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
i have to just point out that if i need to take up arms to protect myself from the government, it is no longer my government, and, since the government derives its powers from the JUST consent of the governed, at that point it is the government that is illegal, not i.
seems like someone involved in this little dust up needs to try reading the Declaration of Independence for content.
Ahh, “Wingnuts”. Yep, leftist troll. I have to give you props, you managed to stay away from the Koskids code words longer than most.
“Wingnut” is a Kos term? I’m pretty sure that’s a generic term. Yep, just checked Websters. It was added circa 1900. Where do you place the line of departure from “reasonable political enthusiast” to “wingnut”? Surely there are people in the world that you think are too far to the right.
Sam spews “This is a civil democratic republic. “
Wrong.
Try Again.
Fail.
America is a Constitutional Republic.
LC Lobo, there is no singular title for what the U.S. is. A democracy, a republic, a democratic republic, a constitutional democracy, a constitutional republic, a republican democracy, a representative democracy, a legislative democracy, etc.
Sam I Am sez: “And no, political violence has never, ever been acceptable.”
Since the USA was founded through a bloody war that lasted for years, apparently it’s illegitimate.
American = America, fucking poison oak on my fingers.
Here’s hoping you jerk off a lot.
Oh, and there’s plenty of liberal tenets of libertarianism, hence the expression, “LIBERALtarians.” Drugs for one. Other so-called “victimless” crimes such as prostitution, etc. Head on over to Keene and see the Free State Project douchenozzles in action and you’ll know they’re anything BUT conservative. Libertarian yes, conservative, not so much. Try reading up on some Judge Learned Hand for a little insight on that score.
So when are you going to address my Jefferson quote from upthread? Or should I refer you to this one from Sam Adams:
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
Or better yet, another one from Jefferson:
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Perhaps you’d care to discuss de Tocqueville?
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
You really do dissemble, don’t you, Sammie? I mentioned DOMA, and the president’s actions in refusing to defend it, as he finds it unconstitutional. I thought that was the job of SCOTUS.
And, no matter how much you wish it to be so, libertarian doesn’t equal conservative.
And you do seem determined to prove that your high school was correct in retroactively changing your Government grade to F. The United States is not a democracy,not matter how much squat over, grunt and groan, you can’t make it so, just by wishing, or saying it. Try, try again.
As for your use of “wingnut” how’s this definition sit with you, troll boy? “The term is intended to refer to an irrational individual obsessed with forcing their ideology upon the world. The term is used most often by individuals on the left of the political spectrum to describe their opposition on the right.
In practice, use of this term supports the need by those on the left to rely on name-calling and taunts. This serves as a distraction and avoids the need to defend deeply-held beliefs with actual facts or other objectively-verifiable conditions.”
While your comment on the EPA is techincally true, the President does not have the authority to bypass the the congress, He presented the Energy bill which set the new emmision limits, it did not pass, but he has an un-elected gov. agency implement it any way, sorry but that is not Executive power, that is a DICTATE, as in dictator.
UpNorth in #158: You’re right, democracy is a tool and we live in a democrat Repulic, no matter how Sam wants to change the name. It’s funny how leftists like to change things and ignore those things that don’t fit their world view. He can call it whatever he wants, but in reality, the US is a democratic republic and has been for 235 years. Just as this administration does things based on their belief that what they are doing is legal, like ignoring the War Powers Act, because they say it doesn’t apply to Libya. Their reasoning is that we aren’t engaged in hostilities there, so they aren’t required to abide by it. Same as you talked about with DOMA. This administration doesn’t feel it’s Constitutional, so this President won’t do his job (as if he ever has) and defend it. They are acting like little dictators, that’s for sure, but the real problem is that the republicans don’t have the backbone to stand up to him and say enough. It is, instead, left ot us to do.
Indeed, OT, so true.
I wonder how much OFA is paying troll boy, can’t be a lot….
He better hope he gets paid by the post, as opposed to paid by the talking point, cause he keeps going round and round on the same one over and over.
ORWN, that’s called regulation. The legislative branch empowers the executive to regulate certain aspects of our society. The EPA is empowered with regulatory authority over environmental issues. See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation
When you guys come ton a conclusion amongst yourselves as to what singular description of our system is applicable, let me know.
