Useful Reminder
A pal of ours sent this via email. A bit late for today, but…
YMMV, and I dunno if it’s appropriate for here?
Just struck me that this might be the kind of thing our Founding Fathers would have done had they the technology?
Category: Politics
Crunchie, in #284, he doesn’t do any debate. It’s all, answer my question, STFU, or variations on that.
But, I do like how he tried to turn his own ignorance around back up in #274. He tries to make it appear that he >i>knew this,”UpNorth, by being impeached. Read more. Jesus Christ…”. It’d be funny, if he wasn’t the poster child for public education.
Here’s a bit of help for you, Sam, Irony, def. “Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone.” Study up now, and get a second opinion from Kos before you respond.
Sam, you see two assholes? Looking in the mirror again?
When have I ever said STFU, UpNorth? Are you even reading this thread?
And that’s not what irony is you dolt. Irony is an outcome from a situation that is other than what would normally be expected.
“It’s ironic that you would say that I’ve said ‘STFU’ when I’ve said no such thing, in fact I’ve encouraged you to respond by asking you questions which you refuse to answer.” Irony can be used in sarcasm, but it isn’t synonymous with sarcasm, no satire.
Jesus Christ, how many of you passed the ASVAB on the first go?
crunchie Says: July 6th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Dear Sweet Mother of God, do you READ what’s written at all. I said; “Citizens are pledging to be subjects. Don’t you see the peril in that?”
I could give a rats ass if they pledged in a commercial, if hey were celebrities or hobos, or if the commercial was “half-witted” or a fucking Cecil B. DeMille masterpiece, CITIZENS WILLINGLY PLEDGED TO BLINDLY SERVE A PRESIDENT! They declared themselves subjects of a ruler, they are willingly submitting themselves to slavery. If you can’t see the danger in that then you won’t see the danger if their line of thought follows to it’s logical conclusion of tyranny.
==========
The celebrity commercials aren’t even the worst part of citizens pledging to serve a President. Check out any one of tens of videos showing public school teachers all across the nation over the past 3 years indoctrinating their grammar school students with Obama-worshiping rhetoric and propaganda.
And the contrast between liberals/Democrats and conservatives/GOP is always striking. Conservatives/GOP-voters can almost always be heard chanting things like ‘USA! USA!’ or singing the national anthem or God Bless America or saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Meanwhile, since 2008, liberals/Democrat-voters have been doing nothing but chanting “Oh-bah-ma! Oh-bah-ma!” Clearly, a large segment of American citizens are pledging to be subjects of a man/politician/President, instead of a citizen of a nation.
Anyone who does not see that is terribly naive at best, deliberately ignorant at worst.
Passed mine first time around, with a very high score. My question is, did your parents have any kids that lived? Seriously Sam, people are answering your questions, and you are just completely ignoring their answers with your canned responses. The video lays out the premise that we have a duty to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. It also states, quite clearly, that a recourse to the use of violence to protect against that tyrannical government is only something to be used when all other methods have failed. That is what the others on this thread have been trying to say, and what you are ignoring.
Amen, 211! Sam is nothing but a pot stirring dipshit…
Jesus Christ, how many of you passed the ASVAB on the first go?
99 AFQT in my one and only time. Also cut a 70 on the NFQT. Top 15 percent of NNPS class (54/474, after starting with 630). Next?
Yeah, no, they’re not. Nice try though.
“Jesus Christ, how many of you passed the ASVAB on the first go?”
I did and was told by my recruiter that I scored high enough to qualify for any MOS in the military. How many times did you have to take it, Sam?
Sam says “Old Trooper,
Ask questions related to the discussion. I’m not going to go off on wild goose chases and tangents with you.”
Ok; here’s the questions I asked that you ignore, yet they are related to the discussion.
“What is being discussed is not the process, but rather whether the process has been corrupted and ursurped to the point where it is no longer effective. What is being discussed is; at what point is the process no longer valid?”
and
““when is enough enough”? What mechanism is in place to enable the people to stand up to a government that isn’t playing by the same rules?”
Answer the fucking questions or shut your pie hole.
CAT I,
Must have still been taking CAT IV’s when you joined Sam…
Wow, blazed right through 300 and didn’t even slow down.
“The celebrity commercials aren’t even the worst part of citizens pledging to serve a President. Check out any one of tens of videos showing public school teachers all across the nation over the past 3 years indoctrinating their grammar school students with Obama-worshiping rhetoric and propaganda.”
Excellent point Mike. My daughters are in elementary school and I found the celeb oath video while researching some stuff on Obama’s indoctrination speech that was gonna be broadcast to the schools.
