pathetic. This country is done for, and I gotta say some deserve to be nothing but dutiful servants to a despotic government. This nation's founders put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors on the line, taking on the most powerful empire in the world, and did so when they were entitled under law to nothing. And yet what we get here describes what they blessed this nation with as a "grandiose scheme".
There's really no other way to recognize that other than it being truly pathetic.
"Don't make waves, that's insane. Let's just tell them we want a 'fair tax'. Maybe they'll buy into that", after these communists regularly pronounce on national media that the existing graduated income tax is grossly unfair.
I'm sure I can find people that think that elections are to determine whatever agenda wins, and "elections have consequences", "what a damn shame, it appears the Constitution lost! You lost, so quit your whining, but Obama, he's still a Constitutional expert." However to find these people one generally does not go to a conservative crew.
I got news for you, there are people all over this country who do know what the constitution is, and what it means, and they do support its continuous "implementation", and they're prepared to lay down their very lives for it. I'm not alone. I'm not even sure I'm alone on this forum. But you, you're quite sure you don't want to make any waves to restore the liberty you and your family are guaranteed by that document, and were blessed with that liberty, handed it, by men that put everything on the line. But don't worry, you've got backup that these ideals are unwise from the likes of Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris "tingle down my leg and urine colored hair" Matthews, who will be shouting how radical this ideology is.
But the fact is this was only radical more than 200 years ago, before that ink was plied to the parchment some revere to this day.
What you won't find is this nation's founders ever indicating that 'elections have consequences", and that the vote is a sacred thing to this Republic!
I wonder why I cannot find these fucking beliefs anywhere in those founder's prolific writings, not anywhere in the 85 articles and 189,954 words that constitute Federalist papers! This doesn't really matter though, because too many that call themselves Conservatives have not read even one of those articles, and elections are just popularity contests of no consequence,....
... and we certainly don't want to allow those founders to be tyrants imposing their "grandiose scheme" of individual liberty on our present day! Let's hold a damn sacred election to see if we implement that old, outdated Constitution those racist bastards gave us ... but if it wins women and blacks don't get to vote, and old people get to eat cat food, and have no health care!
.
You saw what happened after Katrina right? House to house searches and the forcible removal of weapons.
Remember Waco?
I still happen to believe that the vast majority of our military personnel are on the side of the constitution, and we need to fight to keep it that way. Obama, or whatever wannabe dictator happens to be in power, is not going to dress up the troops in red coats and march them directly into enemy fire, as they did during the revolution.
You're right, there are lots of us, and we need to use our free speech rights to grow our numbers and make people aware of what's going on. We need to insist that pressure is kept on the IRS, and people are prosecuted for what they have done. We need to use the power of the vote to get constitutional conservatives in office...right down to the local dog catcher. We need to march on Washington, and keep the pressure on.
You may want to read, The Art of War. There's a lot more to it than grabbing guns and trying to shoot the bad guys. Yeah, the constitution is worth fighting for, and the battle can be won without firing a shot.
I don't consider myself to be a coward, but I am a realist....if you're implying that it's time for an armed conflict, I see no way that it would end well. Suicide is not in my game plan.
Quote from: kramarat on August 12, 2013, 06:11:40 AM
You may want to read, The Art of War. There's a lot more to it than grabbing guns and trying to shoot the bad guys. Yeah, the constitution is worth fighting for, and the battle can be won without firing a shot.
:thumbsup: Were you aware of Machiavelli's book of the same title?
http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Niccol%C3%B2-Machiavelli/dp/030681076X/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376313542&sr=1-18&keywords=art+of+war (http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Niccol%C3%B2-Machiavelli/dp/030681076X/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376313542&sr=1-18&keywords=art+of+war)
But the Sun Tzu version is clearly what you mentioned. That's here. Both are worth reading.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=art+of+war (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=art+of+war)
Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 06:21:27 AM
:thumbsup: Were you aware of Machiavelli's book of the same title?
http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Niccol%C3%B2-Machiavelli/dp/030681076X/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376313542&sr=1-18&keywords=art+of+war (http://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Niccol%C3%B2-Machiavelli/dp/030681076X/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376313542&sr=1-18&keywords=art+of+war)
But the Sun Tzu version is clearly what you mentioned. That's here. Both are worth reading.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=art+of+war (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=art+of+war)
I wasn't aware of the other one.
Obama is growing weak. He can't draw a crowd, applause has to be prompted, everybody is realizing that Obamacare is a socialist disaster, everybody knows that the scandals aren't phoney, nobody wants their phone calls and emails collected, nobody wants 24/7 drone surveillance, nobody wants food stamps instead of jobs....the list is almost endless.
Socialism and government illegality can be beaten back, which would bring back constitutional principles. There is nothing in the constitution that hurts people, it only can help them by allowing them to pursue happiness as they see fit. It not a hard sell, and it doesn't require guns to remove an illegitimate government.
Obama's definitely weakening. But he's also set up a nearly unassailable system of corruption, blackmail, and arm-twisting that will still keep his socialist agenda moving forward.
I wouldn't be surprised if he, Jarrett, and Holder were cunning enough to know they'd lose steam and the patience / goodwill of the people.....but they just had to get their abusive framework in place to simply roll on past that.
There's still some hope with the investigations into Benghazi, IRS, NSA. Without them, I think Obama & pals will roll right into a whole series of new reparations, social resets, and islam-socialism growth.
They just announced a new program to let out as many American felons as possible. Of course using "overcrowding" and "unfair sentencing" as the pretext for more social payback and societal disintegration.
Obama will order congress to do it once or twice, then do it by executive order.
I expect another 20 or 30 of these specific social/cultural/racial mulligans to take place in the next 3 years. If nobody does anything to slow down any of his corrupt network.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 06:13:49 PM
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...
That really does sum it up Boo, he wants to implement a system without a foundation.
I just read back through this thread, and realized I missed some great posts, but one thing is certain, he's alone in his belief that we can force the Nation back 200 years over night.
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 09:32:29 PM
The actual application of the U.S. Constitution is a "grandiose scheme"? A scheme? REALLY?
I thought we hit rock bottom when someone, presumably a member in good standing of this conservative forum, actually indicated that we have elections on whether or not to "implement" the Constitution. I could have closed my eyes, and been on any radical liberal forum anywhere on the fruited plain of the Internet.
But now you think the actual application of the Constitution is a "grandiose scheme"?
This is pathetic. This country is done for, and I gotta say some deserve to be nothing but dutiful servants to a despotic government. This nation's founders put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors on the line, taking on the most powerful empire in the world, and did so when they were entitled under law to nothing. And yet what we get here describes what they blessed this nation with as a "grandiose scheme".
There's really no other way to recognize that other than it being truly pathetic.
"Don't make waves, that's insane. Let's just tell them we want a 'fair tax'. Maybe they'll buy into that", after these communists regularly pronounce on national media that the existing graduated income tax is grossly unfair.
I'm sure I can find people that think that elections are to determine whatever agenda wins, and "elections have consequences", "what a damn shame, it appears the Constitution lost! You lost, so quit your whining, but Obama, he's still a Constitutional expert." However to find these people one generally does not go to a conservative crew.
I got news for you, there are people all over this country who do know what the constitution is, and what it means, and they do support its continuous "implementation", and they're prepared to lay down their very lives for it. I'm not alone. I'm not even sure I'm alone on this forum. But you, you're quite sure you don't want to make any waves to restore the liberty you and your family are guaranteed by that document, and were blessed with that liberty, handed it, by men that put everything on the line. But don't worry, you've got backup that these ideals are unwise from the likes of Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Chris "tingle down my leg and urine colored hair" Matthews, who will be shouting how radical this ideology is.
But the fact is this was only radical more than 200 years ago, before that ink was plied to the parchment some revere to this day.
What you won't find is this nation's founders ever indicating that 'elections have consequences", and that the vote is a sacred thing to this Republic!
I wonder why I cannot find these fucking beliefs anywhere in those founder's prolific writings, not anywhere in the 85 articles and 189,954 words that constitute Federalist papers! This doesn't really matter though, because too many that call themselves Conservatives have not read even one of those articles, and elections are just popularity contests of no consequence,....
... and we certainly don't want to allow those founders to be tyrants imposing their "grandiose scheme" of individual liberty on our present day! Let's hold a damn sacred election to see if we implement that old, outdated Constitution those racist bastards gave us ... but if it wins women and blacks don't get to vote, and old people get to eat cat food, and have no health care!
.
Does the term "Obsessive Compulsive" mean anything to you?
Trip, I'm sure you're a genuinely nice bright guy, however, this is a forum, a place where people share ideas, debate certain issues, hope to sway others into understanding the Conservative message in an effort to convince a large portion of the country that what is best for the individual is to free others from the grip of a tyrannical govt that allows the individual to prosper.
However you literally obsess when someone disagrees with what you believe to be the correct path.
Mine is different with the same end goal, yet because I disagree
There have been people down through the ages that dictated the path of the people under them at the point of a gun, which was the only way to achieve their end goal.
Is that what you're proposing?
I asked you to provide names of others that buy into your scheme, yet nothing, and do you know why that is?
Because most sane people acknowledge what the outcome would be with more than 70% of the people of this Nation against it, but noooo, not you.
I lied...Obama can get a crowd worked up. :biggrin:
We know the attitude of the majority toward Obama; it took a high ranking republican and a lone lib to turn it into racism....which it wasn't.
http://news.yahoo.com/missouri-fair-clown-draws-criticism-obama-mask-004950184.html (http://news.yahoo.com/missouri-fair-clown-draws-criticism-obama-mask-004950184.html)
Quote from: kramarat on August 12, 2013, 07:07:26 AM
K, You mentioned something earlier that I had not thought of, but in retrospect and looking at the track record of the left makes it totally plausible.
You questioned FDR and his dealing with the depression as suspect.
History has proven his plane was complete failure, so with the insight of 20/20, and a party with a history of destruction of our Founding principles, I believe you to be correct.
Very perceptive.
He plays every angle, every hour of the day. And has a fawning network of progressives doing the same at every level of everything. Especially the media, academia, and every social concern.
We've never faced something like this before in the WH, and it's why some very bad things could happen, previously unthinkable in America.
He's probably just damned lucky that he wandered into such a bunch of worthless little bi***es in the GOP. There's probably no way he could have engineered the rapid descent into that.
Oh well, that's how it is.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 12, 2013, 08:00:39 AM
He plays every angle, every hour of the day. And has a fawning network of progressives doing the same at every level of everything. Especially the media, academia, and every social concern.
We've never faced something like this before in the WH, and it's why some very bad things could happen, previously unthinkable in America.
He's probably just damned lucky that he wandered into such a bunch of worthless little bi***es in the GOP. There's probably no way he could have engineered the rapid descent into that.
Oh well, that's how it is.
Of course, as a Conservative, I see the silver lining. :laugh:
He exposed the GOP to be nothing more than a bunch of capitulating liberals helping him destroy the country.
Better late than never.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 07:55:23 AM
K, You mentioned something earlier that I had not thought of, but in retrospect and looking at the track record of the left makes it totally plausible.
You questioned FDR and his dealing with the depression as suspect.
History has proven his plane was complete failure, so with the insight of 20/20, and a party with a history of destruction of our Founding principles, I believe you to be correct.
Very perceptive.
I don't know if I was right or not, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the depression was intentionally created to put people on the path to perpetual dependency on government.
With $85 billion of funny money being pumped into the stock market by the fed, each month, I believe we are heading for another huge collapse.
It's hard to believe that FDR was that evil, in that era. Caring about America and the constitution, and not cottoning to communism, was about 99.5% of America's outlook at that time.
It's well proven that everything he did, did in fact make a really bad recession into the depression. Even his own cabinet members eventually admitted to this in various ways.
But I've always thought he actually thought it was right, and would work, just sheer incompetence.
The Roosevelts were notorious progressives for govt. growth, Teddy on the GOP side and FDR on the dem side. They were kind of like the Kennedies of a later era. I wouldn't have thought one family could spawn a relatively decent conservative on most issues, and somebody so deliberately evil in FDR.
Though he did jump right into a lot of evil things for his agenda, so who knows.
Though given the historical framework, FDR may have simply been sucked into the original wave of communism thought, as it hadn't really taken hold much earlier than that.
Maybe he was just another egghead that fell in love with the sweet, soothing stories of marx, which was certainly popular among intellectuals, social butterflies, and euros at that time.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 08:04:13 AM
Of course, as a Conservative, I see the silver lining. :laugh:
He exposed the GOP to be nothing more than a bunch of capitulating liberals helping him destroy the country.
Better late than never.
Leading back to the hard pragmatic work required to construct a viable third party in all U.S. states and territories. It's clear that although there are many LOCAL Tea Party groups and A FEW self-styled national coordination efforts, the TP has not yet reached that final level of political legitimacy. (No national convention, declaration of party planks, nomination of a national slate, etc.).
Yes, the GOP turned to jellyfish and no they do not deserve our vote. But to stay home in 2014 allows off-year elections to swing to radical trash like what we now see in the White House. Statewide parties must be formed and then perform well-enough to merit inclusion on federal ballots.
As with any movement (from Know-Nothings to Mugwumps to Republican-Democrats) it begins with word-of-mouth, expands into reading material for careful reading and consideration...and right there the Internet is both a boon and a bane because without PRINT material (and BUDGETS to pay for it), the newcomer and outsider to all this political stuff just isn't going to bother.
Write down a site where he can FIND that material, or have a business card, then you're talking real word-of-mouth advertising. You're enticing converts. You're out there promoting your beliefs.
Ain't happening except through very tiny budgets of the few serious TP groups. They're relying more on the Web and the casual links they can drop in, wherever they go.
I offer a suggestion that you create a links-list of the TP groups representing state-level organization, and similar sites tracking local groups closest to a given reader's location. Dangle that carrot. Make them hungry for more about what you're selling.
Did the actual transitions and creations of new parties always come from really crappy time like today ?
It doesn't seem to have happened during the depression, so at least not then.
It would be interesting to assess the conditions that did give birth to a new party.
Also the birth of the modern dem party, built solely on LBJ stealing credit for CRA of 1964, when the dems were actually the party against it right up until the GOP made it happen. Shame on us for letting the bastard do it. But we can do it too, espcially with the anti-Obama issues that we discussed earlier. We'd better start getting medieval and fighting fire with fire.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 07:50:04 AM
Does the term "Obsessive Compulsive" mean anything to you?
Trip, I'm sure you're a genuinely nice bright guy, however, this is a forum, a place where people share ideas, debate certain issues, hope to sway others into understanding the Conservative message in an effort to convince a large portion of the country that what is best for the individual is to free others from the grip of a tyrannical govt that allows the individual to prosper.
However you literally obsess when someone disagrees with what you believe to be the correct path.
Mine is different with the same end goal, yet because I disagree
There have been people down through the ages that dictated the path of the people under them at the point of a gun, which was the only way to achieve their end goal.
Is that what you're proposing?
I asked you to provide names of others that buy into your scheme, yet nothing, and do you know why that is?
Because most sane people acknowledge what the outcome would be with more than 70% of the people of this Nation against it, but noooo, not you.
Of course I saw you asked to provide names, but that's as insipid as the challenge itself that you asked to provide those names in regard to - considering the Constitution to be "a scheme".. You didn't consider my response, much less grasp it, because you're sitting in your own subjective position and imagining it to be the perspective others share.
Insisting on the applicability of the Constitution does not involve going back "200 years", and your saying it does involves a negative, gross hyperbole that really is disturbing for a guy claiming to be a Conservative. Actually applying the Constitution will not take us back 200 years, and would not deny something like Social Security; people paid in money to the government and are entitled to the turn on their investment from that.
The Constitution is in fact the law of the land. It has additions (amendments) that go back far more recently, but these do not involve support for what the government is doing, and even referencing those things.
For example, the 14th Amendment allows the federal government to penalize the States for denying equal protection to every citizen, but not however it wants. The second of the 14th Amendment indicates how the federal government can apply this, which is specifically proportionally limiting the representation of that state in Congress. That application is entirely within the authority of the federal government according to the Constitution.
The 15th Amendment speaks to voting and indicates the federal government has the right to make whatever "appropriate legislation" that is necessary in support of that franchise. We saw this discussed in the media just recently with Court's hearing of the Voting Rights Act. The problem is that how the Voting Rights Act was implemented regarding that 15th Amendment was not "appropriate" by the terms Constitution; The federal government does not have the authority to grant itself new powers in new areas, punishing a precinct in implementing that VRA.
Your idea that I am in some rarefied group is just nonsense. When people speak of "RINOs" what exactly do you believe they mean? If someone believes that the voting might involve whether or not we implement the Constitution, they're a RINO, and no sort of Conservative. If someone believes that our borders remaining open is in any way a legitimate perspective for any country, much less this country, they're a RINO, and a progressive globalist.
