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?

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




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!

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!

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.