Sammy boy, since you are so concerned with our ASVAB scores, I passed mine the first time also, but so long ago I can’t remember the scores. Do remember that my recruiter said I could have any MOS I wanted and offered 7G’s as a bonus (That was 86, 7G’s was a lot of money back then.) When I told him I wanted infantry, just like I had since I was 6, because everything else was just support, he smiled and said “Semper Fi”. Quid pro quo, how many times did you have to take it?
Back on topic, Old Trooper summed up the gist of it real well in 309. What say you Sam, how about you try answering the questions for a change?
Sam boy, your reading comprehension is as abysmal as your knowledge of government. Which part of “or variations on that” didn’t you understand?
And, passed mine first time around, and was offered any MOS I wanted.
And, he won’t answer OT, Sammie has no answers. Only demands to answer his questions.
So, Sambogus says we aren’t defined by any name as a government when someone calls it a republic instead of a democracy, then refers to it as a republic himself. He says he was neutral on Bush, then says he supported him. He’s averted questions with callow quips and admonitions in nearly every response, etc.
Remind me again how this has made it to 300+ when he’s obviously supposed to have been monitored by the staff at Glendale School for the Ungifted…
“read more, comment less”=STFU….
#276 (Sam): “And most importantly of all, are your concerns for whether or not the federal government is acting extraconstitutionally (which isn’t necessarily to say unconstitionally, it refers to acting in situations which the Constition does not explicitly condone or ban), are those concerns real?”
The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So, if something is extra-constitutional, it is unconstitutional. Period. End of story. If the Constitution is silent on a matter, it is outside federal jurisdiction. No gray area there, if you ask me…
Sam I Am’s been UA for 35 hours now. Guess he don’t like being the one to answer questions for a change.
“Thanks fer playin’ Sammy. Don Pardo, tell him what he’s won.”
“Not a damn thing Bob.”
““when is enough enough”? What mechanism is in place to enable the people to stand up to a government that isn’t playing by the same rules?”
You haven’t properly established that there is even any significant contribution to “enough”, you’ve completely overshot my questions pertinent to that which where in essence “What is happening that is unconstitutional?”
No one has been able to provide a justification on those grounds that would come anywhere near justifying an armed revolt.
The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
If you take a strict constructionist approach to the Constitution, which only one single member of Congress does, then yes. But hardly anyone takes that point of view, not even the founders. They did extra-constitutional things all the time because even then the prevailing view was that the Constitution states things that the government absolutely must do, and absolutely must not do. The rest of it is left “to the people” or “to the states”, which most people interpret as accessible through their representatives.
Sam I Am’s been UA for 35 hours now. Guess he don’t like being the one to answer questions for a change.
Nope, just busy. You still didn’t answer my questions. Please do that.
And Miss Ladybug, “read more, comment less”=STFU….
It says what it says. NHSparky, OldTrooper, and UpNorth will revisit questions that have been answered, often by claiming I haven’t answered them. If someone is too flustered to be bothered with reading the thread I’m not going to re-state something only so they can re-ignore it and re-ask it, which they do anyway.
Claiming, proving, whatever. Nice to see you can’t stay away. Last words and all that.
Onward and upward. I say we pimp this bitch out to 500 posts by Sunday. I’d read the thread over but I’d rather do something slightly less painful than see you say 200 times, “answer my questions,” or, “you’re all redneck racists.”
Seriously, Sam, your lack of knowledge of the Constitution and the history of same (as well as abuses of same) is as profound as your blathering.
If you take a strict constructionist approach to the Constitution, which only one single member of Congress does, then yes.
Gee, lemme take a wild fucking shot in the dark as to who you think that might be, Scooter. Please tell me you don’t actually believe that as well.
Sam in #318: You’re skirting the question. What mechanism is in place for us people to throw off a government that doesn’t play by the same set of rules? I have offered up examples, to answer your question, yet you continue to ignore them, like a good lefty would, and instead, go after me as though I’m advocating armed resistance right now, which I have stated over and over that I am not. I am asking questions framed for the discussion, not advocacy one way or the other. So please stop with your fascination with the video itself and answer what I asked.
Face it, OT–you’ll nail down Jello before Sam-I-Am gives anyone a straight answer.
OldTrooper, if you aren’t advocating armed resistance right now, then I’m not in conflict with you. You are mistaking my criticism of the armed conflict response with criticism of any sort of critical action.
What do you mean by “the same set of rules”? That needs clarification. You haven’t articulated that what is going on is not by the rules that have always existed.
And he evades yet another query.
Dude, you’re sinking fast, Sambo.
What inquiry did I evade? I asked for clarification on exactly what OT means because without that the question is too general for me to answer meaningfully.