And if someone believes that actually applying the Constitution is some sort of wildly irresponsible "scheme", then they are undeniably a RINO. People that refuse to recognize the limits on the federal government established by the Constitution are not supporting any sort of legitimate government at all.
The idea that actually applying the Constitution means that we have to regress back "200 years" is utter nonsense, showing nothing but the same scare tactic mentality used by the far left Socialists in support of big government, so as to preserve only one's personal perspective. It is the same method employed in saying that the Republicans want to return to slavery, want to deny women the vote and blacks the vote, and have old people eating cat food without health care by the far Left. It's not just absurd, but idiotic and dishonest in the extreme.
We don't have to go without clean water and clean air; We just no longer have a tyrannical federal government dictating those terms in irrational manners, and crippling our society by subjective and despotic terms. Communities all over the country have learned that windmills are not a viable energy source to replace coal, that having California's constantly varying grades of gasoline is not reasonable. And we're learning at this moment that the federal government denying people the ownership of their own bodies, and taking over health care, only can result in horrific results.
Your "200 years", calling the application of the Constitution a "scheme", and gradual restoration of it, is a part of the problem, and not any sort of solution.
Government has set limits in this country. If you want to change those limits, then Amend the Constitution! However this pretends that those limits themselves are just random, subjective, and not there for any absolute reason.
Pretending that we can in any way get back to the Constitution by some sort of gradual process, is just asinine, because that gradual process itself inherently involves the idea that any point between total discard of the Constitution, and full implementation of it, is inherently valid, thereby making ANYTHING as valid as anything else.
By this "scheme" of your own, what you have done is subject us to unrestrained despotic tyranny, where any perspective might be equally valid at any given time. This is no better than the Progressive Marxists, who are doing PRECISELY the same thing! Talk about a scheme, but at least they have some sort of vision! Yours is actually the most corrupt scheme of government possible, where there are no set standards, no boundaries, no means to judge, and therefore no real system of law, and not possibly any vision at all, but rather only subjective judgment of a few based on no set standard!
From this point forward I expect you to no longer comment about RINOs, nor complain about the Republican party, because you yourself are only applying your own subjective evaluation, and are no better than them.
Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 09:07:39 AM
Leading back to the hard pragmatic work required to construct a viable third party in all U.S. states and territories. It's clear that although there are many LOCAL Tea Party groups and A FEW self-styled national coordination efforts, the TP has not yet reached that final level of political legitimacy. (No national convention, declaration of party planks, nomination of a national slate, etc.).
Yes, the GOP turned to jellyfish and no they do not deserve our vote. But to stay home in 2014 allows off-year elections to swing to radical trash like what we now see in the White House. Statewide parties must be formed and then perform well-enough to merit inclusion on federal ballots.
As with any movement (from Know-Nothings to Mugwumps to Republican-Democrats) it begins with word-of-mouth, expands into reading material for careful reading and consideration...and right there the Internet is both a boon and a bane because without PRINT material (and BUDGETS to pay for it), the newcomer and outsider to all this political stuff just isn't going to bother.
Write down a site where he can FIND that material, or have a business card, then you're talking real word-of-mouth advertising. You're enticing converts. You're out there promoting your beliefs.
Ain't happening except through very tiny budgets of the few serious TP groups. They're relying more on the Web and the casual links they can drop in, wherever they go.
I offer a suggestion that you create a links-list of the TP groups representing state-level organization, and similar sites tracking local groups closest to a given reader's location. Dangle that carrot. Make them hungry for more about what you're selling.
You've explained quite eloquently as to why it's premature to think about starting a third party, the money is not quite there yet, and would assuredly destroy it's efforts of attempting the transition.
However, what the movement is doing is right on track with it's original implementation, taking over an existing party, one that has never adhered to the principles of the Constitution.
I believe we have a better shot at gutting a party full of libs, than taking them head on in a battle for money.
The Tea party has shown that it was viable during the 2010 mid terms, and will definitely repeat and surpass what it has accomplished.
I believe we are on the right path and see no reason to change mid stream.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 12, 2013, 09:21:35 AM
Did the actual transitions and creations of new parties always come from really crappy time like today ?
It doesn't seem to have happened during the depression, so at least not then.
How do you suppose the country's first progressives got into office following the Great Depression?
Also the government's 'transition' into dictating laws to the States came about from the Civil War, which was a pretty "crappy" time involving unabashed federal government tyranny.
However if one is going to constrain their examination of history and change to political "party" names, as if these parties involve a consistent ideology, then one is going to miss the big picture.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 09:52:34 AM
You've explained quite eloquently as to why it's premature to think about starting a third party, the money is not quite there yet, and would assuredly destroy it's efforts of attempting the transition.
However, what the movement is doing is right on track with it's original implementation, taking over an existing party, one that has never adhered to the principles of the Constitution.
I believe we have a better shot at gutting a party full of libs, than taking them head on in a battle for money.
The Tea party has shown that it was viable during the 2010 mid terms, and will definitely repeat and surpass what it has accomplished.
I believe we are on the right path and see no reason to change mid stream.
You a funny hypocritical guy, Mister "gradual change".
Be careful gutting those libs, as the lib gutted may be thyself!
As per my post here, (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg141100/#msg141100) by what terms are you able to imagine you're any better than those "libs"? Your own terms? Those are the same terms they're using - their own subjective judgment. That's amusing.
Again "less government" is not a plan, it's a comparison. And gradual restoration of the Constitution isn't an ideology, it's capitulation.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:01:09 AM
You a funny hypocritical guy, Mister "gradual change".
Be careful gutting those libs, as the lib gutted may be thyself!
As per my post here, (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg141100/#msg141100) by what terms are you able to imagine you're any better than those "libs"? Your own terms? Those are the same terms they're using - their own subjective judgment. That's amusing.
Again "less government" is not a plan, it's a comparison. And gradual restoration of the Constitution isn't an ideology, it's capitulation.
Give it a rest, no one lives in your fantasy world but you, I'll fight to make change with the rest of the Conservatives in the real world.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:01:09 AM
You a funny hypocritical guy, Mister "gradual change".
Be careful gutting those libs, as the lib gutted may be thyself!
As per my post here, (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg141100/#msg141100) by what terms are you able to imagine you're any better than those "libs"? Your own terms? Those are the same terms they're using - their own subjective judgment. That's amusing.
Again "less government" is not a plan, it's a comparison. And gradual restoration of the Constitution isn't an ideology, it's capitulation.
You know Trip, as Solar said we all want the same thing which is a return to the constitution.
Now like Kramarat have intervened many times and asked how your plan tries to do this, your answers have been vague at best.
Yes we all agree on the constitution, but when you consider participation in the political process as it is now to be capitulation, and as I understood you earlier the only other alternative to implement back the constitution is to become "cultural" revolutionaries, you have still not explained how this would work in practice except for your creation of a framework for the tea party in specific.
I think everyone agree with your views on the constitution, but the rest of your "reason" for not wanting nothing to do with political process and still somehow "win" the cultural war is extremely weak when compared to your lack of in depth explanation of the alternative.
Can't you see that it is really frustrating to hear someone call your way capitulation, when you have yourself offered no clear "pathway" to the restoration of the constitution?
I have learned much from reading your arguments on the constitution, arguments for the invalidity of current state of affairs and how it should be impossible to make legislation that is against the constitution, but you have still not made clear how we can enforce the constitution in practical terms, except of course the one reference to the tea party.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 10:34:01 AM
Give it a rest, no one lives in your fantasy world but you, I'll fight to make change with the rest of the Conservatives in the real world.
So it's now a fantasy world that individuals have unalienable rights under our form of government?
And it is a fantasy that those unalienable rights that result in the sovereign states, and the limitations on government?
What your piss-poor grasp of the Constitution results in is a willingness to unravel rights and freedoms, by refusal to constrain the government to anything other than your own convenient subjective perspective.
Literally, this is how we got to this sad state of affairs now, where our very lives are not just at risk, but being methodically threatened.
What "REAL WORLD" do you imagine you're operating by? Seriously, I want to hear your standards explained in detail, so that we might know by what tremendous wisdom you're operating by.
My own position has 85 articles and 189,954 words in the Federalist, not to mention the Constitution and DOI.
I want to hear your methodology, and philosophy, and overall vision! So come on, let's hear this enormous wisdom you're employing?
We're all Socialists now!
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:49:12 AM
So it's now a fantasy world that individuals have unalienable rights under our form of government?
And it is a fantasy that those unalienable rights that result in the sovereign states, and the limitations on government?
What your piss-poor grasp of the Constitution results in is a willingness to unravel rights and freedoms, by refusal to constrain the government to anything other than your own convenient subjective perspective.
Literally, this is how we got to this sad state of affairs now, where our very lives are not just at risk, but being methodically threatened.
What "REAL WORLD" do you imagine you're operating by? Seriously, I want to hear your standards explained in detail, so that we might know by what tremendous wisdom you're operating by.
My own position has 85 articles and 189,954 words in the Federalist, not to mention the Constitution and DOI.
I want to hear your methodology, and philosophy, and overall vision! So come on, let's hear this enormous wisdom you're employing?
I've explained it over and over, and yet you have given nothing as to how you plan to implement your Utopia.
Give us details, tell us how you, in one term will reverse 200 years of destruction.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 10:57:33 AM
I've explained it over and over, and yet you have given nothing as to how you plan to implement your Utopia.
Give us details, tell us how you, in one term will reverse 200 years of destruction.
Apparently all we have to do is wave the constitution and all will be well....
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 10:57:33 AM
I've explained it over and over, and yet you have given nothing as to how you plan to implement your Utopia.
Give us details, tell us how you, in one term will reverse 200 years of destruction.
It's his fantasy. All this talk and he'll change nothing because he doesn't understand human nature. Tens of millions vote who don't share any of his values. Take away their goodies and these millions will quickly throw you out of office. Make changes where they see benefits to themselves and you'll be allowed to continue. Trip has no power to implement his plan so these endless posts are pointless.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 11:09:05 AM
Apparently all we have to do is wave the constitution and all will be well....
That's how it works in Utopiaville, but in the real world, drastic change requires one of two things, a 100% willing populace, or a gun to the head by a dictator, neither of which will happen,
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
You know Trip, as Solar said we all want the same thing which is a return to the constitution.
Now like Kramarat have intervened many times and asked how your plan tries to do this, your answers have been vague at best.
Utter bullshit. There is no way to get to Constitutional government by what Solar suggests. It will not ever happen, as I've shown.
And it's an insipid and even deliberately defeatist question to ask how constitutional government is restored (not "my plan"). The founders themselves spoke on this more than 200 years ago, having presaged the conditions which we now find ourselves.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
Yes we all agree on the constitution, but when you consider participation in the political process as it is now to be capitulation, and as I understood you earlier the only other alternative to implement back the constitution is to become "cultural" revolutionaries, you have still not explained how this would work in practice except for your creation of a framework for the tea party in specific.
No we don't all agree on the Constitution, and saying we do shows you don't even grasp a half of hte argument. Solar has repeatedly indicated that returning the Constitution involves the denial of blacks and women the vote, and other things, Yet none of this is even remotely true, and it is sadly, tragically, employing the same corrupt thought processes as the Leftists themselves, showing that he himself has bought into their arguments presented on the MSM as if they're valid!
I never indicated "cultural revolutionaries" anywhere. I have referenced the three means, short of physical revolution, we have of demanding the application of the Constitution, only one of them was "civil disobedience", which I assume is your "cultural revolutionaries".
However your "cultural revolutionaries" is itself an Orwellian corruption when the real revolution going on right now, before our eyes, is involving a socialist globalism overturning legitimate government. What I argue is not any sort of "cultural revolution", much less involving culture at all! You're using the Orwellian phrasings to corrupt and overturn not only the very meaning of words themselves, but re-characterize our very condition, and in that, like Solar, you're brainwashing yourself by your own phrasing.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
I think everyone agree with your views on the constitution, but the rest of your "reason" for not wanting nothing to do with political process and still somehow "win" the cultural war is extremely weak when compared to your lack of in depth explanation of the alternative.
Again, calling this "culture" much less a "cultural war" is Orwellian word abuse, and inherently involves the de-validation of the Constitution as the Law of the Land.
The only "reason" applicable here is the fact that the Constitution is not subject to the political process! The Constitution is NOT on the table at all during elections! Contrary to one very ignorant claim, elections are not about whether to "implement" the Constitution! And yet again, in this phrasing, you are showing a compliance and subservience to this illegitimate form of government in your very phrasing, inherently validating it.
By this repeated capitulation in your own phrasings, how in the hell can you even imagine that we "agree" on the Constitution?
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
Can't you see that it is really frustrating to hear someone call your way capitulation, when you have yourself offered no clear "pathway" to the restoration of the constitution?
It's amusing, but I did not yet read your paragraph, above, when I wrote "capitulation" in my preceding paragraph.
Seriously, I have to wrap my head in duct tape to keep it from exploding even hearing you say I need to offer a "clear pathway", as if it had never been done before.
Why don't you go read the Federalist papers. I am quite certain you've never done so. I bet your eyes started bleeding before you made it through even one of them. Mine sure did. I will tell you though, that reading them does get a lot easier once you become familiar with their phrasing and argument structure. No, I've no desire to repeat what has already been done by others far more erudite than I.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 10:39:48 AM
I have learned much from reading your arguments on the constitution, arguments for the invalidity of current state of affairs and how it should be impossible to make legislation that is against the constitution, but you have still not made clear how we can enforce the constitution in practical terms, except of course the one reference to the tea party.
The founders themselves made it clear, not only what was necessary from us to maintain Constitution, but how we should restore it, "in practical terms".
You should recognize that
"practicality", the actual application in real terms, is not synonymous with
"convenience." That's what Paine was actually referring to by the "Summer Solder" and "Sunshine Patriot".
There's an over-abundance of Sunshine Patriots.
Germans had the opportunity, for a period, to stop their country from going into the darkness of National Socialism, and years of brutal government terrorism of its own citizens. and millions dead. A Pastor, Martin Niemoller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...), actually wrote a poem about it.
- "First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist... "
However those Germans actually acting on that opportunity was inconvenient. And when it was more than convenient, it was far too late. Solar's argument (and others) is actually about convenience, and not actually about practical terms at all.
We're repeating history, and Americans are too ignorant of that history, even too ignorant of their own country's Constitution, to stop it.
But by all means, let's do it "gradually" because going over the cliff gradually is going to make so much difference. But welcome to RINO thought.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 11:13:16 AM
That's how it works in Utopiaville, but in the real world, drastic change requires one of two things, a 100% willing populace, or a gun to the head by a dictator, neither of which will happen,
Izat so?
Curiously, when this nation was founded, not only was there no "100% willing populace", nor even a "50% willing populace". It was more toward 13% and even less at the start. And the chance of success against the greatest empire in the world was close to zero. And they did not themselves have a guarantee of a Republican form of government, where the federal government is limited in legitimate authority, as we do now.
You're doing nothing but talking out your ass.
I'm not presenting "Utopia" at all. You're dishonestly trying to phrase your argument as practicality and reasonableness, when it is really only about convenience. You reject the restoration of legitimate government without a "100% willing populace" because anything less than that will inconvenience your lazy, capitulating ass.
We're STILL not a Democracy, and even when we adopted the Constitution, it was not with the consent of the populace!
(Where's Shenanigans when ya need him? He repeatedly accused me of kissing Solar's ***.)
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 11:09:05 AM
Apparently all we have to do is wave the constitution and all will be well....
Aren't you the guy who said that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution" (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg140933/#msg140933)? Yes, in fact you are.
I'm still trying to find the indication in the Supremacy Clause, that the Constitution is the Law of the Land ... unless you lose the vote. It's not there in my copy.
Why don't you go and "vote harder" and maybe all will be well! Just ignore the fact that we're not any sort of Democracy in the meantime.
If you had any sense, you'd be in seclusion for an extended period.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 12:25:40 PM
Aren't you the guy who said that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution" (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg140933/#msg140933)? Yes, in fact you are.
I'm still trying to find the indication in the Supremacy Clause, that the Constitution is the Law of the Land ... unless you lose the vote. It's not there in my copy.
Why don't you go and "vote harder" and maybe all will be well! Just ignore the fact that we're not any sort of Democracy in the meantime.
If you had any sense, you'd be in seclusion for an extended period.
Who upholds the constitution? I know you like to run away from questions but try and answer this one.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 12:57:37 PM
Who upholds the constitution? I know you like to run away from questions but try and answer this one.
Elections don't have a damn thing to do with whether or not to uphold the constitution.
