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
Obviously not, Crunchie, he only attacks the messenger. That quite telling in it’s own right. And hardly surprising. Not worthy of response.
“Or an “OTA talking point”? Have you not taken civics”? Well, I think if we wander back up this thread, it’s quite obvious who took civics, or American Government and American History. That would be the folks that know we live in a representative republic, not a democracy, and how federal judges are removed from office.
And, it’s OFA, “Organizing for America”, not OTA, whatever that stands for.
Ronpaul is not a conservative. Never has been, so I don’t know where you came up with that. And, I can find nothing to show that Rand Paul wants to “abolish” Social Security. Unless you accept that the wing nuts at Puff Ho’s and Du and Kos can read minds and that’s what they just know Rand Paul wants to do.
Oh dear. I come back and this Sam doofus is still going, forty-eight hours later. It cannot be an ordinary troll. We’ve drawn a king-troll. I suspect it may even be located within the bowels of the palace. So I exorcise this troll “Go back to your master, the King of Clubs, and waste our time no more.”
Ok, let’s handle this in small chunks. How is Barack Obama subverting, or attempting to subvert, the Constitution?
And no, I don’t see peril in celebrities making half-witted commercials. We’re over two years on from the election, I don’t see Demi Moore goose-stepping down the Washington Mall.
UpNorth… El…Oh…El. You don’t think Ron Paul is a conservative, or wants to abolish Social Security? You are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind the curve. Bow out of the conversation. Just Google “Ron Paul Social Security”, then click the very first result.
In fact, UpNorth, click ANY result. It’s one of Ron Paul’s very well-established platform positions that he wants to abolish all forms of the welfare state.
Rurik, and so are you. What’s your point? Debate can last a long time. If you don’t like it, leeeeave.
Edit: RAND Paul, you are correct, does not want to abolish SS. He wants to raise the retirement age and decrease benefits. RON Paul, however, does. And yes, a libertarian (which Paul is) is a conservative.
“And no, I don’t see peril in celebrities making half-witted commercials.”
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.
“We’re over two years on from the election, I don’t see Demi Moore goose-stepping down the Washington Mall.”
Actually don’t see much of her at all, do we? Thank God for small favors.
“Rurik, and so are you. What’s your point? Debate can last a long time.”
Debate yes, and it can be quite stimulating. Blathering idiocy from an illiterate however, not so much.
They aren’t actually pledging to be subjects. It’s a handful of celebrities and maybe a nutjob or two around the country who are overzealous about the president. It doesn’t imply that the entirety of the country is going to follow in lockstep. We’re over two years on, what is there to show for it?
Here’s an example of the same kind of silliness from the other side of the aisle, a clip from the documentary Jesus Camp: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg
That’s bizarre. People are weird. It happens all over the place. It doesn’t signal an impending christo-fascist state.
Also, where are your examples of the administration’s Constitutional misdeeds?
For those of you arguing with Sam, you may as well argue with a wall. You cannot use logic and reason to penetrate the mind of an Obamabot (or as Mark Levin so accurately calls them; “drones”). Stop feeding the troll, ignore his obtuseness and move on. Put your efforts into trying to convince those who are willing to see, not those with blinders on who spout the same old statist rhetoric over and over…
eyeroll Here we go with the Obamabot shit.
Could you please point out any liberal positions I’ve taken in this conversation. Deal with the opponent you have, not the opponent you’d like to have.
Wait, I think I found one. Don’t threaten to shoot your fellow countrymen over politics and conspiracy theories. You found me, clearly a nefarious excerpt quoted directly from Das Kapital.
I won’t even bother trying to explain that our republic was never a democracy to begin with, because obviously Sam I Am is in way over his head on that one.
But if you want to talk about democratically elected leaders having a carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want, Sammy, then I’d like to point out to you that Adolf Hitler was, very much so, democratically elected and appointed chancellor by the very democratic rules of Germany.
Which, according to Sam, obviously means that the Holocaust and World War II were democratic outcomes of a democratic process and, therefore, anybody in opposition to it should just “get over it” and quit babbling extremist nonsense against such things.