They still have to operate within the law, if the President and Congress come to terms and says you are allowed to emit X lbs of pollution, the EPA cannot, willy-nilly just say to hell what the elected officials say, we are gonna make the limit Z. The president also does not have that authority to bypass congress and say, emmission standards have to go up..whatever.
The Pres had his chance to put forward a bill saying he wanted Z to be the limit, it failed in the legislative process, so no matter how much you wanna try and spin it, (and I will type this slow so you can understand)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DICTATE ANYTHING
Hey guys/gals/trolls:
Has anyone noticed that this post is about a really coool, very patriotic video?
FO #165: Noticed that did ya? I tried a reminder a while ago.
[shrug] Trolls will be trolls.
After reading through the entire thread it seems to me that the real crux of the problem is Sammy doesn’t fweel comfortable being reminded of his oath and the implications. Sam also isn’t “comfortable” with the reminder that one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment was to provide us with protection from and the ability to rebel against a rouge govt. Not only is political violence thinkable, its potential is codified. Sam will probably try to argue the founders intent on this issue, but he really seems a bit “disconnected”.
Sam, were you engaging freedom fighters or anti-govt terrorists in Iraq?
Troy–probably neither.
Yeah, FrOp, it started there. And in its insistence of Patriotism it riled the globalists. *SIGH*
TT @ 167. Hey dude! Took you long enough.
No edit to add to existing posts, oh well. ORWN @ 164 made the perfect point.
This is starting to remind me of the old, classic Monty Python skit about the “Argument Clinic”.
Early in the thread it tried to assert, indirectly, it was a veteran of Iraq and Afghan, though without giving details, Now, more recently it tries to imply that he is Field Grade. One of our “Perfumed Princes”? A real officer or EM would not have time for this protracted chatter. Or is it an unempolyed Obamatron, who has picked up chatter from wargaming sites? Is this just its kinetic blogging? You can develop a morbid fascination watching this.
UpNorth, is it possible this idiot is not a guy, but that Sam might be Samantha Power? And BTW, where did his VTWoody Sock Puppet wander off to?
“Collective Will of the People” hasn’t got fuck-all to do with the Constitution. The Constitution sets limits on Government, and the “Collective Will of the People” can’t change that without a Constitutional amendment.
Funny that Sam I Am advocates for the legality of things and ignores that specific point, that if it ain’t in the Constitution the USG hasn’t got the right to do it, “Collective Will of the People” or not.
I read somewhere that only 3% of the populace supported war with Great Britain. So much for the “Collective Will of the People”.
“Or is it an unempolyed Obamatron, who has picked up chatter from wargaming sites? “. My thought, from the beginning, no way anyone, E-1 to O-7, has the free time that Sammie spends here.
Maybe it is Samantha, but I doubt it, not hateful enough, yet. But, it is still, relatively, early in the thread. Maybe the hate will start to spill out. The latest laugher is “When you guys come to a conclusion amongst yourselves as to what singular description of our system is applicable, let me know.” (S)He throws 8 definitions of the country we live in, then says that we have to come to a conclusion as to what the description the US is? OFA didn’t get their money’s worth with this one.
Sammy doesn’t fweel comfortable being reminded of his oath and the implications.
No Troy, that is not the case. I feel comfortable with the implications of my oath, I just don’t go parading them around at every opportunity like Barney Fife and his sidearm. I find no value, and in fact I find a deleterious effect, in the idea of constantly “reminding” everyone that it exists, and that I have the power to use it. It reduces a very sacred oath to a level of frivolity, and taxes your personal credibility.
Take my own Glock, for example. I own one. Hypothetically I could use this Glock in a lot of ways. I could stand on the lawn in front of my house with it prominently displayed on my belt to let the world know that I’m well prepared to defend myself.
Similarly, every time there is any potential for Constitutional conflict, I could bandy about the ultimate prescription for tyranny. But like my Glock, I don’t do that. I have respect for the profound nature of such a device.
I have a bag full of tools to handle problems, be they political or personal. I don’t hang pictures with my Glock. I don’t threaten my neighbor with high velocity lead poisoning every time I want him to turn his music down. I don’t imply that Hillary Clinton voting in the Senate for a routine GS pay scale increase, then taking the Secretary of State position is reason to start considering whether or not it’s time to get ready for a revolution.