You're doing nothing but licensing those "Libs" you seemingly deride, and trashing the Constitution, which one would think you support.
You don't know a whole lot. I haven't run from any question, you just haven't fucking understood the answer.
Here's the answer more clearly for you to understand: your ignorance is a fucking hazard to the this country and our freedoms. You're an enabler for those Marxist socialists because elections do not determine our form of government, nor what government might legitimately do at all! We are not any sort of Democracy, but that is what those Democratic Socialists claim, and your ignorance is providing them license.
When Obama said that "I won, and elections have consequences", you're the sort of guy that, actually believed that, and nodded his head and said "yup, yup, they surely do!". If you'd been in Congress you'd be one of those rolling over on their back, and even allowing that unqualified Oval Occupant to repeatedly engage in activities that would have gotten every President in this country's history impeached.
You're emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Republican party, what most would call a RINO. You're why we are where we are now.
How's that? Clear enough answer for you?
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 01:27:54 PM
Elections don't have a damn thing to do with whether or not to uphold the constitution.
You're doing nothing but licensing those "Libs" you seemingly deride, and trashing the Constitution, which one would think you support.
You don't know a whole lot. I haven't run from any question, you just haven't fucking understood the answer.
Here's the answer more clearly for you to understand: your ignorance is a fucking hazard to the this country and our freedoms. You're an enabler for those Marxist socialists because elections do not determine our form of government, nor what government might legitimately do at all! We are not any sort of Democracy, but that is what those Democratic Socialists claim, and your ignorance is providing them license. You're emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Republican party, what most would call a RINO.
How's that? Clear enough answer for you?
Oh I see!
Elections don't matter
Voters are irrelevant
Voters are enablers
You grand plan is to act by executive fiat. A four year monarchy. Grand idea champ.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 11:43:29 AM
Why don't you go read the Federalist papers. I am quite certain you've never done so. I bet your eyes started bleeding before you made it through even one of them. Mine sure did. I will tell you though, that reading them does get a lot easier once you become familiar with their phrasing and argument structure. No, I've no desire to repeat what has already been done by others far more erudite than I.
For the record I have the federalist papers right in front of me now, and I have indeed read them all.
But I should obviously read them again because I really don't understand your obsession with the semantics of it all and need your points "spoonfed".
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 01:27:54 PM
When Obama said that "I won, and elections have consequences", you're the sort of guy that, actually believed that, and nodded his head and said "yup, yup, they surely do!". If you'd been in Congress you'd be one of those rolling over on their back, and even allowing that unqualified Oval Occupant to repeatedly engage in activities that would have gotten every President in this country's history impeached.
This is what I don't understand, if congress is what keeps the sanctity of the constitution status quo, then how doesn't the election of these congressmen determine whether or not the constitution is uphold?
Btw take a beer and give your significant other a kiss before posting more, you have been posting overtime :wink:
Both sides have taken part in eliminating the constitution. This is one of the most blatant constitutional abuses that I've ever seen, and yet it's continued because crime rates have dropped. People like Bloomberg have absolutely no use for the constitution.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/08/12/nyregion/12reuters-usa-newyork-police.html?ref=stopandfrisk (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/08/12/nyregion/12reuters-usa-newyork-police.html?ref=stopandfrisk)
This has been picked up by other cities. When we turn a blind eye because it takes thugs off the street, we are only hurting ourselves in the long term.
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 01:56:17 PM
For the record I have the federalist papers right in front of me now, and I have indeed read them all.
But I should obviously read them again because I really don't understand your obsession with the semantics of it all and need your points "spoonfed".
This isn't really any sort of test, but can you identify which one of those Federalist articles describes today's Progressive Marxism in all but name, and recognizes it to be incompatible with the liberty that is necessary for this country's existence?
Quote from: Mountainshield on August 12, 2013, 01:56:17 PM
This is what I don't understand, if congress is what keeps the sanctity of the constitution status quo, then how doesn't the election of these congressmen determine whether or not the constitution is uphold?
In your experience, is Congress keeping the that sanctity of the Constitution? Was it doing so even so far back as in 1798 under the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prohibited criticism of a government officiasl, and when Washington sent federal forces into the sovereign State of Pennsylvanian to quell the rebellion against the tax on Whiskey that the federal government really had no authority to apply?
Congress is not what keeps the Constitution's status quo, it is only compelled to adhere to the Constitution or else its actions are inherently, at face value null and voice, and the body becomes illegitimate.
- "Supremacy Clause"
Article VI, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Supremacy Clause does not say that the laws of the United States are Supreme. It says that the Constitution is supreme, and only those laws that are first pursuant to the Constitution then also supreme.
In addition to that, Article 1, Section 8, indicates that Congress has the authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" to the previous enumerated powers. Nowhere among those enumerated powers is the power to change our form of government by mere law, nor is there any indication that Congress gets more powers beyond those enumerated, depending on the outcome of the last election.
As example, while it may be "necessary" to write laws that help out the fact that health insurance is so costly, it is not "proper" do so by taking over the ownership of each and every citizen, dictating the terms of their health care insurance, and writing a prohibited bill of attainder to pay for the obscenity. Congress should have just un-written their own law, which they had no authority to write, prohibiting interstate commerce in health insurance, but that would have pissed off the lobbyists who were funding their reelections.
I had to answer your post before Boo's because in answering Boo's I intend to throw the full force of the Constitution at him, and there'd be noting leftover for you. :wink:
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 12:07:46 PM
Izat so?
Curiously, when this nation was founded, not only was there no "100% willing populace", nor even a "50% willing populace". It was more toward 13% and even less at the start. And the chance of success against the greatest empire in the world was close to zero. And they did not themselves have a guarantee of a Republican form of government, where the federal government is limited in legitimate authority, as we do now.
You're doing nothing but talking out your ass.
I'm not presenting "Utopia" at all. You're dishonestly trying to phrase your argument as practicality and reasonableness, when it is really only about convenience. You reject the restoration of legitimate government without a "100% willing populace" because anything less than that will inconvenience your lazy, capitulating ass.
We're STILL not a Democracy, and even when we adopted the Constitution, it was not with the consent of the populace!
(Where's Shenanigans when ya need him? He repeatedly accused me of kissing Solar's ***.)
Yet you still haven't told us how you'll effectuate your plan, and I'm talking out my ass? :lol:
Come, you can do it, tell us how....
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:12:40 PM
Yet you still haven't told us how you'll effectuate your plan, and I'm talking out my ass? :lol:
Come, you can do it, tell us how....
You were told, and the founders told you. You just want to ignore it.
In the meantime you have no plan at all. Slowly is not a plan, and "less government" is not a goal, it's a comparison.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 03:16:59 PM
You were told, and the founders told you. You just want to ignore it.
In the meantime you have no plan at all. Slowly is not a plan, and "less government" is not a goal, it's a comparison.
No, that's putting the responsibility on everyone else, while you claim the high ground, it doesn't work that way.
We, the Tea party is making change, what are you doing?
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:12:40 PM
Yet you still haven't told us how you'll effectuate your plan, and I'm talking out my ass? :lol:
Come, you can do it, tell us how....
Yeah he did.
Step one: Point to the Constitution
Step Two: Call everyone a Socialist who does not agree with him
It's the Shenanigans approach...
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 03:16:59 PM
You were told, and the founders told you. You just want to ignore it.
In the meantime you have no plan at all. Slowly is not a plan, and "less government" is not a goal, it's a comparison.
Really? The Founders wrote a paper that spelled out a 4 year plan to fix all the problems that occurred 200 years after they died?
WOWEE!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Really? The Founders wrote a paper that spelled out a 4 year plan to fix all the problems that occurred 200 years after they died?
WOWEE!
Yes, revolution, but all I hear from him is whining that we're doing nothing, and he has all the answers.
How dare us actually vote socialists out of office and replace them with Conservatives.
Yet according to him we're the problem? Only in Shenanigans world, does that make sense.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:12:40 PM
Yet you still haven't told us how you'll effectuate your plan, and I'm talking out my ass? :lol:
Come, you can do it, tell us how....
I've been wondering about that. I refuse to read all the long-winded posts, but I've been wondering if he's posted a step-by-step plan to restore a Constitutional government or just complain about what evertyone else is at least trying to do.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:29:46 PM
Yes, revolution, but all I hear from him is whining that we're doing nothing, and he has all the answers.
How dare us actually vote socialists out of office and replace them with Conservatives.
Yet according to him we're the problem? Only in Shenanigans world, does that make sense.
SO how does he plan to organize a revolution without alerting the government who will then put a stop to it? Craig s List?
Quote from: Yawn on August 12, 2013, 03:30:31 PM
I've been wondering about that. I refuse to read all the long-winded posts, but I've been wondering if he's posted a step-by-step plan to restore a Constitutional government or just complain about what evertyone else is at least trying to do.
Bingo! :biggrin:
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 03:32:01 PM
SO how does he plan to organize a revolution without alerting the government who will then put a stop to it? Craig s List?
:laugh:
This raises a very good question. How would the country react to a coop to remove the commie?
Quote from: Yawn on August 12, 2013, 03:30:31 PM
I've been wondering about that. I refuse to read all the long-winded posts, but I've been wondering if he's posted a step-by-step plan to restore a Constitutional government or just complain about what evertyone else is at least trying to do.
And in 2010 we succeeded rather well....
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:20:02 PM
No, that's putting the responsibility on everyone else, while you claim the high ground, it doesn't work that way.
We, the Tea party is making change, what are you doing?
The responsibility was already taken by this nation's founders, and they gave us the burden of maintaining it. You refuse to even maintain it, instead turning into rat-infested Harlelm slum with a Cadlillac out front .
OIn the mean time you throw off you yourself taking action by saying we need "100% willing populace", to agree to what iis already agreed, and the Law of the Land, and thereby you don't even have to do a thing! These, and more, are your words, your argument, and you offered them clearly without having applied any thought.
You may as well be an Obamabot for all the parroting of the Progressive socialist Left's talking points you're doing, but then you have the audacity to talk about the Democrats, and RINOs.
It truly boggles the mind. Do you even hear yourself, or are you truly that devoid of any understanding of this country?
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:36:22 PM
:laugh:
This raises a very good question. How would the country react to a coop to remove the commie?
Not well. No one, not even the evil Tea Party wants bloodshed.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 03:37:23 PM
The responsibility was already taken by this nation's founders, and they gave us the burden of maintaining it. You refuse to even maintain it, instead turning into rat-infested Harlelm slum with a Cadlillac out front .
OIn the mean time you throw off you yourself taking action by saying we need "100% willing populace", to agree to what iis already agreed, and the Law of the Land, and thereby you don't even have to do a thing! These, and more, are your words, your argument, and you offered them clearly without having applied any thought.
You may as well be an Obamabot for all the parroting of the Progressive socialist Left's talking points you're doing, but then you have the audacity to talk about the Democrats, and RINOs.
It truly boggles the mind. Do you even hear yourself, or are you truly that devoid of any understanding of this country?
As I expected, more BS in an attempt to avoid answering my question.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 02:37:20 PM
I had to answer your post before Boo's because in answering Boo's I intend to throw the full force of the Constitution at him, and there'd be noting leftover for you. :wink:
Any time you're ready cupcake....
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 03:38:17 PM
Not well. No one, not even the evil Tea Party wants bloodshed.
Same here, war is failed politics. Personally I want the system to work, not fail.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:43:06 PM
Same here, war is failed politics. Personally I want the system to work, not fail.
If we did it his way and one we would starting off with a country 1000 time worse off than the day before the coup.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:40:13 PM
As I expected, more BS in an attempt to avoid answering my question.
He's right about us having the burden to maintain it.
When I talk to libs, I don't try to talk them into joining the republican party...hell, I don't even have enough faith in the GOP to attempt it. My single driving point, is that
all of us have a responsibility to demand that the constitution is adhered to, completely.
We can't pick and choose the parts we like, because if we do, it's only a matter of time until it bites us in the ass.
It's not that difficult to convince people that the government, (itself and in it's entirety), has become the enemy of the people. That's what I work on.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 03:48:24 PM
If we did it his way and one we would starting off with a country 1000 time worse off than the day before the coup.
All Hell would break lose, civil war, martial law, depression. Yeah, that's what I want, a pure breakdown of our very way of life.
Quote from: kramarat on August 12, 2013, 03:50:54 PM
He's right about us having the burden to maintain it.
When I talk to libs, I don't try to talk them into joining the republican party...hell, I don't even have enough faith in the GOP to attempt it. My single driving point, is that all of us have a responsibility to demand that the constitution is adhered to, completely.
We can't pick and choose the parts we like, because if we do, it's only a matter of time until it bites us in the ass.
It's not that difficult to convince people that the government, (itself and in it's entirety), has become the enemy of the people. That's what I work on.
According to him, it's our fault, not his, he is somehow devoid of blame.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:52:41 PM
All Hell would break lose, civil war, martial law, depression. Yeah, that's what I want, a pure breakdown of our very way of life.
But apparently everything would be rainbows and unicorn farts in 4 years....
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:56:00 PM
According to him, it's our fault, not his, he is somehow devoid of blame.
Oh my God it's Obama....
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:56:00 PM
According to him, it's our fault, not his, he is somehow devoid of blame.
Trip's way should have been implemented 150 years ago...but it wasn't.
We've got a president, and an entire administration that thinks that this country should be going just like Egypt; a new guy gets voted in, and he gets to rewrite the constitution.
Speaking of which, we are wasting time on this thread. There was big news on the IRS scandal today, with testimony from Lerner, and I need to get caught up on what went down. Possible criminal indictments due to glaring unconstitutional behavior.
That's what I want to see.
After going through all of this thread. I feel I just wasted over 2 hrs. of my life. :sad:
Quote from: kramarat on August 12, 2013, 04:07:15 PM
Trip's way should have been implemented 150 years ago...but it wasn't.
What's "his way"? All I see are complaints about "our" way. I'm waiting for someone to explain his plan. If he's given one, I didn't read it skimming this thread (don't want to waste 2 hours of my life).
Quote from: Yawn on August 12, 2013, 04:59:08 PM
What's "his way"? All I see are complaints about "our" way. I'm waiting for someone to explain his plan. If he's given one, I didn't read it skimming this thread (don't want to waste 2 hours of my life).
I'll recap for you. He has a master plan that will restore the country to the way it was envisioned to be by the Founders. His plan involves a revolution or a coup. After the coup a Constitutional government will be installed and everything will be awesome in four years. If you do not agree with his awesome plan you are a raving Socialist. If you ask for specifics he will call you names and then run and hide behind his mothers apron...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 05:07:07 PM
I'll recap for you. He has a master plan that will restore the country to the way it was envisioned to be by the Founders. His plan involves a revolution or a coup. After the coup a Constitutional government will be installed and everything will be awesome in four years. If you do not agree with his awesome plan you are a raving Socialist. If you ask for specifics he will call you names and then run and hide behind his mothers apron...
We'll march on Tuesday!
Quote from: Yawn on August 12, 2013, 05:19:38 PM
We'll march on Tuesday!
SORRY.... Can not make it on Tuesday, as I have a Doctors appointment that I must be in town all day for. With the Doctor shortage it would be 30 + day before I can get it again.
Quote from: Yawn on August 12, 2013, 05:19:38 PM
We'll march on Tuesday!
Groovy!
I'll bring the muffins...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 06:59:30 PM
Groovy!
I'll bring the muffins...
Obviously the drink of the day will be Koolaide.
We're nothing but socialists, ya know. :rolleyes:
Don't get me wrong, I like Trip, he has a lot to offer, but he just needs to not take disagreement so personally.
Everyone has an opinion, no one is wrong on wanting to return the country to it's roots, and the Base on the right see the Tea movement as the right path at the moment.
But if it fails, then I'm all for the other option. Pray to God we don't need option 2.
Quote from: walkstall on August 12, 2013, 04:11:27 PM
After going through all of this thread. I feel I just wasted over 2 hrs. of my life. :sad:
Yeah, I had the same feeling just skipping the boring parts cut and pasted from parts unknown. But Johnny Combat here is a couple of grenades short of a war zone if he thinks Joe Q. Public can now lay hands on the firepower suitable for taking down an army that is one whole
hell of a lot better-equipped than King George II.
Nah. No more 30-round banana cartridges for the AR-16, or drumrolls for the M1911A1. Federal gummint's takin'
ALL the fun out of taking America back....
I too was once an idealist. I used to think that with libs you could do one shot, one kill. Then I watched Harry Ried and a few other broken-field runners in that sorry pack, and now I think instead of AR-16s we need something a bit heavier. Sidewinder missiles, maybe.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 07:09:38 PM
Obviously the drink of the day will be Koolaide.