You would have made a very model Good German, Sammy, seeing as how nothing is ever wrong as long as it’s done by “the rules”, even if it means the murderous massacre of millions of people.
You’re also a very perfect reason why hemp rope and military tribunals were invented.
Oh, a Hitler reference. How… expected.
A democracy isn’t just shorthand for direct Athenian democracy. There are a lot of different types of democracies that are just shorthanded as “democracy”, you’re not impressing me by trying to be pedantic about what is clearly a general reference.
Reference: http://goo.gl/gsebG
And yes, the death threat isn’t lost on me. Hemp rope and military tribunals… classy addition to a thread where people are trying to convince me that they aren’t threatening political violence. Good job.
“And yes, the death threat isn’t lost on me. Hemp rope and military tribunals… classy addition to a thread where people are trying to convince me that they aren’t threatening political violence. Good job.”
No, I’m the one who’s not threatening political violence. And Misha isn’t threatening political violence either. Now, personal violence, he revels in that shit. 🙂 (Don’t get yer panties in a wad Sammy, Misha is famous for creative and over the top hyperbole. He’s a master at it.)
Interesting. Seeing as how we’re all service members, and at least two of us 03’s, let’s can the Nazi talk and lynching references.
I’m still interested to hear in what ways you believe that Barack Obama is infringing on the Constitution.
Things I might grant you:
1) The war in Libya. But there is precedence for undeclared and indeed extra-legal warfare. The fight against the Barbary Pirates and the Quasi-War come to mind, both of which were waged in a time when the original crew was still in power.
2) Any restrictions on gun ownership. Barack Obama has been relatively unconcerned with guns, but in general I see any restriction of firearms you can carry and make your own ammunition for in a garage as unreasonable.
LOL, what the hell is this?
http://nicedoggie.net/?p=1847
You guys had to call in reinforcements? For little ol’ me?
And here I thought this was all grass-roots.
Sammy, boy, we can babble about semantics all you want, as a matter of fact I already knew that you were going to go down that road rather than address the salient point in what I said.
I can only assume that this means that you are, in matter of fact, of the opinion that any government, any government at all, is perfectly justified in any actions it takes as long as they “go by the books” which, also in matter of fact, is exactly what the NSDAP and Hitler did in Germany.
Also, you’re of the opinion that any of those actions, as long as they’re “by the book” as determined by you, are not only permissible, to oppose them is positively terroristic and insane.
Don’t despair. Most Germans seemingly agreed with you. Of course, it came at the price of tens of millions of dead but, hey, they did it “by the book” so it’s all OK.
Blast those extremist, violent, unreasonable maniacs of the White Rose for even trying to stop the insanity. They really needed to just get over it.
They did, by the way, most of them, get over it. When they were executed. You must be happy about that.
While we’re on that subject, you might want to finish your “democratic” pilgrimage to shit on von Stauffenberg’s grave, that insane extremist.
Finally, snookums, I’m not threatening you with anything. If I really, truly wanted to hurt you, you’d be the first and last person to know. I wouldn’t be naff enough to let you know beforehand.
Sweet dreams.
Give it your best shot, shitbag.
Sam, you’ve well achieved your goal I’d say. You’ve inspired those of us who have read the Constitution, who’ve studied history, to make our points in the forum, and to speak our minds. Again, we do NOT want violent revolution. But be aware, it is an option to be taken only as the last resort. You ask about the violations of law and the Constitution? I’ve written of many, and Crunchie, and Malkin, the list is profuse, but you won’t hear of them in the state owned propaganda media. Libya, for one. I hope beyond hope that the legal system will prevail. That the ballot box will prevail. But I will say that those who believe that the current state of affairs are within Constitutional bounds, or that it doesn’t matter so long as “they” get my paycheck (old piece of paper or not), these are not my countrymen. I’ll suffice at that.
cmblake6, link?
Ooooooo, how…tasteful a comment. Please, let’s be grown-ups.
Note the different color of the name? Click name.
A guy makes internet tough guy death posturing comments… and I’m the one at fault for calling him out on it.