I use the appropriate tools for the appropriate job. And I leave my Glock where it belongs, and treat it with the respect that it deserves. I have more respect for one of the most sacred aspects of my oath than to go indiscriminately invoking it at every turn.
UpNorth, you really, really need to read more and comment less.
ORWN, what has the EPA done that is contrary to legislation?
“And I leave my Glock where it belongs, and treat it with the respect that it deserves.”
And where might that be? Why do you have one in the first place? It seems to me you have no use for such a tool as that, at least by the impression that you give us. Another part of the impression I get from you is the standard “intellectually superior” attitude. Most leftists like to parade that one out, especially on issues of guns or violence.
Why do you continue to ignore the examples of real world violence perpetrated by the left? You threw out the “right wing nutjob” meme (which is SOP in the leftist playbook) without actual evidence, yet I brought to the table examples and you have continued to ignore them without discussion; why?
Did you really take the oath? If you did, then please specify which part of it is “most sacred” to you?
Old Trooper, stick with the subject matter at hand.
Why do I own a Glock? Because I believe that Americans should maintain a tradition of firearm ownership and preserve familiarity with its use and ethics. It is vital to the long-term survival of the Republic. Our country is only 235 years old. In that timeframe we’ve had one civil war, several invasions by foreign aggressors, and countless incidents of civil unrest, personal assault, and property invasion.
There is an infinite number of potential years for the nation’s possible existence. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is essential to empowering future generations to resist in the way past generations have.
Translation, Sam never served.
What’s the matter Sparky, run out of substance?
Oh, I missed Old Trooper’s last question. Yes, I took the oath. I enlisted in October, 2001. The most sacred aspect of the oath is clearly the support and defense of the Constitution.
Perhaps the best support for reminders of the type in the original video comes from Thomas Jefferson himself: “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
It seems pretty clear to me which side each commentator on this thread falls.
So what say you, Sam-I-Am, regarding the Obama administration’s demands that states reinstate funding to Planned Parenthood or else lose state Medicare/Medicaid funding? Is that ruling by law or by tyranny?
Or in 2009, when they told the state of California, when making $70 million in cuts to a bloated state program (that just happened to serve the needs of SEIU members) that if the cuts weren’t reinstated, California would have lost several BILLION in “stimulus funds”?
And let’s not even go into the stimulus, let alone the mandate that we MUST buy medical insurance, as has been now decreed.
Shall I keep going with GM and Chrysler as well, or should we save that one for after post 200?
NHSparky, I’m not going to follow your red herrings because they’re not germane to the point at hand.
Assuming that those things are true, which I’m pretty sure they are not because I can’t find any sources supporting your medicare/planned parenthood assertion, is the appropriate response to start twirling around your Glock on the front yard?
Whazza matter Sam, not getting enough talking points from OFA? And as to the assertion you served, I say served, because it’s not likely you moved far up the chain-of-command in your time in uniform.
Just a casual observation.
Answer the question.
Oh the fuck they aren’t germane, Sam. It’s a plethora of examples such as these which are completely fucking germane to the point, that of the overreaching and fuck-the-Constitution attitude of BOTH major parties, but more so the liberals.
Please, tell me where I’m wrong.
Seriously? Is your Google-Fu that fucking weak? Well here, little boy, let me help you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/us/25indiana.html
Anything else, scooter?
No, they are not germane to the point of whether or not the appropriate response is to immediately begin saber rattling about revolutions and “watering the tree of liberty” (killing people).
Answer the question. Are you going to be Barney Fife, scratching your nose with the front sight of your sidearm at the slightest provocation? Or are you going to be a civil, responsible member of the citizenry by showing some restraint and respect for the myriad other tools in your bag for dealing with this problem?
The Federal Government did not threaten to with hold Medicare funding from the State of Indiana. They threatened to withold medicAID subsidies. MedicAID programs are state-run, the Federal Government merely chips in.
And yes, they can do that. That is ruling by law. What do you think tyranny is?
Nice picture you try to paint there, scooter. Are you still butt-hurt that you realized about three days into boot camp that you’d likely never rise above PFC?