We're nothing but socialists, ya know. :rolleyes:
Don't get me wrong, I like Trip, he has a lot to offer, but he just needs to not take disagreement so personally.
Everyone has an opinion, no one is wrong on wanting to return the country to it's roots, and the Base on the right see the Tea movement as the right path at the moment.
But if it fails, then I'm all for the other option. Pray to God we don't need option 2.
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 07:09:38 PM
Obviously the drink of the day will be Koolaide.
We're nothing but socialists, ya know. :rolleyes:
Vladimir and Karl together again. May Day pole dances every Friday after the welfare payments clear the Bridge Cards. Right about 8:00 PM, festivities begin with Comrade Giles and the People's Symphonic Choir (Bert and Billy, with guest performances by Madeline Albright, Bella Abzug and Helen Thomas on the kazoo and harpsichord).
QuoteDon't get me wrong, I like Trip, he has a lot to offer, but he just needs to not take disagreement so personally.
Many nights I have knelt on my dimpled Shirley Temple knees, sobbing by my sagging attic bed, praying for the strength to withstand unkind things said by
total strangers making hasty assessments of my many obvious personal flaws.
Trust me. The heartbreak of psoriasis is REAL. Heartbreak off the Internet is self-created.
I have written an estimated four million words on-line and easily three-fourths of that was flame wars directed at
total strangers, of (and to) whom I offered my own assessments of
their obvious flaws. Put two pots of coffee into me, I'm good for 125 posts in one 12-hour e-day.
Thassalotta assessments.Maybe I won converts, maybe I repelled any acolytes. But a cut-and-paste clown I
was not. I wrote it all every time. And every time I did it, I knew deep in my zealot's heart of hearts that I was striking a blow for
SOME damn thing or the other, and by
GOD and by musket-powder I would
CHANGE THE WORLD if only I could get those dunderheads to listen.
That's 75% effort wasted when I now can do an image striking straight to the same point I might spend an hour each time writing and rewriting...to
total strangers.
Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 07:40:12 PM
Vladimir and Karl together again. May Day pole dances every Friday after the welfare payments clear the Bridge Cards. Right about 8:00 PM, festivities begin with Comrade Giles and the People's Symphonic Choir (Bert and Billy, with guest performances by Madeline Albright, Bella Abzug and Helen Thomas on the kazoo and harpsichord).
Many nights I have knelt on my dimpled Shirley Temple knees, sobbing by my sagging attic bed, praying for the strength to withstand unkind things said by total strangers making hasty assessments of my many obvious personal flaws.
Trust me. The heartbreak of psoriasis is REAL. Heartbreak off the Internet is self-created.
I have written an estimated four million words on-line and easily three-fourths of that was flame wars directed at total strangers, of (and to) whom I offered my own assessments of their obvious flaws. Put two pots of coffee into me, I'm good for 125 posts in one 12-hour e-day. Thassalotta assessments.
Maybe I won converts, maybe I repelled any acolytes. But a cut-and-paste clown I was not. I wrote it all every time. And every time I did it, I knew deep in my zealot's heart of hearts that I was striking a blow for SOME damn thing or the other, and by GOD and by musket-powder I would CHANGE THE WORLD if only I could get those dunderheads to listen.
That's 75% effort wasted when I now can do an image striking straight to the same point I might spend an hour each time writing and rewriting...to total strangers.
I know what you're saying, and I never lose sleep shredding libs, in fact, I sleep even better knowing another bit the dust.
I see no reason we can't have heated disagreements and still share ideas, Hell, I think I have disagreed with everyone here at on time or another, dick head :biggrin:.
But we all understand we're on the same team and all want the same thing, the defeat of all leftists.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 07:53:50 PM
I know what you're saying, and I never lose sleep shredding libs, in fact, I sleep even better knowing another bit the dust.
I see no reason we can't have heated disagreements and still share ideas, Hell, I think I have disagreed with everyone here at on time or another, dick head :biggrin:.
But we all understand we're on the same team and all want the same thing, the defeat of all leftists.
I suppose I can find something suitable to illustrate that. Nah. Too much like work. :ttoung:
Remember my longwinded and totally pointless screed Friday or Saturday to Taxed, about my meeting with an Ann Arbor liberal at the Whole Foods food area patio? (Yeah, didn't think so.) Anyway, after I got home I found a PAIR of long emails recounting in lurid detail why he could simply NOT ABIDE with me discussing politics.
Today, he sent me a forwarded liberal chain letter. The hypocrisy was priceless. I'm ticked that I might have to change e-mail addys if I start getting chain-letter spam. But as all good comrades know, tovarisch, it's only hate speech if the other guy says it.
Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 08:17:50 PM
I suppose I can find something suitable to illustrate that. Nah. Too much like work. :ttoung:
Remember my longwinded and totally pointless screed Friday or Saturday to Taxed, about my meeting with an Ann Arbor liberal at the Whole Foods food area patio? (Yeah, didn't think so.) Anyway, after I got home I found a PAIR of long emails recounting in lurid detail why he could simply NOT ABIDE with me discussing politics.
Today, he sent me a forwarded liberal chain letter. The hypocrisy was priceless. I'm ticked that I might have to change e-mail addys if I start getting chain-letter spam. But as all good comrades know, tovarisch, it's only hate speech if the other guy says it.
:biggrin:
Soooo true...
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 08:20:49 PM
:biggrin:
Soooo true...
Hey, if it's Tax's hour to be awake, maybe he can tell us Windows XP folks how to find out if an e-mail BCC was really all that private. Isn't there a clue in the metadata somewhere?
Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 08:33:19 PM
Hey, if it's Tax's hour to be awake, maybe he can tell us Windows XP folks how to find out if an e-mail BCC was really all that private. Isn't there a clue in the metadata somewhere?
Windows privacy? You crack me up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 08:36:26 PM
Windows privacy? You crack me up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Dazzle me, ace. Slap me upside my melon with the
wiggiest hip-shakin' flame-throwin' display of unbridled geekery. What clues do I look for, and how?
Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 08:42:57 PM
Dazzle me, ace. Slap me upside my melon with the wiggiest hip-shakin' flame-throwin' display of unbridled geekery. What clues do I look for, and how?
Ahhh, you tax my memory when I used to use IE mail.
I think it's under file in the upper left, one of the options gives most of what you ask, I think.
When it comes to privacy and Windows, forget it, the NSA has a kernel neatly tucked away in it's language.
Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 08:42:57 PM
Dazzle me, ace. Slap me upside my melon with the wiggiest hip-shakin' flame-throwin' display of unbridled geekery. What clues do I look for, and how?
I said that once. She turned out to be Vice and I went away for a spell...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 09:06:07 PM
I said that once. She turned out to be Vice and I went away for a spell...
I searched him. Not willingly but I did it.
Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 09:27:35 PM
I searched him. Not willingly but I did it.
If you held out he would have paid you...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 05:07:07 PM
I'll recap for you. He has a master plan that will restore the country to the way it was envisioned to be by the Founders. His plan involves a revolution or a coup. After the coup a Constitutional government will be installed and everything will be awesome in four years. If you do not agree with his awesome plan you are a raving Socialist. If you ask for specifics he will call you names and then run and hide behind his mothers apron...
While it is a master plan, it is not "his" (mine).
While it was a
"plan" it was actually already enacted, in place, and working, more than 200 years ago, so it can no longer be described as a "plan." It is our form of government.
The actual
"revolution or coup" is currently taking place to overthrow the form of government that resulted from that plan. A "coup", or revolution, is actually the resistance to the legitimate government in an attempt to overthrow it, not just government pretending to be legitimate.
Nothing indicated involves everything being
"awesome in four years." However if "we" don't insist on legitimate government under the Constitution, then we are validating your illegitimate government, which seems to be the point of your whole post.
Either you are incredibly stupid, or you are the amazing byproduct of a sort of "brain washing" in your continual application of inaccurate Orwellian concepts.
Curiously you refuse to recognize that Solar's "plan" is no plan at all, but actually is a generalized goal of not making waves, with
- no expression of what will be restored and when,
- no indication of why he's choosing what to be restored,
- no indication of what and why the order is of what is to be restored,
- no indication of time-frame from start to finish of this prolonged restoration, and
- no indication of how to actually implement that restoration.
But some of you actually imagine this might be "a plan", and yet obviously don't see that this non-plan will never occur, and will only corrupt what we can recognize now to be "legitimate government" by what part of it that might actually occur.
This is no plan at all; this is only a suicide pact to make you all feel comfy and secure, as if you're actually doing something, while government precedes to your enslavement. Nothing but Cognitive Dissonance.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 09:35:35 PM
If you held out he would have paid you...
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I fell for that same scam the last time when he rolled in here in the Greta Garbo outfit and he asked me if his seams were straight. They were tattoos, and it cost me a fortune in shrinks to forget just how I know that.
Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2013, 03:43:06 PM
Same here, war is failed politics. Personally I want the system to work, not fail.
They're relyig on that. They're relying on you and others being that ignorant.
"THIS IS NOTHING BUT POLTICS FOLKS. DONT BE VIOLENT AND JUST GO AND SUBMIT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!"
Seriously, every time you open your mouth you're sounding more and more like a communist plant, becaust I honestly don't think that anyone can be that stupid, particularly not someone calling themselves a Conservative.
One can sift through those "political events" and see them deliberately working to classify things as "politics" that are not. And they're running repeated test balloons to see if these concepts "fly", and we are brain-warped enough to be enslaved again.
Do you remember the House passing the
Global Warming legislation? The Bill actually created a global warming gestapo that could come to a person's home, that was previously legal under the state's local building codes, and then declare that house insufficient to federal climate standards, But not only that, they would charge the owner with being an "unlawful occupant" (their words) in their own home, not on a monthly basis, but on a daily basis. Even one Representative recognized this was virtually identical to the 3rd Amendment's quartering of troops, and our not having actual ownership of our own homes.
When the public outcry grew too great, after the House actually passed this, they moved on to Health Care.
Immediately afterwards the next task they engaged was government actually asserting ownership of the individual under ObamaCare, something grossly unconstitutional. Yet among all the people on this board here, NO ONE will still pronounce it unconstitutional except me.
Do you actually believe it is reasonable for a Supreme Court Chief Justice to write 70% of an opinion that entirely rejects ObamaCare and then, at the last minute, flip his vote from to supporting it, saying it's actually entirely constitutional from his sudden recognition of a plenary taxing authority for the federal government (which doesn't even exist)?
How is it possible that they had these two ENORMOUS bills, ready to be voted on, yet unread, each thousands of pages, and they still managed to get these bills through to be voted on?
And what does Roberts actually say in that PPACA opinion, prominently, despite its utter lack of rationality? Roberts indicates it's
"not his job to protect people from their bad political choices.".
HOW the hell is government's ownership of citizen's merely a political choice, much less just a "bad" one? How the hell did the people even make that political choice when more than 50% of them rejected ObamaCare from the start? How the hell does anythng but an incompetent Chief Justice forget his oath to the Constitution, and imagine that people can compel far more than "bad political choices" on others, actually enslaving them to the government, with
government violating or annulling A FULL 80% OF THAT BILL OF RIGHTS? One of the few parts of that Bill of Rights left out is that 3rd Amendment, which was curiously assaulted by that Climate Change legislation, and the other being the 2nd Amendment, with it being under assault by a "coincidental" gun massacre in a school.
Do you actually think these are just chance occurrences, and not actual
"test balloons"? The convenient thing about these test balloons (for them) is they can float them up, and see how people react, see how adequately people are enslaved, without exposing themselves to attack. After all, it's only "politics"
And what has been going during all these legislative efforts? The ever-increasing enslavement of the people - our being groped by the TSA, which has now advanced to random street stops, our being listened in to and all our data being collected, which, oops., they just told us in a leak, and drones in our skies, and repeated Martial Law exercises in our cities, all habituating us to a police state.
If you doubt the existence of these
"test balloons", then what do you think this regime was actually expressing (more than once) when it indicated,
"don't let a serious crisis go to waste", and we've gone from one crisis to another. Beck recognized these trial balloons in his book the "The
Overton Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)", which is a political theory that describes as a narrow "window" the range of ideas the public will accept, and this regime has been continually adjusting that window by various means.
This thread is a standing example of how warped we ourselves have become in what we've been trained to accept.
All of this barrage upon us is not mere coincidence, but rather deliberately and methodically being done by groups that are NOT our Congress, but influence our Congress, to change our mind-set, with the ultimate goal of enslaving us.
Yet here Solar are telling us it is "ONLY POLITICS", and if we resist, if we rise even only in defense, not even raising arms, against this GROSSLY tyrannous government action going on all around us, which government has no authority to engage, WE ARE JUST FAILING AT POLITICS?
But "VOTE HARDER, COMRADE!" I don't know you, Solar, but I am curious to know if you'd actually have said and believed these things only five years ago. No, I don't want your perspective on that at this point, because either way, I'm not sure I could trust it.
I sincerely don't have the ability to display my utter contempt for everything you're saying, but this has now climaxed to the worst, and its coming from a guy who alleges himself to be a Conservative, on a Conservative forum.
Now our standing up for our rights, and using force to defend them, is just
"failed politics", making our freedoms be subject to political whim.
This is nowhere any ideology of the founders, and is entirely in conflict with those founders, but it is the ideology of statism itself, that our primary obligation is to the state, no matter what form it may assume, making us neo-serfs living our lives in obligation to the state .
- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Nowhere in those noble words would this nation's founders be able to dismiss what is going on as "just politics", much less characterize our DUTY to react to it as "failed politics".
If anyone here is able to grasp what I am expressing, speak now, or forever hold your peace.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:08:06 PM
They're relyig on that. They're relying on you and others being that ignorant.
"THIS IS NOTHING BUT POLTICS FOLKS. DONT BE VIOLENT AND JUST GO AND SUBMIT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!"
Seriously, every time you open your mouth you're sounding more and more like a communist plant, becaust I honestly don't think that anyone can be that stupid, particularly not someone calling themselves a Conservative.
One can sift there those "poltical events" and see them deliberately try to classify things as "politics" that are not. And they're running test balloons to see if these concepts "fly", and we brain-warped enough to be enslaved again.
Do you remember the House passing the Global Warming legislation? The Bill actually in it created a global warming gestapo that could come to a person's home, that was previously legal under the states local building codes, and then declare that house insufficient to federal climate standards, But not on that, they would charge the indivdual with being an unlawful occupant in their own home, not on a monthly basis, but on a daily basis. Even in the House one guy recognized this was virtually identical to the 3rd Amendment's quartering of troops, and our having actual ownership of the homes.
When the public outcry grew too great, after the House actually passed this, they moved on to Health Care.
Immediately afterwards the next task is government is actually asserting ownership of the individual under ObamaCare, something grossly unconstitutional. Yet in all the people on this board here, NO ONE will still pronounce it unconstitutional except me.
Do you actually believe it is reasonable for a Supreme Court Chief Justice to write 70% of an opinion that entirely rejects ObamaCare, and then at the last minute, flip his vote from to supporting it, saying it's actually entirely constitutional from his sudden recognition of a plenary taxing authority for the federal government (which doesn't even exist)?
How is it possible that they had these two ENORMOUS bills, ready to be voted on, unread, thousands of pages apiece, and that they managed to get them through to be voted on?
And what does Roberts actually say in that opinion, prominently, despite its utter lack of rationality?Roberts indicates it's "not his job to protect people from their bad political choices.".
HOW the hell is government's ownership of citizen's merely a bad political choice? How the hell did the people even make that political choice when more than 50% of them rejected ObamaCare from the start? How the hell does Anythng but a judicial incompetent forget his oath to the Constitution, and imagine that people can compel far more than "bad political choices" on others, actually enslaving them to the government, and government violating or annulling A FULL 80% OF THAT BILL OF RIGHTS?
One of the few parts of that Bill of Rights left out is that 3rd Amendment, which was curiously assaulted by Climate Change legislation.
Do you actually think these are just chance occurrence, and not actual "test balloons"? THe nice things about these test balloons is they can float them up, and see how people reacts, see how adequately people are enslaved. And what has been going during all this legislation? THe ever-increasing enslavement of the people - our being groped by the TSA, which has now advanced to random street stops, our being listened in to and alll our data being collected, and oops., they just told us in a leak, and drones in our skies, and Repeated Militial Law practice in our cities.
If you doubt the existence of these "test balloons", then what do you think this regime was actually expressing (more than once) when it indicated, "don't let a serious crisis go to waste", and we've gone from one crisis to another. Beck recognized these trial balloons in his book the "The Overton Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)", which is a political theory that describes as a narrow "window" the range of ideas the public will accept, and this regime has been continually adjusting that window by various means.
This thread is a standing example of how warped what we've been trained to accept has become.