Riiiiiight.
You want me to read through your entire blog? No thanks, just link me to the appropriate post.
“You guys had to call in reinforcements? For little ol’ me?
LMAO. Nah, not reinforcements as much as viewers. Like I said, the peeps here at TAH did a pretty good job tearing you up. But since we tend to go through our chew toys at the Rott pretty quickly I guess the pups decided to join in the fun. You should come on over to our kennel and play some time, it’ll be a hoot. 🙂
Please, PLEEEEASE point to someone tearing me up.
Yep, back in #93, I said: “I suppose that when I next log on, Ol’ Trollin’ down the River, Sam will have driven the comments to well past the Century mark without making whatever point it is that he is trying to make.”
And that folks, makes me a prophet, metaphorically speaking, of course, as Sam still has not brought even one of us over to his side, and damned sure has not made his point. Shall we shoot for 200 comments, boys n girls?
And I’m still waiting with this here bullseye on my head Misha. C’mon, just a sim round.
Southern Class, I predict that you will speak again in this thread. Abra cadabra…
Also, I’m still waiting on examples of Barack Obama’s infringements of the Constitution. C’mon gents, you’ve got to have something for me.
Sorry, Sammy, libertarian does not equal conservative. And it took you long enough to realize that Ronpaul doesn’t equal Rand Paul.
As for your plaintive cry in #112, of show me the misdeeds, is it your contention that the President decides what is constitutional? See D.O.M.A. You really did fail government class back in high school, didn’t you?
I’ve never defended Ronpaul, and I know he’d love to do away with SS. Your point?
And, nice job with the “shitbag” comment, it’s what we expect when the talking points don’t get refreshed fast enough.
libertarian does not equal conservative
On what planet do you reside?
And what aspect of DOMA is unconstitutional?
And again… someone implies a threat of death… and I call them out for it… but I’m the bad guy. Are you collecting VA benefits for TBI? If not, you need to look into it.
Hey Sam, you want an example of constitutional misdeeds?
How about directing the EPA to unilaterally set carbon emmision standards, thus bypassing Congress which opposes Obama’s energy reform bill?
Obama’s executive order signed in Dec 09 that allows INTERPOL to operate in U.S. Territory with impunity without oversight from Congress, the courts, the FBI, state or local law enforcement?
Implementing a third oil-drilling moratorium after the first two were thrown out of court, creating a de facto Gulf Coast drilling ban in opposition to TWO judge’s rulings?
Ya need more?
Violation of the Logan Act? As a Senator for a start. I’ve written a number. Best option is to just go down the right sidebar and click “Miserable communist pos”.
“I’m still interested to hear in what ways you believe that Barack Obama is infringing on the Constitution.” I’ll give you one small individual instance. Article 1 Section 6 states “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” Hilary Clinton, during her term as a Senator voted on increasing the pay of the SecState, a position which she now holds. Minor quibble I’ll grant you, but not a single peep was heard, and either we honor the Constitution and all it’s clauses, or we honor none of it. There are others, plenty of them, Obamacare being one huge example of a completely unconstitutional piece of legislation, but to be honest it’s late and I’m bone ass tired. Not a cop out, just the simple truth. In closing for now I’ll just say that in a broad sense the progressives are pushing a statist agenda that expands the role of the federal government way beyond it’s constitutional limits, into a totalitarian oligarchy more akin to a monarchy than a republic. It’s the basis of their entire ideology, and it is in direct and irreconcilable opposition to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It’s the slow incrementalism that is eroding the very fundamental founding philosophy of our nation. And that is the reason for the “call to arms” to resist it, by all means we have at our disposal. Before you scream that I’m inciting violence, let me refer you back up the thread to where I said that the cartridge box is the last resort, but a resort it is. One that I honestly pray never has to be used, but one that should never be discarded. The sticking point is at what point has that line been crossed. What ever it is, I… Read more »
Or “Constitutional”. There’s another good one.
“Shall we shoot for 200 comments, boys n girls?”