And the Obama administration has overstepped their authority many, many times. So much so that even Chief Justice Roberts has signaled that Obama is going to have a very rough go of it when his policies reach the SCOTUS.
http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7581
We have other examples such as ICE enforcing the DREAM act even though it is not law, more healthcare mandates, punishing “fat cats” (remember his attack on those who use private aircraft?) and so on.
But don’t just take my word for it…
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/06/nation/la-na-obama-staff-strategy-20101007
Remember, this is the guy who his supporters said, “Ready to rule on Day One.” Really? RULE?
You STILL don’t see a problem with that?
Oh, I’m sorry–I also forgot about DHS threatening Texas with making them a “no-fly” zone if the Texas legislature passed a law against intrusive searches/patdowns.
Sorry I missed that one earlier.
Again, not germane? I say it’s MORE than fucking germane.
Your turn, Private.
Stop being a douche bag, you don’t know anything about my service record. It seems that you’re desperate to put out red herrings to prevent from answering my question, which you still haven’t done.
It’s granted that in our system people will overstep their boundaries. There are many, many tools in our bag to deal with that. So why is it defensible to so flagrantly and irreverently invoke the idea of revolution?
Also, have you considered that perhaps one of the reasons why it is so prevalent for liberals to push the limits of constitutionality is because you are virtually incompetent at exercising any other form of resistance other than to sit on your stoop, biterly stroking a shotgun you will never actually fire in anger?
I think I’m getting to ya there, Private. No, people should expect to get their dicks stomped on when they overstep their boundaries. However, government has become so large and invasive they no longer fear the people. Doesn’t that bother you in the slightest?
I’ve more than answered your questions. I’ve given you many, many examples of how your hero Obumbles has overstepped his authority, and done so with such impunity with the cover (or shall we say lack of coverage) from his sycophants in the media that even his own party can’t effectively cover for it any longer.
No, dear boy, liberals don’t “push the limits of constitutionality.” They piss on it and dare anyone to call them on it. Again, nobody here has ever, to my knowledge, called up and said let’s start a Second Civil War over this. I would, however, opine that last November was a very resounding NO to the Obama/liberal agenda, and Obama better get used to being a one-termer in the mold of Carter.
I’d ask if you remember Carter, but I’m pretty sure you don’t. I will go so far as to say that at this point, Obama is giving Carter a run for his money as one of the worst presidents ever.
No, you’re not getting to me. You’re boring me because you won’t answer the question. You’re avoiding it.
In that post you speculated on my rank, you bitched about the media, you whined about liberals, you miscounted your hatched chickens (Republicans won the house, but lost the Senate) and blathered about Jimmy Carter.
Answer the question. Please.
If I’m so boring, Private, why are you still here? So why don’t you state the question in 400 words or less or GTFO?
[sigh]
…is the appropriate response to start twirling around your Glock on the front yard?
…
Are you going to be Barney Fife, scratching your nose with the front sight of your sidearm at the slightest provocation? Or are you going to be a civil, responsible member of the citizenry by showing some restraint and respect for the myriad other tools in your bag for dealing with this problem?
…
It’s granted that in our system people will overstep their boundaries. There are many, many tools in our bag to deal with that. So why is it defensible to so flagrantly and irreverently invoke the idea of revolution?
Up North @ 24:
And if you don’t like the representative that you democratically elected, then replace him or her through another democratic election.
Good grief, y’all seem to miss what it is Sam is saying — and apparently on purpose. You skip around the obvious point and refuse to give any kind of ground no matter how silly you look trying to hold on to it.
The fact of the matter is this: either you accept what the Constitution allows for, or you don’t. If the Constitution has brought us to a place where YOU don’t agree with, then use the Constitutional remedies to take you to the place you want to be — and that is through the election process.
Elect people who will do what you want them to do. If there aren’t enough of you to do that, then work harder to convince more people. The government isn’t some separate monolithic entity that you have to deal with, it is a government made up of YOU and ME and the rest of us. WE are that government, and through our representatives we control that government.
Sam is trying to tell you that the Second Amendment isn’t the vehicle you use to make changes. While a lot of you wink and tell us that this isn’t your intent, you use the insinuation that the option is ready and waiting for you.
I don’t know if Sam is an Obama supporter or not. Don’t care. I voted for the man, but might not next time around. It isn’t the point.