All of this barrage upon us is not mere coincidence, but rather being deliberately and methodically being done by groups that are NOT our Congress, but influence our Congress, to change our mind-set, with the ultimate goal of enslaving us.
Yet here Solar are telling us it is "ONLY POLITICS", and if we resist, if we rise even only in defense, not even raising arms, against this GROSSLY tyrannous government action going on all around us, which government has no authority to engage, WE ARE JUST FAILING AT POLITICS?
But "VOTE HARDER, COMRADE!"
I don't know you, Solar, but I am curious to know if you'd actually have said and believed these things only five years ago. No, I don't want your perspective on that at this point, because either way, I'm not sure I could trust it.
I sincerely don't have the ability to display my utter contempt for everything you're saying, virtually every time you open your mouth in this thread, but this has now climaxed to the worst. Everything you're indicating is not just a little disturbing, but disturbing to the max, and its coming from a guy who alleges himself to be a Conservative, on a Conservative forum.
Now our standing up for our rights, and using force to defend them, is just "failed politics", making our freedoms be subject to politica whim This is nowhere any ideology of the founders, and is entirely in conflict with those founders, but it is the ideology of statism itself, that our primary obligation is to the state, no matter what form it may assume, making us neo-serfs living our lives in obligation to the state .
- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Nowhere in those noble words would this nation's founders be able at all to dismiss what is going on as "just "politics", much less characterize our DUTY to react to it as "failed politics".
If anyone here is able to grasp what I am expressing, speak now, or forever hold your peace.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 02:37:20 PM
I had to answer your post before Boo's because in answering Boo's I intend to throw the full force of the Constitution at him, and there'd be noting leftover for you. :wink:
What are you waiting for coward?
More cut and paste, forcing anyone who replies to ALSO have a long post saying who knows what to who knows who. Joy of joys! We get pages with four posts each.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 01:37:49 PM
Oh I see!
Elections don't matter
Voters are irrelevant
Voters are eneablers
You grand plan is to act by executive fiat. A four year monarchy. Grand idea champ.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 10:13:29 PMQuote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 02:37:20 PMhad to answer your post before Boo's because in answering Boo's I intend to throw the full force of the Constitution at him, and there'd be noting leftover for you.
What are you waiting for coward?
No, you still don't see. I gave you this answer in a less-thorough form previously, but you obviously your level ignorance is quite resilient and resistant to remedy.
Elections were pretty much irrelevant since the start of this country. The founders did everything in their power to ensure that elections, the populist vote of the people, would do have the least effect on our government, and no effect on our form of government and what it might do:
- The election of Senators by state legislators, making them able to be recalled at the whim of that state legislatures;
- The election of President by the electoral Collect, and not actually by any direct populist election;
- The Supremacy Clause which indicates that the Constitution is the Law of the Land (not the voters, or the laws), and those laws are only valid if they are "pursuant to" the Constitution;
- The fact that even state laws, and foreign treaties must be "pursuant to" the Constitution;
- The Article 1, Section 8 "necessary and proper" clause that likewise indicates that those laws must be pursuant to the Constitution;
- The structure of the Constitution, and the specific enumerated powers to government, being based on the unalienable rights of individuals, not the result of an election;
- The further affirmation of these rights by the inclusion of the Bill of Rights;
- The Article II requirement that the office of President must be a natural born citizen, with this being unaffected, nor made irrelevant, and by any popular vote.
Nowhere, not any where in the U.S. Constitution, NOR the writings of any of this nation's founders, is voting upheld as some noble undertaking in this Republic, much less one that is able to change what is done legitimately by government.
Not even the adoption of the Constitution itself was done by any popular election, yet it is still described as "We, the people" and a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people".
How do you imagine this might be true if populist elections were somehow sacred?
Even when voting is recognized by the Constitution, even in more recent amendments, the expression "right to vote" is only a rhetorical facility referencing the electoral franchise, with there being no actual positive right to vote recognized anywhere in the Constitution. In fact the idea of voting being "a right" is ridiculous, as it involves others having to actively serve that alleged right.
The idea of "the vote" being somehow sacred is in no way an ideology of this country, and is actually Socialism/Marxism. Voting only allows one to determine who goes into office, how that office is populated, and then those office occupants determine to their best effect, what legislation that body might write, but that still must always be "pursuant to" the Constitution.
And by the way, Boo, none of my plan involves any sort of "executive fiat", but that is what we have now in this corrupt form of government, fiat from all three branches of government, with the Executive, intended only to be an administrative post, now actually acting as more of an Imperial office. The terms of the government are already established; why is that so difficult for your simpleton brain to grasp?
So you can Take your "coward" and stick it where the sun don't shine, Boob, I mean Boo.
Quote from: quiller on August 12, 2013, 10:16:19 PM
More cut and paste, forcing anyone who replies to ALSO have a long post saying who knows what to who knows who. Joy of joys! We get pages with four posts each.
Yes, you're a drooler too.
Nothing I wrote was any sort of "cut and paste". I wrote it originally myself for that post.
And since my post actually defines things like "test (trial) balloons", and shows how government has been deliberately, methodically altering the perspective of the population, my post actually makes it easier for respondents to not type so much.
But don't worry, I am still certain that my post will not influence your determination to not think so much.
Do us all a favor and just drop to your knees, accept the chains, and prepare to lick the hand that feeds you. It will save us all a lot of time in wasted discussion.
- If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
~Samuel Adams
You don't have to take my word that there's no actual right to vote.
Just do a Google search, and one can find lots of Leftist Socialists insisting that the Constitution be amended to include an actual right to vote.
You're in good company if you think that there's some sacred right to vote, and that it is important in this country, able even can determine what government might do, along with people like Jonathan Soros, son of globalist George Soros:
"The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote" (http://www.democracyjournal.org/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote.php?page=all) Jonathan Soros, Spring 2013
Yeah, be proud, be very proud, Boo. You keep awesome company. At least Soros recognizes voting is not an actual right.
(In Reply 222, above, in the bulleted list, I actually meant "Electoral College".)
Ah, me. I was wondering what I had missed by refraining from opening this marvelous thread about whatever Chrissy Matthews had to opine, ( I am not a fan ) and I was enticed in by the seemingly soon to be sight of blood in the water as the Great White circled for the kill in another thread. Upon reading just a couple of pages, it soon became evident as to what I had missed of noteworthy relevance. 'Twas indeed a waste of endeavors on my part. Carry on, Gentlemen, parting is in no way, sweet sorrow, but welcomed relief.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:08:06 PM
They're relyig on that. They're relying on you and others being that ignorant.
"THIS IS NOTHING BUT POLTICS FOLKS. DONT BE VIOLENT AND JUST GO AND SUBMIT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!"
Seriously, every time you open your mouth you're sounding more and more like a communist plant, becaust I honestly don't think that anyone can be that stupid, particularly not someone calling themselves a Conservative.
One can sift through those "political events" and see them deliberately working to classify things as "politics" that are not. And they're running repeated test balloons to see if these concepts "fly", and we are brain-warped enough to be enslaved again.
Do you remember the House passing the Global Warming legislation? The Bill actually created a global warming gestapo that could come to a person's home, that was previously legal under the state's local building codes, and then declare that house insufficient to federal climate standards, But not only that, they would charge the owner with being an "unlawful occupant" (their words) in their own home, not on a monthly basis, but on a daily basis. Even one Representative recognized this was virtually identical to the 3rd Amendment's quartering of troops, and our not having actual ownership of our own homes.
When the public outcry grew too great, after the House actually passed this, they moved on to Health Care.
Immediately afterwards the next task they engaged was government actually asserting ownership of the individual under ObamaCare, something grossly unconstitutional. Yet among all the people on this board here, NO ONE will still pronounce it unconstitutional except me.
Do you actually believe it is reasonable for a Supreme Court Chief Justice to write 70% of an opinion that entirely rejects ObamaCare and then, at the last minute, flip his vote from to supporting it, saying it's actually entirely constitutional from his sudden recognition of a plenary taxing authority for the federal government (which doesn't even exist)?
How is it possible that they had these two ENORMOUS bills, ready to be voted on, yet unread, each thousands of pages, and they still managed to get these bills through to be voted on?
And what does Roberts actually say in that PPACA opinion, prominently, despite its utter lack of rationality? Roberts indicates it's "not his job to protect people from their bad political choices.".
HOW the hell is government's ownership of citizen's merely a political choice, much less just a "bad" one? How the hell did the people even make that political choice when more than 50% of them rejected ObamaCare from the start? How the hell does anythng but an incompetent Chief Justice forget his oath to the Constitution, and imagine that people can compel far more than "bad political choices" on others, actually enslaving them to the government, with government violating or annulling A FULL 80% OF THAT BILL OF RIGHTS?
One of the few parts of that Bill of Rights left out is that 3rd Amendment, which was curiously assaulted by that Climate Change legislation, and the other being the 2nd Amendment, with it being under assault by a "coincidental" gun massacre in a school.
Do you actually think these are just chance occurrences, and not actual "test balloons"? The convenient thing about these test balloons (for them) is they can float them up, and see how people react, see how adequately people are enslaved, without exposing themselves to attack. After all, it's only "politics"
And what has been going during all these legislative efforts? The ever-increasing enslavement of the people - our being groped by the TSA, which has now advanced to random street stops, our being listened in to and all our data being collected, which, oops., they just told us in a leak, and drones in our skies, and repeated Martial Law exercises in our cities, all habituating us to a police state.
If you doubt the existence of these "test balloons", then what do you think this regime was actually expressing (more than once) when it indicated, "don't let a serious crisis go to waste", and we've gone from one crisis to another. Beck recognized these trial balloons in his book the "The Overton Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)", which is a political theory that describes as a narrow "window" the range of ideas the public will accept, and this regime has been continually adjusting that window by various means.
This thread is a standing example of how warped we ourselves have become in what we've been trained to accept.
All of this barrage upon us is not mere coincidence, but rather deliberately and methodically being done by groups that are NOT our Congress, but influence our Congress, to change our mind-set, with the ultimate goal of enslaving us.
Yet here Solar are telling us it is "ONLY POLITICS", and if we resist, if we rise even only in defense, not even raising arms, against this GROSSLY tyrannous government action going on all around us, which government has no authority to engage, WE ARE JUST FAILING AT POLITICS?
But "VOTE HARDER, COMRADE!"
I don't know you, Solar, but I am curious to know if you'd actually have said and believed these things only five years ago. No, I don't want your perspective on that at this point, because either way, I'm not sure I could trust it.
I sincerely don't have the ability to display my utter contempt for everything you're saying, but this has now climaxed to the worst, and its coming from a guy who alleges himself to be a Conservative, on a Conservative forum.
Now our standing up for our rights, and using force to defend them, is just "failed politics", making our freedoms be subject to political whim.
This is nowhere any ideology of the founders, and is entirely in conflict with those founders, but it is the ideology of statism itself, that our primary obligation is to the state, no matter what form it may assume, making us neo-serfs living our lives in obligation to the state .
- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Nowhere in those noble words would this nation's founders be able to dismiss what is going on as "just politics", much less characterize our DUTY to react to it as "failed politics".
If anyone here is able to grasp what I am expressing, speak now, or forever hold your peace.
All that bull shit and still you are unable to give me your plan.
Which is it, military coup, or are you waiting for a "Real Man" to stand up and fight back, not some fabricated tough guy internet keyboard jockey, such as yourself?
Again, show me where you are actually doing something to effect change, outside of claiming superiority and denouncing half the country as a bunch of socialist/commies for finally making a difference.
How dare those bastards for what they did in 2010, the cowards should be ashamed to even claim victory in the shadow of the omnipotent Trip, the Internet tough guy, able to make change, simply by insulting those that believe we still have yet to exhaust all options before going to war.
So come on oh mighty one, tell us your plan, tell us how we need to reinstall the Constitution, or was that destroy the Document you claim to hold so dear, which has, at this point become a useless piece of paper because it failed.
Again, a whole lot of bellicose BS from the internet tough guy that never once took into consideration the age and abilities of his fighting force, that mostly range in ages over 40, and now have health issues and physical limitations, but he and his army will take the country back.
Yeah, and I'm the nut? :lol:
Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2013, 06:26:19 AM
All that bull shit and still you are unable to give me your plan.
Which is it, military coup, or are you waiting for a "Real Man" to stand up and fight back, not some fabricated tough guy internet keyboard jockey, such as yourself?
Again, show me where you are actually doing something to effect change, outside of claiming superiority and denouncing half the country as a bunch of socialist/commies for finally making a difference.
How dare those bastards for what they did in 2010, the cowards should be ashamed to even claim victory in the shadow of the omnipotent Trip, the Internet tough guy, able to make change, simply by insulting those that believe we still have yet to exhaust all options before going to war.
So come on oh mighty one, tell us your plan, tell us how we need to reinstall the Constitution, or was that destroy the Document you claim to hold so dear, which has, at this point become a useless piece of paper because it failed.
Again, a whole lot of bellicose BS from the internet tough guy that never once took into consideration the age and abilities of his fighting force, that mostly range in ages over 40, and now have health issues and physical limitations, but he and his army will take the country back.
Yeah, and I'm the nut? :lol:
I have a plan, It's callled the Constitution. And as I've said, the restoration of the Constution will not come about from scattered militia groups any more than it will come about from voting one populist icon or another into office.
You, you don't have a plain. You don't even have a rationale for a plan. You have a comparison of "less government", and you've inherently discarded the Constitution, and validated its gutting. You think the gradual restoration is ratinal, but cannot come forth with a timetable for that restoration, much less a rationale for what's first, and why it should be drawn out.
Effecting the recover of this country first requires changing one's own thoughts, and then the thoughts of those around them, and as this thread has shown, there is a real problem with what Americans recognize to be their heritage, freedom, and their guarantee of a government constrained by the Constitution.
Nothing I've said pretends to be any sort of tough guy, and as with your other posts you just erecting one strawman after another, because you really don't have any sort of argument. "Blacks cant vote!" "Women can't vote!" "Back 200 years!" "No government at all!"
It's really beyond pathetic, and this is what passes as "a Conservative" today in some circles.
And the sad part is no one else here has the cojones to to call you on this nonsense, or perhaps its the knowledge. And I'm not sure which is worse. Neither bode well for this country's future.
If you don't have a plan, don't give a damn about your freedoms, and want to just wait for what is undeniably coming down the pike at us, then why don't you just sit down, shut the hell up, practice saying please and thank you, and eat your damn cat food!
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 06:57:10 AM
I have a plan, It's callled the Constitution. And as I've said, the restoration of the Constution will not come about from scattered militia groups any more than it will come about from voting one populist icon or another into office.
You, you don't have a plain. You don't even have a rationale for a plan. You have a comparison of "less government", and you've inherently discarded the Constitution, and validated its gutting. You think the gradual restoration is ratinal, but cannot come forth with a timetable for that restoration, much less a rationale for what's first, and why it should be drawn out.
Effecting change first requires changing one's thoughts, and as this thread has shown, there is a real problem with what Americans recognize to be their heritage, freedom, and their guarantee of a government constrained by the Constitution.
Nothing I've said pretends to be any sort of tough guy, and as with your other posts you just erect one strawman after another, because you really don't have any sort of argument. "Blacks cant vote!" "Women can't vote!" "Back 200 years!" "No government at all!"
It's really beyond pathetic, and this is what passes as "a Conservative" today in some circles.
If you don't have a plan, don't give a damn about your freedoms, and want to just wait for what is undeniably coming down the pike at us, then why don't you just sit down, shut the hell up, practice saying please and thank you, and eat your damn cat food!
Straw man? So you're not advocating war, tough guy?
Like I said, you infer a bellicose language theme in your posts, so if I'm wrong, prove it by posting your plan of attack, otherwise you are nothing but a lying coward that only attacks the efforts of those doing the groundwork to effect change.
Come on, prove me wrong, show me your strategy, Heir Internet General.
Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2013, 07:07:23 AM
Straw man? So you're not advocating war, tough guy?
Like I said, you infer a bellicose language theme in your posts, so if I'm wrong, prove it by posting your plan of attack, otherwise you are nothing but a lying coward that only attacks the efforts of those doing the groundwork to effect change.
Come on, prove me wrong, show me your strategy, Heir Internet General.
Your attention span must be sharter than your grasp. NOwhere have I advocated war, which is another of your strawman arguments.
Go turn back in this thread, I've detailed 3 things - 1) Nullification 2) Grand Jury and 3) Civil Disobedience.
I'm pretty sure that taking a stand when government indicates that it has now taken de facto ownership of each and every American, where we don't have any rights, and are living in a police state, is not "advocating war", which is a gross dishonesty on your part, on the heels of many.