If I’m to describe what I think is a personal response to people “not playing by the same set of rules” it is necessary to know what he thinks that statement means, specifically.
Your reading comprehension really does blow, and I’m beginning to think that mayhap you’ve acquired access to someone’s interwebs without their knowledge.
Scroll back up a few, sugar, then read both OT’s and Sparky’s responses to you. If you’re still unclear after that, bless your little pea-pickin’ heart, I’m afraid you’ll never get it without electro-stimulation and/or a pocket translator.
For some reason I don’t think you would have typed so much while saying so little if you actually had a valid point. Yawn, personal attacks.
Would you prefer to be the pot or the kettle?
We, the people, following the rules of the Constitution of these United States; The government? Not so much…
I’d prefer you to offer substantive input. Either of you.
Miss Ladybug, we’ve already covered the whole “the government is acting unconstitutionally” thing. Turns out, nobody can justify that statement with specific instances of unconstitutional behavior that don’t boil down to grievous ignorance of how government operates. Shocking, I know.
You offer up nothing but an accusatory tone, an unwillingness to substantiate your own points, and a superfluity of puerile posits, and you accuse others of being invalid?
Just making generic statements like “please read my posts before you start bitching about them” doesn’t appear to work so I have to ask specific questions.
What point have I made that was not substantiated?
Wait, wait, I wonder if I can predict the next comment based on past patterns here:
Someone (probably NHSparky) will come back in and tell me that I’m not the boss of them, or I don’t control the debate, so I can’t make such wild demands as “please be specific about what you think is wrong” ‘cuz I ain’t your momma, or something.
Here’s hoping I’m wrong and someone will actually reply with a relevant and sequitur response.
Obamacare & the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
The federal government ignoring bankruptcy law WRT the auto maker bailouts, screwing bond holders and shareholders in favor of the unions, IMO, was clearly illegal.
Obama’s “non-war” military action against Libya violates the War Powers Act.
The Obama administration bypassing Congress, making law by Executive Order or creating regulations contrary to what Congress has legislated (the EPA is a good example of that).
I’m sure if I gave it more thought, I could come up with more, but it’s late and I have things to do tomorrow.
No, Obamacare and an individual mandate are not unconstitutional. If you have insurance you get a tax credit for having insurance. If you do not, you don’t get that tax credit. Realistically it’s a fine, but it’s not unconstitutional. Growth of government, yes. But not unconstitutional.
How was the auto bailout package unconstitutional? It certainly screwed bondholders, and favored unions, but that doesn’t make it illegal.
The war in Libya was against the WPA, but Congress didn’t actually call the President on it, which they have to do. And now they’ve authorized the operation, so it is now officially in our nest of sanctioned conflicts despite the fact that we aren’t actually doing anything there anymore.
What specific EOs are you concerned with? And specifically what in the EPA are you concerned with? Are you talking about the President changing emissions standards? He has the power to do that. The President can order more stringent regulation than what Congress authorizes. The EPA, like most government agencies, fall under the executive’s direct authority, and it is the executive’s job to regulate by definition.
Now let’s loop this back to the original issue. Suppose any of these things are unconstitutional. Does that justify shooting other Americans? Does it justify calling for violent revolution, or making not-so-subtle hints that one is necessary or imminent? The original point of this whole thing was that there is waaaaaay too much emphasis and bluster on this notion of shooting politicians, judges, and anyone else who happens to stand in the way, but hardly any talk of using political process to resolve the situation.
well sam You’re not the boss of anyone. But coming on a Milblog to plug the Obama line isn’t going to win you points. Regulations are a great way to make laws without actually ya know making laws. When you want something done but congress is being pesky you can simply throw in a regulation say on how much money people can spend on something. the unintended consequence is that the price of pretty much everything connected to that sky rockets. However since these regulations are usually lost in the mountain of bureaucratic gobiltygook.
As for actually shooting people Sam, no its not to that point. not even close. But I would invite you to read the Declaration of Independence.
to quote “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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”
it goes on to say that you shouldn’t do this on a whim, but when the abuses continue unheeded, then it is pretty much the DUTY of the common man to do something about it.
we have allowed liberal experiments and thoughts to dominate since the 60’s and aside from a brief stint in the 80’s our society has slowly but surely started to decay and fall apart. as they say Sam: the road to hell is paved with good intentions
well sam You’re not the boss of anyone.
Goddamn, I’m a psychic. What the hell is with you people and this whole “you’re not the boss of me” thing?