Hell, why not 300 Southern Class? Why aim so low? 🙂
AYE! Crunchie. Again, I don’t WANT to get bloodied up, but it’s not my first rodeo. Please don’t make me do it again.
ORWN, the EPA is in charge of regulation, which is the job of the executive branch. That isn’t unconstitutional. Something you disagree with, maybe, but the EPA is a legal entity, charged with producing and enforcing environmental regulation.
INTERPOL has been allowed to operate in the United States since the Reagan administration allowed them in with EO 12425, in accordance with the International Organizations Immunity Act of 1945. Barack Obama didn’t “let them in”, he modified Reagan’s executive order. http://goo.gl/No3du
The Interior Department placed a moratorium on new wells in water deeper than 500 feet during the Deepwater Horizon well leak for the reason that there were no available resources to deal with another well leak should one occur. The court case they lost did not say “moratoriums are inapplicable, period”, they said that the case the administration presented could not be used as a pretext for prohibiting new wells from being drilled. The administration then re-filed the moratorium after the court case with new reasons based on more robust information about the situation in the gulf, and the court has not once again overturned those reasons. It’s not as simple as the right-wing blogosphere portrays it.
Yes, I need more.
Crunchie, the only specific thing you mentioned there was the Hillary Clinton voted for legislation raising the pay rate of the Secretary of State. I’m not even going to bother researching that, I’ll just go ahead and grant it to you for the sake of argument.
In the grand scheme of things, why is that so much of a grave infringement to launch you into a guns, blood, n’ rage flag flag flag patriotic fervor? It’s a legislator hoping she can massage the system and get by on a technicality, it isn’t FEMA camps and “civilian armies”. That kind of shit has happened since the founding.
FFS, George Bush (who I am likewise neutral on) set up actual extra-legal prison systems overseas (which the current president is also continuing to run, I acknowledge). Isn’t that a much bigger deal to you than Hillary Clinton signing a roughly $5000/year raise for the Sec. of State?
Again, for the sake of argument (and bed time) I’ll just grant you that that the case is completely as you tell it. That’s something you handle in court, not at the ramparts.
And why isn’t it enough just to say that you disagree with progressives? You didn’t articulate any particular reasons why progressive goals are unconstitutional, you just generally red-washed them as unconstitutional and moved along.
Why does this have to be promoted to a life and death, “potential end of the Republic” issue? Just about every other developed nation in the world manages their healthcare system as a public good, they haven’t imploded into fascist states.
Disagree with it, but shit the mere mention of it isn’t akin to summoning the apocalypse.
Sam, I’m still waiting on you to answer the best question in this thread.
Finrod @33 “But, when Sam do you stand up and say enough? When would you take up arms against your gov’t? I’m really very curious, would you only do it if you were directly affected or is there some situation that would so inflame you to take the low path?”
That is the question. Where is the breaking point where armed resistance becomes the only option?
Nobody here has once called for open war in the streets, in fact they’ve lamented that it may one day come to that. For you to keep beating the drum of “rightwing nuts calling for violence” is one of two things…… You are either a moron with no ability to understand what you read, or leftist troll trying to bait folks into saying something.
Slightly, I can imagine a myriad of imaginary reasons why it might become necessary to take up arms, none of them are immediately reasonable to expect. I’m not even going to coddle that fantasy. It’s like asking me to speculate on when it might be appropriate to shoot my own mother. Why would I even speculate on that if it’s not even remotely a plausible possibility? For morbid shits and giggles? To titillate someone else’s blood lust?
You live in the United States of American in 2011, even at a relative low point we’re still doing a damn sight better than most of the world. This is just a repeat of the same old bullshit we saw during the Clinton years, and I’m not going to entertain it.
The same shit goes on under a different mammal when the Republicans take power. The radical left wingers started shitting their pants and calling for war crimes tribunals every time George Bush swatted a fly. “We’ll, when WOULD you bring up the President for war crimes?” I won’t even dignify such delusions with a response. It’s a ridiculous premise.
And if you don’t think that wingnuts here have called for directly or strongly hinted that it might be time to start shooting people over politics, you need to read the thread more carefully.
American = America, fucking poison oak on my fingers.