Do the government agencies need to be wearing swastikas for you to figure out what's going on? Or would you still rather wait until they've come for the Libertarians, the Conservatives, the Constitutionalists, the Ron Paulites, just like Pastor Martin Niemoller's poem, and there's no one to stand for you, or with you?
Maybe you didn't notice that the federal government is already targeting those groups, such as the IRS the Tea Parties, the Health Care the Christians, and before these DHS wrote a document targeting "Right Wing Extremist Groups" (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf), such as people who support Ron Paul, sport "Don't Tread on me" stickers, and Veterans.
How many rounds does DHS have now, and not just common rounds, but hollow points? Enough to kill every American four times over,at least. And this is going on even though DHS was originally chartered to be a logistics group for existing agencies and not a combat group for within this very country. Naa, no problem here at all.
But you still need a telegraph to figure out what's going on. The fact is that we will be forced to fight, rather than choosing to fight.
Or we can follow your "plan" and just sit back and be "reasonable", not making any waves, and just pretend this is our "changing society". Good luck with that.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.netanimations.net%2Fsheep-eating-animated-gif.gif&hash=111cb08a1e39499505754435e06b841b480bb8d3)
Shenanigans was more interesting, concise, mature, and collegial. That's scary.
Work a trade ?
Tired of Abe Simpson here.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 11:05:25 PM
Yes, you're a drooler too.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages49.fotki.com%2Fv1585%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F11855564%2Fhumilityc_s_lewis-vi.png&hash=2ba675c7075b84d6c07d6503503d16bc0b3a06db)
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:08:06 PM
Seriously, every time you open your mouth you're sounding more and more like a communist plant, becaust I honestly don't think that anyone can be that stupid, particularly not someone calling themselves a Conservative.
I killed the rest of the screed. Got tired of some peachfuzz-faced egomaniacal kid telling others they're this or that if they don't believe EXACTLY LIKE HIM.
Before starting Conservative Political Forum, Solar had been voted in (by a clear majority of those voting) as Conservative of the Year at Liberty News Forum.com.
He's walking the walk. You're just pasting the talk.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages54.fotki.com%2Fv563%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8186314%2F279heroismteddy_white250x304px-vi.jpg&hash=bc8b1e8f53e24caad8bf42e6f46ea5e5d6687b90)
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 08:50:12 AM
I killed the rest of the screed. Got tired of some peachfuzz-faced egomaniacal kid telling others they're this or that if they don't believe EXACTLY LIKE HIM.
Before starting Conservative Political Forum, Solar had been voted in (by a clear majority of those voting) as Conservative of the Year at Liberty News Forum.com.
He's walking the walk. You're just pasting the talk.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages54.fotki.com%2Fv563%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8186314%2F279heroismteddy_white250x304px-vi.jpg&hash=bc8b1e8f53e24caad8bf42e6f46ea5e5d6687b90)
Yeah, he's walking the talk... of a clueless RINO that you all rail about here, while pretending to be the ultimate conservatives.
And I was voted among the most competent debaters in Conservatives at Hannity. Where is Liberty News Forum.com? Who is he actually arguing with, the same cross section of tea partiers that think that they're arguing the Constitution with just "less government". I bet he really had to show his stuff there, no doubt.
He's spent this entire discussion here pulling the liberal penchant to fabricate strawmen, and actual liberal arguments themselves!
"You want it so Blacks cant vote!"
"You want it so Women can't vote!"
"You want to take us back 200 years!"
"You want no government at all!"
None of those were anything I even implied.
But I guess he didn't recognize this as actually being liberal arguments over there in the hard core Liberty News Forum.
If his arguments were all that effective, you wouldn't have to be here pleading his case. But its really not that bad; it he has been trained to discount the Constitution all along in public schooling, he really cannot be expected to make any sort of competent argument regarding that document.
I hear an angry cornered whimpering child, bawling 'cause nooooooobody will listen.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages58.fotki.com%2Fv85%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8186314%2Flibertyalan_keyes-vi.jpg&hash=3fda623528491a63d712542d393bc7a37a0bb317)
Yeah, always tough to divine the real person behind the postings.
He's given us some tantalizing tales of diving with Cousteau and getting credentials in the 60's or 70's, and various academic adventures and hobnobbing with the legal eagles.
But he behaves a lot more like a mouthy 15-YO. The net is full of teens creating funny little personas for their own little shits & grins.
It's either that or a full-on Abe Simpson, yelling at the clouds.
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 09:08:10 AM
I hear an angry cornered whimpering child, bawling 'cause nooooooobody will listen.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages58.fotki.com%2Fv85%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8186314%2Flibertyalan_keyes-vi.jpg&hash=3fda623528491a63d712542d393bc7a37a0bb317)
No body will listen? I've been on national radio a number of times.
I gave you the chance to actually address something relevant to this forum, but you instead chose to engage in forum nonsense. If this impotent nonsense is all you're capable of providing in this exchange, you need to go buy, beg, borrow, or steal "a clue".
You need to get out of your tiny fish bowl mentality, king fish, and actually stand up straight and suck in your lower lip. This isn't your girlie internet bullshit going on here. Your life and the lives of your family are on the line, your very future and the future of this country for generations to come. You evidently haven't the mental capacity, or at least the inclination, to understand this country's principles when you were
handed the freedom! Now we need something more.
I can even find a more competent discussion of the Constitution coming from a guy discussing Aliens, UFOs and deep underground military bases from a geologist named Phil Schneider (http://youtu.be/_7MQp8-SjjA), which I just got this morning, emailed by a friend.
Hey, maybe geologists do dig deeper than your average mortal, but you don't need to whine about it.
Edited to add: Regarding your ironic graphic, what I am actually arguing here is "what we fight for", the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and not just partisan nonsense of "who we fight against".
As with Shenanigans, the attention and replies are slurped down like sweet cherry sody pop..................and rewarded with many long burps of satisfied retorts to retarts to restarts to resharts.........
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 09:22:05 AM
more bullshit
Zealots are trash, sonny. Adults listen to options, not attack without knowing a DAMN thing about someone's established history. You keep accusing someone of being a communist simply because he disagrees with YOUR version of what conservativism means? Since when did we elect Justin Beiber as President, you snarling pillow-biting punk?
Awwwwww, you got listened-to on some local NPR call-in rant-show.
How nice for you. There'll be a bronze plaque in the village square, testifying to your bravery against the enemy, if not a statue the scrappers won't hesitate to steal.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 13, 2013, 09:36:58 AM
As with Shenanigans, the attention and replies are slurped down like sweet cherry sody pop..................and rewarded with many long burps of satisfied retorts to retarts to restarts to resharts.........
Aw, you had to go ruin it dragging in THAT babbling loon. But you're right. Don't feed the trolls, and
THIS close-minded know-it-all surely fits that same description.
"limps across the finish line...."
OOOG!!!!!!
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 09:38:24 AM
Zealots are trash, sonny. Adults listen to options, not attack without knowing a DAMN thing about someone's established history. You keep accusing someone of being a communist simply because he disagrees with YOUR version of what conservativism means? Since when did we elect Justin Beiber as President, you snarling pillow-biting punk?
Awwwwww, you got listened-to on some local NPR call-in rant-show. How nice for you. There'll be a bronze plaque in the village square, testifying to your bravery against the enemy, if not a statue the scrappers won't hesitate to steal.
Adults make options; sheep listen to options and pretend they're men while propping up their nonexistent arguments with references like "sonny", and "snarling pillow biting punk". Evidently that's tapping the well of your resources.
Actually the last time I was on air, was a lengthy discussion on a nationally syndicated program regarding the corruption of citizenship in this country, in regard to the amnesty still being pushed.
I suspect you don't know much about that either.
However despite your impulse otherwise, this isn't about me. This is about the Constitution and every one of our freedoms. This is about your goddamn family and your future, and you still cannot pull your head from your ass with this petty Internet pond flapping.
You are however providing concrete evidence why this country has little to no chance of saving itself, and that's extremely tragic, but evidently that tragedy will go over your head too.
Returning to the central issue of you attacking the owner of this forum over what YOU think is HIS deficiency in Proper Conservative Thinking™.....
After you swamp us with unreadable big black blocs of dense-packed text, supposedly written in the heat of the moment but COMPLETE WITH INDENT POINTS....
What part about zealot isn't penetrating here, sonny? How thin must you wear your welcome, attacking the wrong side?
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 10:04:07 AM
Returning to the central issue of you attacking the owner of this forum over what YOU think is HIS deficiency in Proper Conservative Thinking™.....
After you swamp us with unreadable big black blocs of dense-packed text, supposedly written in the heat of the moment but COMPLETE WITH INDENT POINTS....
What part about zealot isn't penetrating here, sonny? How thin must uyou wear your welcome, attacking the wrong side?
hahahaha!... what do you mean by "indent points"? Is this curious reference, which I have no idea as to what you're referring, some sort of gotcha?
Solar and I were having a discussion about the Constitution, at least I was. He was spending more time fabricating things that I wasn't indicating, all while he demonstrates that regard for the Constitution is silly and destructive.
And frankly, by now having to reference his irrelevant ownership of this forum, you're only highlighting the impotency of his responses, in addition to doubling down on your girlie Internet focus.
Your responses are getting ever more feeble. At least Solar made an effort.
Most here are ghosts over in the Constitution forum, with the notable exception kramarat and one or two others, now I understand why. Six or seven years ago I was, generally, on par with pretty much everyone here, except I'm pretty certain I never would have even thought to utter the idea that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution". It's amazing what focused study will do, not just casually reading these things.
I sure as hell am not about to apologize for it.
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 10:48:12 PM
What are you waiting for coward?
No, you still don't see. I gave you this answer in a less-thorough form previously, but you obviously your level ignorance is quite resilient and resistant to remedy.
Elections were pretty much irrelevant since the start of this country. The founders did everything in their power to ensure that elections, the populist vote of the people, would do have the least effect on our government, and no effect on our form of government and what it might do:
- The election of Senators by state legislators, making them able to be recalled at the whim of that state legislatures;
- The election of President by the electoral Collect, and not actually by any direct populist election;
- The Supremacy Clause which indicates that the Constitution is the Law of the Land (not the voters, or the laws), and those laws are only valid if they are "pursuant to" the Constitution;
- The fact that even state laws, and foreign treaties must be "pursuant to" the Constitution;
- The Article 1, Section 8 "necessary and proper" clause that likewise indicates that those laws must be pursuant to the Constitution;
- The structure of the Constitution, and the specific enumerated powers to government, being based on the unalienable rights of individuals, not the result of an election;
- The further affirmation of these rights by the inclusion of the Bill of Rights;
- The Article II requirement that the office of President must be a natural born citizen, with this being unaffected, nor made irrelevant, and by any popular vote.
Nowhere, not any where in the U.S. Constitution, NOR the writings of any of this nation's founders, is voting upheld as some noble undertaking in this Republic, much less one that is able to change what is done legitimately by government.
Not even the adoption of the Constitution itself was done by any popular election, yet it is still described as "We, the people" and a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people".
How do you imagine this might be true if populist elections were somehow sacred?
Even when voting is recognized by the Constitution, even in more recent amendments, the expression "right to vote" is only a rhetorical facility referencing the electoral franchise, with there being no actual positive right to vote recognized anywhere in the Constitution. In fact the idea of voting being "a right" is ridiculous, as it involves others having to actively serve that alleged right.
The idea of "the vote" being somehow sacred is in no way an ideology of this country, and is actually Socialism/Marxism. Voting only allows one to determine who goes into office, how that office is populated, and then those office occupants determine to their best effect, what legislation that body might write, but that still must always be "pursuant to" the Constitution.
And by the way, Boo, none of my plan involves any sort of "executive fiat", but that is what we have now in this corrupt form of government, fiat from all three branches of government, with the Executive, intended only to be an administrative post, now actually acting as more of an Imperial office. The terms of the government are already established; why is that so difficult for your simpleton brain to grasp?
So you can Take your "coward" and stick it where the sun don't shine, Boob, I mean Boo.
LOL!
So your plan is to eliminate elections.
Got it...
A zealot is someone who can dismiss the truth when it stares him straight in his eyes. I've been dismissed by far better for far less than this kid has done. But I WON'T hear his thoughts on the message of this image.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages58.fotki.com%2Fv85%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8186314%2Flibertyalan_keyes-vi.jpg&hash=3fda623528491a63d712542d393bc7a37a0bb317)
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 10:26:41 AM
LOL!
So your plan is to eliminate elections.
Got it...
You're like an ADD squirrel chasing a nut with this "election" focus. No, I never said anything about eliminating elections. Those elections are just not what you imagine them to be. That is undoubtedly the product of your public school edumacation.
You need some sort of Cliff's Notes for this discussion, and probably a Cliff's Notes to the Cliff's Notes too.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 10:33:44 AM
You're like an ADD squirrel chasing a nut with this "election" focus. No, I never said anything about eliminating elections. Those elections are just not what you imagine them to be. That is undoubtedly the product of your public school edumacation.
You need some sort of Cliff's Notes for this discussion, and probably a Cliff's Notes to the Cliff's Notes too.
I got it cupcake, elections don't matter. What's your plan? Pick names out of a hat?
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 10:30:24 AM
A zealot is someone who can dismiss the truth when it stares him straight in his eyes. I've been dismissed by far better for far less than this kid has done. But I WON'T hear his thoughts on the message of this image.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages58.fotki.com%2Fv85%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8186314%2Flibertyalan_keyes-vi.jpg&hash=3fda623528491a63d712542d393bc7a37a0bb317)
Or this.....
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages56.fotki.com%2Fv1601%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F9679810%2Fng_is_wrong_malcolm_x300x316vi-vi.jpg&hash=ba19ad62a84c04a693904496fc1638dbc847b7d1)
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 10:30:24 AM
A zealot is someone who can dismiss the truth when it stares him straight in his eyes. I've been dismissed by far better for far less than this kid has done. But I WON'T hear his thoughts on the message of this image.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages58.fotki.com%2Fv85%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8186314%2Flibertyalan_keyes-vi.jpg&hash=3fda623528491a63d712542d393bc7a37a0bb317)
Alrighty, Slick.
Bring me some Truth. You got any game at all to bring to this discussion whatsoever?
I've seen the ugliness of the left's M.O. and mentality first hand, and you're not bringing anything to the table at all. I once had a Judge stammering in her own court, and so desperate to get to her prejudicial outcome and impugn myself and a company, that she locked me up for two hours, which was the longest she could hold me without any charge. I had made certain my responses did not exhibit any sort of contempt of court. The result of her efforts was that concrete information made it to the media, and the woman was ultimately disbarred.
At this point you're doing nothing but pissing into the wind, and making yourself look like an idiot.
But if you throw up s'more pretty pictures and pretend they're an argument, I'll give you a Deluxe Crayola Crayon box as a reward.
Aw, the little kid doesn't LIKE being patted on the head and told to simmer down before the adults have to spank. You can just FEEL all that love and admiration for others in everything he says, it's just dripping with praise and support.
Why, ANY newbie lurker drive-by curiosity-seeking thrill-rider could storm through this joint and think it was something out of a Morris Dees nightmare (or wet dream, I don't see him doing that to LIBERAL hate groups....).
Yup, we sure do sound like we get along with a howling child demanding everybody feed him and treat him civilly, as he degrades everyone in sight.
Calm your act down and behave like an adult. Stop leveling bullshit charges against people A LOT OF US know to be 100% different than you describe.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 10:37:17 AM
I got it cupcake, elections don't matter. What's your plan? Pick names out of a hat?
No, you don't got it, simpleton.
Here, I'll type this out more slowly this time: "Those elections are just not what you imagine them to be. "
Now I'll provide the Cliff's Notes explanation: Elections are not to determine what actions of government are valid, and certainly are not an "attempt to enforce the Constitution". Elections don't even ensure that the representative will do what you want them to do even if that is within the terms of the Constitution.
Elections are largely a waste of time, but then the founders view of the federal government was that it shouldn't have to do any sort of heroic actions to change the direction of the nation, much less dictate the terms of people's lives, and in fact the founders deliberately prohibited the government from having that authority.
Unfortunately persons like yourself that have been baptized in the Progressive ideology really cannot conceive of this.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 07:37:23 AM
Your attention span must be sharter than your grasp. NOwhere have I advocated war, which is another of your strawman arguments.
Go turn back in this thread, I've detailed 3 things - 1) Nullification 2) Grand Jury and 3) Civil Disobedience.
All pomp and circumstance, 1) Nullification, nullify what, and by whom, you and what imaginary army?
2) Grand Jury, more pomp, you need a DA willing to put his ass on the line, and for what, symbolism?
3) Civil Disobedience? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You live in a dream world...What, stop paying taxes?