[…] the Fourth of July I did a post that has thus far engendered over 300 comments. I claim no credit for the video, mind you, but I […]
Sam in #324: What I’m saying with the “same set of rules” comment is we have a government that breaches the Constitution by forcing us to pay for a service (Obamacare), that breaks the law whenever they see fit without worrying about repercussions (Operation Gunrunner), then the AG lies to congress under oath, which would get anyone else tossed in the jug, about the same operation. We, also, have the AG and the DOJ forcing banks to make loans available to those that don’t qualify to pay them back, by threatening discrimination lawsuits (using the power of the federal government to keep getting us into more financial trouble by doing the same things that started it all). Having the DOJ ignore a blatant act of voter intimidation by not prosecuting members of the NBPP that were armed outside a polling place in Philly. If that were anyone else, and I do mean anyone else, they would still be in the slammer and the media would still be talking about it. The administration ignores the War Powers Act and does whatever they want in Libya. Just think if Bush had done that. Bush had congressional approval for Iraq and we still hear about it being “illegal”.
This administration does whatever it wants without worrying about repercussions and that makes them very dangerous and makes them seem more like a dictatorship. That’s why I ask; what mechanism is in place for the people?
comment #340 is me.
It’s not hard to envision an assclown like you accusing the constitutional convention in Philadelphia of “nutbaggery”.
You just don’t get it.
@Sam
It’s not hard to envision an assclown like you accusing the constitutional convention in Philadelphia of “nutbaggery”.
You just don’t get it.
Media Matters does pay by the post count, this thread is proof of that.
OT, two others to add to your list. The pres saying that the DoJ will not defend DOMA, because the community organizer has deemed that law to be unconstitutional. Even though no court of competent jurisdiction has made that determination. Or how about instituting the DREAM Act, by Executive Order, even though that act never passed a vote on the hill?
Acts of omission, and commission, right Sambo?
@ #338: Sam, you’ve clearly never heard of being a Smart ass. You know why this is such a big deal to Mil-blogers? not because we’re ultra conservative, its because most of us put our asses on the line to “support and defend the constitution against ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC and to bare true Faith and Allegiance to the same”
The Oath of Enlistment is the same for everyone. You’re putting your life in the hands of a Government that you hope and pray isn’t going to spend that life cheaply, and if you actually READ the constitution, they shouldn’t be able to. More than that when your buddies get waxed, you get pretty passionate to make sure they didn’t die for nothing.
It is love, love of country, mores specifically that stirs such great passions in Milblogers. Not hatred or being childish as you seem to think.
I will say this, because it needs to be said. Sam, early on, you stated that “Your recourse is in the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd.”
Um, just curious, why in the HELL do you think that the 2nd Amendment was added? In case you didn’t know, it was so that the citizens of the country could revolt against the government, physically, if it ever became out of control. It wasn’t so we could go hunting, or sport shooting, it was designed, specifically, for protection from enemies, foreign and domestic. Governments always go to taking weapons when they become tyrannies, look at history. British took swords from the Scottish, Romans took weapons from the conquered, British TRIED to take the weapons from Americans. Our founders knew this, had seen it 1st hand, and made sure that the 2nd guaranteed right was to defend yourself, if needed, from oppressive governments. Right now, can you as an American citizen, go out and buy an M-247 SAW? Can you purchase a tank, or artillery, or a .50 caliber machine gun? The government has been eroding your right as an American to defend yourself from the government, for a purpose. It’s about control, like all tyrannies. Wake up. We pray for peace, but people can only be pushed so far.
Of course obama was elected (there is some issue about his eligibility but we’ll leave that alone). Because he was elected doesn’t mean we have to accept where his policies are taking us. As for violence you might remember some quotes from our President within the last two years: ** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun!” ** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!” ** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” ** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard!” ** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“ ** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat!” ** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.” ** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish our enemies.” ** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.” obama hasn’t a clue about what he’s doing. He spent 2 years blaming the republicans for being the “party of no” when he, pelosi and reid had total and complete control of literally everything that happened in Washington. It was so clear that he wanted the stimulus and obamacare to be bipartisan so he and the dems wouldn’t have to suffer because he knew they were rushed through without anyone having a clue what they were all about. obama proved he didn’t read the stimulus when he made the comment this month about owners of private jets not needing a tax break when the idiot signed the stimulus bill that gave private jet purchasers a tax break to help the plane manufacturers. He recently said that 80% of Americans welcome tax increases. What planet is this idiot from??? He is living in a dream world. Who did he poll? Was it the people he has surrounded himself with? They live in D.C., the only area in the country that hasn’t been hit by high unemployment and a tanking housing market. The man hasn’t got a clue, nor does he care what the people… Read more »
Game, set, and match, sir. I’m pissed that BOTH parties do this kind of shit, but with Obama and his ilk it’s like pissing on the Constitution with a fire hose.