Not one thing you've mentioned amounts to pissing on a volcano to stop it's eruption, we, the Conservative base are tearing down the liberal structure and building a movement willing to and certainly make a difference.
All the while you run around protesting? Yeah, that'll scare the crap out of them.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 10:55:32 AM
No, you don't got it, simpleton.
Here, I'll type this out more slowly this time: "Those elections are just not what you imagine them to be. "
Now I'll provide the Cliff's Notes explanation: Elections are not to determine what actions of government are valid, and certainly are not an "attempt to enforce the Constitution". Elections don't even ensure that the representative will do what you want them to do even if that is within the terms of the Constitution.
Elections are largely a waste of time, but then the founders view of the federal government was that it shouldn't have to do any sort of heroic actions to change the direction of the nation, much less dictate the terms of people's lives, and in fact the founders deliberately prohibited the government from having that authority.
Unfortunately persons like yourself that have been baptized in the Progressive ideology really cannot conceive of this.
Strawmen hyperbole and lies oh my!
Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2013, 10:58:53 AM
All pomp and circumstance, 1) Nullification, nullify what, and by whom, you and what imaginary army?
2) Grand Jury, more pomp, you need a DA willing to put his ass on the line, and for what, symbolism?
3) Civil Disobedience? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You live in a dream world...What, stop paying taxes?
Not one thing you've mentioned amounts to pissing on a volcano to stop it's eruption, we, the Conservative base are tearing down the liberal structure and building a movement willing to and certainly make a difference.
All the while you run around protesting? Yeah, that'll scare the crap out of them.
The shallowness of your examination is why your arguments are so shallow.
You can find a thorough discussion of nullification in my signature reference. And I've provided link to a thorough discussion of what exactly Grand Juries are, and they are not summoned and directed at the behest of a District Attorney.
And if you imagine the Constituton to be nothing but symbolism, then you are the
pathetic symbol of a Conservative forum in name only. a loose collection of intellectual deficients that would need to borrow a quarter more brain to rise to halfwit status.
You're allegedly the leader of this place, allegedly a conservative, and you cannot muster even a coherent argument to save your ass, much less one referencing the Constitution and this nation's founding principles.
I challenge you to and pick any of those threads I've started over in the Constitution, and endeavor to actually argue with references (not to me) against my position. I'm quite certain you're utterly incapable of doing so, but here you're wanting to wrongly condemn me for falsely dictating a forum, which never happened, when you don't even have firepower to argue in your own!
You're not the "conservative base", you're not even any hint of being a Conservative! You mouthe conservative pablum, but nowhere do you have the foundation upon which conservative ideology is based, thus you reduce everything to empty opinion, rather than a founded argument. Unfortunately (for you) there are Conservatives that do know the country, and are founded in real principle.
The idea of "less government" doesn't make one a conservative, it makes one a pointless whiner without any plan and without any hope of achieving any goal! But the worst part is you cannot even wrap your mind around the fact why your approach is not only preordained to failure, but is certain to undermine the very Constitutional government which we all are guaranteed!
That shows your outlook to be more than just naive, and actually being a hazard.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 11:13:39 AM
The shallowness of your examination is why your arguments are so shallow.
You can find a thorough discussion of nullification in my signature reference. And I've provided link to a thorough discussion of what exactly Grand Juries are, and they are not summoned and directed at the behest of a District Attorney.
And if you imagine the Constituton to be nothing but symbolism, then you are the
pathetic symbol of a Conservative forum in name only. a loose collection of intellectual deficients that would need to borrow a quarter more brain to rise to halfwit status.
You're allegedly the leader of this place, allegedly a conservative, and you cannot muster even a coherent argument to save your ass, much less one referencing the Constitution and this nation's founding principles.
I challenge you to and pick any of those threads I've started over in the Constitution, and endeavor to actually argue with references (not to me) against my position. I'm quite certain you're utterly incapable of doing so, but here you're wanting to wrongly condemn me for falsely dictating a forum, which never happened, when you don't even have firepower to argue in your own!
You're not the "conservative base", you're not even any hint of being a Conservative! You mouthe conservative pablum, but nowhere do you have the foundation upon which conservative ideology is based, thus you reduce everything to empty opinion, rather than a founded argument. Unfortunately (for you) there are Conservatives that do know the country, and are founded in real principle.
The idea of "less government" doesn't make one a conservative, it makes one a pointless whiner without any plan and without any hope of achieving any goal! But the worst part is you cannot even wrap your mind around the fact why your approach is not only preordained to failure, but is certain to undermine the very Constitutional government which we all are guaranteed!
That shows your outlook to be more than just naive, and actually being a hazard.
Wrong!!!
This exposes your ignorance of human nature.
Right now, we have a movement underway, one that IS facilitating change, but you, for some strange reason seem to believe you have an army waiting in the wings for your beckon call, but have yet to show evidence of your claims.
Sure, I can claim that the next POTUS will be a solid Conservative, just because I say so, but don't ask me to provide proof, because just like you, I'd expose what a fool I am.
Trip, give it up, all you're managing to do is look even more foolish with your every post.
Just making claims as to how things should be as opposed to what is actually taking place is an is validating the very definition of insanity.
Let Shenanigans hold first place as forum fool, you don't want Trip to become synonymous with fool, now do you?
That would be a "Trip".
Looks like I missed all the fun!
Quote from: taxed on August 13, 2013, 11:27:08 AM
Looks like I missed all the fun!
It appears Trip is Sioux's younger brother...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 11:29:24 AM
It appears Trip is Sioux's younger brother...
I'm going to go through the thread later on today. Can you give me the punch line?
Quote from: taxed on August 13, 2013, 11:30:51 AM
I'm going to go through the thread later on today. Can you give me the punch line?
It's quite a "Trip". :biggrin:
Quote from: taxed on August 13, 2013, 11:30:51 AM
I'm going to go through the thread later on today. Can you give me the punch line?
Elections don't matter
Voters are irrelevant
Anyone that does not agree with Trip is a Socialist
Oh and apparently Solar drools...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 11:32:31 AM
Elections don't matter
Voters are irrelevant
Anyone that does not agree with Trip is a Socialist
Oh and apparently Solar drools...
:drool:
Quote from: taxed on August 13, 2013, 11:27:08 AM
Looks like I missed all the fun!
Only if you enjoy tail chasing games. :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 11:32:31 AM
Elections don't matter
Interesting.
QuoteVoters are irrelevant
Wow.
Quote
Anyone that does not agree with Trip is a Socialist
Oh and apparently Solar drools...
This will be interesting...
Quote from: taxed on August 13, 2013, 11:27:08 AM
Looks like I missed all the fun!
Your hour to be awake at the home, eh?
:wink:
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 13, 2013, 11:45:00 AM
Only if you enjoy tail chasing games. :laugh: :laugh:
Congress and Obama are mostly out of the news, so what ELSE we gonna talk about, hey?
Wait. You used two smileys.
That's obvious communist tendencies which I will point out in
totally spontaneous remarks containing both text indents and bullet-point symbols. Not that peppering your posts with features from this laughable software is necessarily a BAD thing, but hey --- two smileys, you're a Red. Just admit and agree with it, Comrade, you're busted because I said so.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 09:41:53 AM
Aw, you had to go ruin it dragging in THAT babbling loon. But you're right. Don't feed the trolls, and THIS close-minded know-it-all surely fits that same description.
"limps across the finish line...." OOOG!!!!!!
I am actually a decent poet, doing that for about 45 years.......is there a poetry forum lol ?
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 13, 2013, 12:32:35 PM
I am actually a decent poet, doing that for about 45 years.......is there a poetry forum lol ?
No, but I've got an image for every conservative of every flavor who ever got out of bed or off the porch and actually made something of their lives. I've had this since about 1960 and rendered it a few years ago as my first Internet image uplink.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages16.fotki.com%2Fv363%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F8259098%2FTHE_QUITTER-vi.png&hash=74eacc0135121e8375d0e64846f7c1c75dd72e88)
Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2013, 11:26:14 AM
Wrong!!!
This exposes your ignorance of human nature.
Right now, we have a movement underway, one that IS facilitating change, but you, for some strange reason seem to believe you have an army waiting in the wings for your beckon call, but have yet to show evidence of your claims.
"Facilitating change"? So you immediately regurgitate the Marxist buzzword "change", and you give up the high ground of that we're actually wanting is not "change", but rather "restoration" of legitimate government.
In one small paragraph you've reduced the argument from one of a grounded position in the Constitution, to a lesser battle allowing your enemy equal position based on populism, engaging that enemy entirely on their terms, on their ground!!!
Earlier "someone" mentioned
Sun Tzu's Art of War. What you're doing is entirely contrary to what Tzu indicates! What you've given us is "
Solar's Art of Defeat"!
And you say you actually grasp human nature? You're actually exhibiting an astonishing ignorance of human nature, while embedding the weakness of your own Constitutional disregard in the very argument and approach!
And AGAIN you make yet another strawman, when I' never mentioned an "army", or needing one!
In this movement that "we" have "underway", what exactly are its objectives, and what are its interim goals to meet those objectives?
If you mean the tea parties, their only interim plan, as I previously referenced, is to go "grassroots" and engage local action in elections. However, as I also previously pointed out, this itself is blind in actually reducing what we are
GUARANTEED by the Constitution to being subject to the election process, and populist will!
By that plan,
if we lose those elections, then we lost our rights and freedoms, and
if we win those elections, we have corrupted the intent of the election process, and reduced this country's form of government to being
derived from Democratic populist opinion. Ultimately what few constitutional provisions that
might have been recovered WILL ultimately be lost, even if only by being progressively degraded again, but at a far greater rate, due to the corruption of the purpose of elections!
That's not a plan!
That's a LOSE-LOSE scenario! Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2013, 11:26:14 AM
Sure, I can claim that the next POTUS will be a solid Conservative, just because I say so, but don't ask me to provide proof, because just like you, I'd expose what a fool I am.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to convey here; it's nothing but sloppy logic.
Are you trying to say that you can actually guarantee the next POTUS will be a solid conservative? Or just saying that you can make the claim, implying that I have made such a claim myself.
NO, I've never made any sort of claim about the
"next POTUS" being a Conservative. That's yet another strawman on your part. What I have said is that this battle has to be engaged on a solid foundation of this country's principles or it will be lost. You don't even start with a solid foundation, and then not only sacrifice those principles, but begin engaging your battle entirely on the enemy's terms, and by a means that they CHOOSE to battle, Populist opinion and corrupted application of elections, and ultimate defeat your end goal.
You speak of a
"solid Conservative" but I've yet to see even a hint from you that you know what that is, much less any willingness to consider the terms. You've made it more than clear that the term "Conservative", from your perspective, really does not involve the Constitution, and this is the sort of Corruption that has Republican idiots referring to Romney as if he were any sort of Conservative.
The point of ensuring the Constitution's application, is not to just get a "Conservative" in office, but rather to ensure that
EVERYONE in office adheres to the limits of the Constitution, not just Conservatives! You've engaged an argument just like Boo, which implicitly accepts that elections are to determine if the constitution is to be applied or not! That's not what elections are for, and it forever corrupts our government.
Also in the above passage, in referencing
POTUS, you're acting as if that's the most important position in the government, an
Imperial Office, when it's not. President is only intended to be a limited Administrative position, and not wielding dictatorial powers, with the source of power from legislation coming from Congress. There aren't supposed to be government agencies under the President's authority that have such a wide latitude in their powers that they can enact anything into law on their own, much less enact things into law that Congress itself has refused to enact into law!
By your response, you've already thrown out
Separation of Powers, and discarded yet another enormous piece of the Constitution that serves to protect our rights!
Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2013, 11:26:14 AM
Trip, give it up, all you're managing to do is look even more foolish with your every post.
Just making claims as to how things should be as opposed to what is actually taking place is an is validating the very definition of insanity.
Let Shenanigans hold first place as forum fool, you don't want Trip to become synonymous with fool, now do you?
That would be a "Trip".
Your UTTER AND COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the principles of our government, and disregard for the Constitution itself, does not constitute my "foolishness".
Not only is your approach naive and foolish, but it GUARANTEES the utter collapse of the Constitution and complete denial of our rights! Like the rest of the stuff that the Republican RINOs are doing, it only goes over the cliff not-quite-as-fast as the Progressive Marxists, but it ensures we go over that cliff, and by those Marxist's terms!
Everything you've written, above, is so seriously screwed up that it's mind-boggling, exhibiting a frame of mind having no real grasp of the Constitution and our form of governance.
The next time you bandy about the term RINO, you don't need to search far to apply it: just look in a damn mirror!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 11:29:24 AM
It appears Trip is Sioux's younger brother...
Your other sibling says your Mother birthed an idiot.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 01:17:33 PM
Your other sibling says your Mother birthed an idiot.
And straight to the family-member insults, like any other Internet troll caught peddling bulk-rate propaganda. Yup. Fits one more check-off on the advisory list. Try coming in to the right and spew crap, they'll take you really seriously, yessir......
Any time...Cupcake.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 11:32:31 AM
Oh and apparently Solar drools...
Yeah, but not so's Toy would notice.
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 01:23:14 PM
And straight to the family-member insults, like any other Internet troll caught peddling bulk-rate propaganda. Yup. Fits one more check-off on the advisory list. Try coming in to the right and spew crap, they'll take you really seriously, yessir......
Any time...Cupcake.
lol! Uh, that wasn't a "family member insult". That was a statement of your own intelligence, which you confirmed by indicating you thought it was a family member insult.
Caught peddling bulk-rate propaganda? What are you trying to say? Come on, son, spit it out!
And as far as "the right", it's pretty clear you wouldn't know it if you stepped in it.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 01:12:04 PM
"Facilitating change"? So you immediately regurgitate the Marxist buzzword "change", and you give up the high ground of that we're actually wanting is not "change", but rather "restoration" of legitimate government.
In one small paragraph you've reduced the argument from one of a grounded position in the Constitution, to a lesser battle allowing your enemy equal position based on populism, engaging that enemy entirely on their terms, on their ground!!!
Earlier "someone" mentioned Sun Tzu's Art of War. What you're doing is entirely contrary to what Tzu indicates! What you've given us is "Solar's Art of Defeat"!
And you say you actually grasp human nature? You're actually exhibiting an astonishing ignorance of human nature, while embedding the weakness of your own Constitutional disregard in the very argument and approach!
And AGAIN you make yet another strawman, when I' never mentioned an "army", or needing one!
In this movement that "we" have "underway", what exactly are its objectives, and what are its interim goals to meet those objectives?
If you mean the tea parties, their only interim plan, as I previously referenced, is to go "grassroots" and engage local action in elections. However, as I also previously pointed out, this itself is blind in actually reducing what we are GUARANTEED by the Constitution to being subject to the election process, and populist will!
By that plan, if we lose those elections, then we lost our rights and freedoms, and if we win those elections, we have corrupted the intent of the election process, and reduced this country's form of government to being derived from Democratic populist opinion. Ultimately what few constitutional provisions that might have been recovered WILL ultimately be lost, even if only by being progressively degraded again, but at a far greater rate, due to the corruption of the purpose of elections!
That's not a plan! That's a LOSE-LOSE scenario!
I'm not sure what point you're trying to convey here; it's nothing but sloppy logic.
Are you trying to say that you can actually guarantee the next POTUS will be a solid conservative? Or just saying that you can make the claim, implying that I have made such a claim myself.
NO, I've never made any sort of claim about the "next POTUS" being a Conservative. That's yet another strawman on your part. What I have said is that this battle has to be engaged on a solid foundation of this country's principles or it will be lost. You don't even start with a solid foundation, and then not only sacrifice those principles, but begin engaging your battle entirely on the enemy's terms, and by a means that they CHOOSE to battle, Populist opinion and corrupted application of elections, and ultimate defeat your end goal.
You speak of a "solid Conservative" but I've yet to see even a hint from you that you know what that is, much less any willingness to consider the terms. You've made it more than clear that the term "Conservative", from your perspective, really does not involve the Constitution, and this is the sort of Corruption that has Republican idiots referring to Romney as if he were any sort of Conservative.
The point of ensuring the Constitution's application, is not to just get a "Conservative" in office, but rather to ensure that EVERYONE in office adheres to the limits of the Constitution, not just Conservatives! You've engaged an argument just like Boo, which implicitly accepts that elections are to determine if the constitution is to be applied or not! That's not what elections are for, and it forever corrupts our government.
Also in the above passage, in referencing POTUS, you're acting as if that's the most important position in the government, an Imperial Office, when it's not. President is only intended to be a limited Administrative position, and not wielding dictatorial powers, with the source of power from legislation coming from Congress. There aren't supposed to be government agencies under the President's authority that have such a wide latitude in their powers that they can enact anything into law on their own, much less enact things into law that Congress itself has refused to enact to law!
By your response, you've already thrown out Separation of Powers, and discarded yet another enormous piece of the Constitution that serves to protect our rights!
Your UTTER AND COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the principles of our government, and disregard for the Constitution itself, does not constitute my "foolishness".
Not on is your approach naive and foolish, but it GUARANTEES the utter collapse of the Constitution and complete denial of our rights! Like the rest of the stuff that the Republican RINOs are doing, it only goes over the cliff not-quite-as-fast as the Progressive Marxists, but it ensures we go over that cliff, and by those Marxist's terms!
Everything you've written, above, is so seriously screwed up that it's mind-boggling, exhibiting a frame of mind having no real grasp of the Constitution and our form of governance.
The next time you bandy about the term RINO, you don't need to search far to apply it: just look in a damn mirror!
More liberal tactic, attack the message, all the while never having to provide proof their plan would work.
Lets cut the crap Trip, it's easy to claim a superior position, especially since it's built on nothing but the "Feelings" of some nut with a computer.
As I said earlier, I too make make grandiose claims and wishes as to how things should be, but wishes carry about as much credibility and usefulness as a fart.
Yes, that's all you're doing here, flatulating all over the forum and it's getting old.
This is the final time I'll ask, show me how you plan on instituting your plan, how many followers have you managed to convince this will work?
And bringing in Sun Tzu at this stage of the game constitutes war, and you yourself said you weren't advocating war, or are you now claiming otherwise?
Show show me something, or move along, your one man circle jerk is over.
Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2013, 01:40:12 PM
More liberal tactic, attack the message, all the while never having to provide proof their plan would work.
Lets cut the crap Trip, it's easy to claim a superior position, especially since it's built on nothing but the "Feelings" of some nut with a computer.
As I said earlier, I too make make grandiose claims and wishes as to how things should be, but wishes carry about as much credibility and usefulness as a fart.
Yes, that's all you're doing here, flatulating all over the forum and it's getting old.
This is the final time I'll ask, show me how you plan on instituting your plan, how many followers have you managed to convince this will work?
And bringing in Sun Tzu at this stage of the game constitutes war, and you yourself said you weren't advocating war, or are you now claiming otherwise?
Show show me something, or move along, your one man circle jerk is over.
Hahahaha! Awwwwgawd.. "liberal tactic" ... attacking the message. Too funny. I'm actually choking I'm laughing so hard.
You didn't even spend enough time reading that post to even seriously consider what it was indicating. Your immediate response shows this is more about your ego than it is about the country.
Naw, its easy to clam a secure and superior position, when it is founded on the thoughts and lengthy resolve in the cumulative views of the men that founded this country. This isn't about "me"; this is about this country's extremely well-designed principles.
Meanwhile you're just flying by the seat of your pants, and have elevated your own arrogance by believing your perspective might somehow be more wizened than the collective resolve of this country's own founders. And yet, as you've repeatedly made clear, you don't even grasp their own perspective, much less have a rational plan in yours.
And if you knew anything about Sun Tzu, you'd know that his perspective is about winning battles without engaging a war, and if war is necessary the war is won beforehand. He advocates knowing thine enemy, and thyself, but you turn thyself into thine enemy, and thereby ensure your own defeat.
I come with every one of this nation's founders that drafted the Constitution, whereas you're jerking everyone off with your own blind perspective, and calling it supreme wisdom, while you're repeatedly sacrificed the Constitution, and any future freedom we might have. .
Are we sure this clown isn't Sioux?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 02:24:07 PM
Are we sure this clown isn't Sioux?
This Sioux guy made you look silly every time you opened your mouth too?
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 02:25:52 PM
This Sioux guy made you look silly every time you opened your mouth too?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
He's the idiot that called everyone a Socialist if they didn't agree with him. Like you are doing here.
We're not impressed cupcake...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 02:30:42 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
He's the idiot that called everyone a Socialist if they didn't agree with him. Like you are doing here.
We're not impressed cupcake...
Naaw, I called you a socialist because you agree with THEM, and believe that elections are important, and that they determine our form of government, and if our "attempt to enforce the Constitution" is successful, not because you disagree with me.
You actually disagree with this nation's founders and the Constitution itself.
Feel free to resume fishing for navel lint anytime you like, cupcake.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 02:55:37 PM
Naaw, I called you a socialist because you agree with THEM, and believe that elections are important, and that they determine our form of government, and if our "attempt to enforce the Constitution" is successful, not because you disagree with me.
You actually disagree with this nation's founders and the Constitution itself.
Feel free to resume fishing for navel lint anytime you like, cupcake.
Why don't post what I actually said or are you just naturally a disingenuous asshole?
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 01:39:46 PM
Caught peddling bulk-rate propaganda? What are you trying to say? Come on, son, spit it out!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages24.fotki.com%2Fv864%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fellotoyoutoocupcake350x269x100-vi.png&hash=6a0bb998339dc048b526dd0eaa4789adcbd4b1f6)
I think it is fair to say Trip has reached troll status....
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 02:02:25 PM
Hahahaha! Awwwwgawd.. "liberal tactic" ... attacking the message. Too funny. I'm actually choking I'm laughing so hard.
You didn't even spend enough time reading that post to even seriously consider what it was indicating. Your immediate response shows this is more about your ego than it is about the country.
Naw, its easy to clam a secure and superior position, when it is founded on the thoughts and lengthy resolve in the cumulative views of the men that founded this country. This isn't about "me"; this is about this country's extremely well-designed principles.
Meanwhile you're just flying by the seat of your pants, and have elevated your own arrogance by believing your perspective might somehow be more wizened than the collective resolve of this country's own founders. And yet, as you've repeatedly made clear, you don't even grasp their own perspective, much less have a rational plan in yours.
And if you knew anything about Sun Tzu, you'd know that his perspective is about winning battles without engaging a war, and if war is necessary the war is won beforehand. He advocates knowing thine enemy, and thyself, but you turn thyself into thine enemy, and thereby ensure your own defeat.
I come with every one of this nation's founders that drafted the Constitution, whereas you're jerking everyone off with your own blind perspective, and calling it supreme wisdom, while you're repeatedly sacrificed the Constitution, and any future freedom we might have. .
You had your chance to build your case, and out of all the thousands of words you've strewn together, you have yet to prove you have the backing or even a handful of people.
This forum stands testament to the fact that I am making a difference, and what have you to show for your efforts?
I walk the walk, you on the other hand talk excrement and walk in, or rather fall back in it.
Comes down to "Put Up, Or STFU", I'm tired of your bloviating nonsense, you're proof that even idiots can use the Internet.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 02:58:28 PM
Why don't post what I actually said or are you just naturally a disingenuous asshole?
I have posted what you actually said, and repeatedly.
You indicated that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution".
When I pointed out that this is nowhere what elections are about, that the application of the Constitution is not determined by elections, and that what you've presented is entirely the position of the Socialist Democrats, you ignored it and repeated your fucking astonishing ignorance.
What's even more amazing is such ignorant assholes call themselves Conservatives.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 03:25:33 PM
I think it is fair to say Trip has reached troll status....
Oh, comrade, it's only because we can't HANDLE the truth!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages20.fotki.com%2Fv106%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fcaptain_magnifico-vi.png&hash=71a35eb4b169f6507493caa07d27b7a01ce4ca90)
Quote from: Solar on August 13, 2013, 03:31:58 PM
You had your chance to build your case, and out of all the thousands of words you've strewn together, you have yet to prove you have the backing or even a handful of people.
This forum stands testament to the fact that I am making a difference, and what have you to show for your efforts?
I walk the walk, you on the other hand talk excrement and walk in, or rather fall back in it.
Comes down to "Put Up, Or STFU", I'm tired of your bloviating nonsense, you're proof that even idiots can use the Internet.
I have had no case to prove. What I have said, reduced to its simplest terms, is that not standing results in the Constitution no longer being upheld. That's just a fundamental truth of logic.
You don't walk shit. You walk the talk, but you got no substance in your argument. Every single one of your responses has involved you making strawman claims that were nowhere a part of my argument, all for you to dishonestly validate the disregard for the Constitution.
Yet nowhere do you provide any plan how going from not applying the Constitution, to only asking for a bit more of it back, progressively, somehow serves to validate the Constitution, which you yourself originally indicated was the ideal goal!
The problem is that reality and human nature prohibit going from a partial restoration beck to any full restoration. The fact that you would have allowed a partial restoration itself validates whatever degree of application of the Constitution might exist, and dismisses the full application of the Constitution as the only form of legitimate government.
Yet the Constitution itself powerfully indicates that whenever the government exceeds that Constitution's boundaries, then it is no longer pursuant to the Constitution, no longer the law of the land, and no longer legitimate.
And you're breathing proof that idiots in the Republican party calling themselves Conservatives are every bit as much a threat to our freedoms as the Democrat Progressives. You just want to get to our demise slower, with only subjective "less government" and "less taxes", and only give ignorant lip-service to the Constitution.
Those of us who actually know what is going on call such persons RINOS.
I've no doubt that you can't even definitively answer what you're actually conserving as a Conservative.
You've already repeatedly failed to provide the specifics of your plan,
... repeatedly failed to state what should be asked to be restored first, and why that aspect might be more important than other aspects.
... And repeatedly failed to answer how long your plan needs to get to full restoration of the Constitution .....
What you DID indicate was that the complete restoration of the Constitution would be unreasonable as it would deny women the vote, deny blacks the vote, and involve going back 200 years, so it is a reasonable recognition that actually restoring the Constitution fully isn't really any goal of your plan at all.
Your 'plan' is nothing more than "Hoping for change".
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 04:41:29 PM
First off, enforcement of the Constitution cannot be done by political figures, certainly not one at a time.
Secondly, the implication of your statement is that if we do not elect the correct political figures, then not enforcing the constitution is somehow a legitimate outcome.
Third, it is a further implication that we operate by a populist vote, and that legitimacy of government might be determined by that vote.
The truth is that the applicability of the Constitution is nowhere involved in the voting process.
And the people are not to blame for what government does in disregard of the Constitution, but I believe they are to blame if they actually believe that what government might legitimately do is established by elections.
We repeatedly heard this from the Left, and Obama himself, in 2009 with the phrase "You lost, elections have consequences". Sure, elections have some consequences, but serving as license to violate the Constitution is not one of them.
Okay so we don't have any say in how or if the constitution is upheld and the people we elect have no power so elections are pointless. Elections are futile. No one has any say about the Constitution. The Constitution just
is.
Awesome cupcake. Awesome.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 03:42:18 PM
I have posted what you actually said, and repeatedly.
You indicated that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution".
When I pointed out that this is nowhere what elections are about, that the application of the Constitution is not determined by elections, and that what you've presented is entirely the position of the Socialist Democrats, you ignored it and repeated your fucking astonishing ignorance.
What's even more amazing is such ignorant assholes call themselves Conservatives.
Why haven't you written any legislation to right the wrongs?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 04:49:02 PM
Why haven't you written any legislation to right the wrongs?
I was going to respond the first time you wrote this brillaint comment, but I decided to let up on you. Evidently that was a mistake.
Nothing I indicated anywhere even remotely involves that a citizen might go into D.C. and write legislation.
I'm not sure why you think this is so important that you should bring it up once, much less a second time. It's a strawman argument.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 04:57:27 PM
I was going to respond the first time you wrote this brillaint comment, but I decided to let up on you. Evidently that was a mistake.
Nothing I indicated anywhere even remotely involves that a citizen might go into D.C. and write legislation.
I'm not sure why you think this is so important that you should bring up once, much less a second time. It's a strawman argument.
Why can't any citizen write legislation?
Quote from: The Fallen on August 13, 2013, 05:04:21 PM
If you want to propose a bill to Congress, you need to have the ear of your congressional representative or someone on the representative's staff. Only a member of Congress can propose a bill on the floor of Congress. After a bill is introduced, it has the possibility of becoming a law if it wins enough votes from members of Congress.
http://www.ehow.com/how_4841458_propose-bill-congress.html (http://www.ehow.com/how_4841458_propose-bill-congress.html)
Yes I know. That was my point.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 04:59:08 PM
Why can't any citizen write legislation?
Baaaaa............ they cannot write legislation and then expect Congress to vote on it. But really, we should not have any non-elected people writing legislation and then forcing it under Congress' nose to vote on, unread, but that's what we had with Climate Change, Health Care, Immigration, and many other bills as well.
Beyond that, writing legislation, or "a bill" is not the means to compel adherence to the Constitution any more so than it is a legitimate means to license disregard for the Constitution.
I've an idea. Instead of trying to make an implied argument by asking a series of questions, why don't you actually directly phrase the argument, comparison, or analogy, or whatever else you might be trying to do.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 05:08:19 PM
Baaaaa............ they cannot write legislation and then have the Congress expect them to vote on it. But really, we should not have any non-elected people writing legislation and then forcing it under Congress' nose to vote on, unread, but that's what we had with Climate Change, Health Care, Immigration, and many other bills as well.
Beyond that, writing legislation, or "a bill" is not the means to compel adherence to the Constitution any more so than it is a legitimate means to license disregard for the Constitution.
I've an idea. Instead of trying to make an implied argument by asking a series of questions, why don't you actually directly phrase the argument, comparison, or analogy, or whatever else you might be trying to do.
QuoteAll Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution)
Game
Set
Match
Thanks for playing...
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 04:00:52 PM
I have had no case to prove. What I have said, reduced to its simplest terms, is that not standing results in the Constitution no longer being upheld. That's just a fundamental truth of logic.
You don't walk shit. You walk the talk, but you got no substance in your argument. Every single one of your responses has involved you making strawman claims that were nowhere a part of my argument, all for you to dishonestly validate the disregard for the Constitution.
Yet nowhere do you provide any plan how going from not applying the Constitution, to only asking for a bit more of it back, progressively, somehow serves to validate the Constitution, which you yourself originally indicated was the ideal goal!
The problem is that reality and human nature prohibit going from a partial restoration beck to any full restoration. The fact that you would have allowed a partial restoration itself validates whatever degree of application of the Constitution might exist, and dismisses the full application of the Constitution as the only form of legitimate government.
Yet the Constitution itself powerfully indicates that whenever the government exceeds that Constitution's boundaries, then it is no longer pursuant to the Constitution, no longer the law of the land, and no longer legitimate.
And you're breathing proof that idiots in the Republican party calling themselves Conservatives are every bit as much a threat to our freedoms as the Democrat Progressives. You just want to get to our demise slower, with only subjective "less government" and "less taxes", and only give ignorant lip-service to the Constitution.
Those of us who actually know what is going on call such persons RINOS.
I've no doubt that you can't even definitively answer what you're actually conserving as a Conservative.
You've already repeatedly failed to provide the specifics of your plan,
... repeatedly failed to state what should be asked to be restored first, and why that aspect might be more important than other aspects.
... And repeatedly failed to answer how long your plan needs to get to full restoration of the Constitution .....
What you DID indicate was that the complete restoration of the Constitution would be unreasonable as it would deny women the vote, deny blacks the vote, and involve going back 200 years, so it is a reasonable recognition that actually restoring the Constitution fully isn't really any goal of your plan at all.
Your 'plan' is nothing more than "Hoping for change".
Anyone have a flyswatter handy?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 05:14:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution)
Game
Set
Match
Thanks for playing...
Naaw, that's more than a little squirrely
You make up something has nothing to do with my argument, and somehow you imagine that you scored a point?
You're living in your own private Idaho, arencha?
Another day in town all day. Another day of coming home and reading 2 hrs. of (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb368%2FNeil_McCall%2FSmileys%2Fbth_bullshit.gif&hash=6da5787a4ddcf6620cffcc9b9eb73b994dfcfae0) I would lock this but I know I would be wasting my time. (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1101.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg439%2Fexatera%2Fsmileys%2Fcrazy%2Fbth_smiley_notnormal.gif&hash=2e50183764078c33539463c0e26be132e97a0475) But that's just my way of thinking.
Quote from: walkstall on August 13, 2013, 08:28:23 PM
Another day in town all day. Another day of coming home and reading 2 hrs. of (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1202.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb368%2FNeil_McCall%2FSmileys%2Fbth_bullshit.gif&hash=6da5787a4ddcf6620cffcc9b9eb73b994dfcfae0) I would lock this but I know I would be wasting my time. (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1101.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg439%2Fexatera%2Fsmileys%2Fcrazy%2Fbth_smiley_notnormal.gif&hash=2e50183764078c33539463c0e26be132e97a0475) But that's just my way of thinking.
I put an end to it. I'm done with this idiot. I think Solar is to. He can continue to argue with himself. The rest of us will move on...