Useful Reminder

| July 4, 2011

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

348 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sam

I would caveat that by saying:

1) My point on “what kind of government do we have” is that there are myriad ways to describe it. Others here have been divided amongst themselves. It is generally acceptable to shorhand it as democratic, but you can call it a constitutional republic, a democratic republic, a representative democracy, et.al

I know that this thread is a little long now to realistically expect anyone to read every post, but I addressed that issue specifically. By the CIA World Factbook we are a “Federal Constitutional Republic with a strong democratic tradition”. By Stanford’s political science department we are a representative democracy. There is no singular definition that anyone seems to hold.

2) The 2nd Amendment IS in our toolbox, but it is at the bottom and it is to be venerated, not simply flopped out at the slightest provocation like titties at Mardi Gras.

I think that’s what you meant though. We are definitely no where near an appropriate time to start invoking “2nd Amendment remedies”.

Old Trooper

Sam in #197 says “No, you’re not getting to me. You’re boring me because you won’t answer the question. You’re avoiding it.”

That’s what I’ve been trying to get you to do, also, but you keep avoiding it. Answer my questions.

Sam

Old Trooper,
Ask questions related to the discussion. I’m not going to go off on wild goose chases and tangents with you.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

>I know that this thread is a little long now to realistically expect anyone to read every post, but I addressed that issue specifically. By the CIA World Factbook we are a “Federal Constitutional Republic with a strong democratic tradition”. By Stanford’s political science department we are a representative democracy. There is no singular definition that anyone seems to hold.<

And neither of them written by one of the architects of the document. The Federalist 10, written by James Madison, explaining why they chose a republic as our form of government.

Since you don't seem to be very proficient with search engines, I'll even get you a handy-dandy link:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp

LC Lobo

Sam sez, “I enlisted in October, 2001. ” Folks this here is a prime example of the Bill and Hillary Clintoon education system.That explains the odd rebuttal, that list of all the things liberals call America.

Spockgirl

I would say that I am about as neutral as Switzerland, but I am not sure if that means the same thing as it used to. Speaking of tangents… Sam #203… You opened the door… #2. I take it that you have been reading at this site for at least a short while in which case you knew what you were starting, what you were getting into and how it would end.

streetsweeper

Sam? You still trying to use $10.00 logic & $2.00 words that wouldn’t buy you a cup of coffee in any self-respecting flophouse?

Sam

Blackiswhite, read more. Comment less. You missed the point.

Sam

Spockgirl, I’m not concerned with how they respond. I’m just not obligated to follow.

Sam

streetsweeper, my $10 logic and $2 words are worth a lot in your relatively bankrupt intellectual economies.

LC Lobo, read more. Comment less.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

>Blackiswhite, read more. Comment less. You missed the point.<

Sam, been reading the thread all day. On this issue, the only point to miss is the one on top of your head.

You were wrong. You doubled down when it was brought to your attention, and now you dissemble.

Thanks for playing.

Sam

Ok, I’ll elaborate.

Madison is talking about whether we should choose a Republic or a Democracy. He is specifying that he wants a Legislative body to be elected, not an Athenian-style pure democracy. He specifically mentions “pure democracy” in his paper because he knows, as do most people, that a republic is not exclusive to democracy and a democracy is not exclusive to a republican model.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Thanks for playing.

Sam

Here, Blackiswhite, look at the varying types of republics so you can understand that there is a difference between simply saying that we’re a “republic” and specifying what type of republic we are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#Types

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

No, he was explaining why the Constitution centered on a republican form of government, rather than a “democracy”…an important point, as the purpose for writing the papers was to “sell” the public on the idea of ratifying the document.

But by all means…please, continue with your condescension. I find it so delightfully entertaining.

Sam

As far as condescension, I’m only playing the game you started. What’s the matter? Feelings hurt?

We are a specific type of republic. Our legislators are voted for by the population so as to be representative. They are not appointed by an Ayatollah (Islamic Republic of Iran), they are not appointed by an official party organization (Peoples’ Republic of China). They are democratically elected.

Madison was discussing the importance of establishing a legislative body as opposed to a pure democracy.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

Wow. Wikipedia.

And to think that instead I spent all the time and effort reading all of those books, and original papers and writings, when wikipedia was all that I needed.

Sam

Sure sure, alllll those books. *pat pat* Run along now.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

Yeah, all of those books. Locke. Montesque. Bastiat. Blacksrone. Jay, Madison, and Hamiliton. Paine. All those law books. Williston. Prosser. 8 years. 3 degrees. And Wikipedia is The authority.

Sure, sparky. Sure.

Color me convinced. You obviously have all the answers. How foolish I was to consult the author, rather than Wiki.

Sam

I don’t think the existence of republics that are non-democratic is a matter of contention merely because it is also on wikipedia. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is not a figment of Jimmy Wales’ imagination.

You’re wrong. Pull your pants up, wipe your tears, move along.

0311 crunchie

BiW, bet ya could’ve gotten yer law degree from Wiki too. How many years did ya waste in law school, when wiki was all you needed?

0311 crunchie

Sam sez;

“2) The 2nd Amendment IS in our toolbox, but it is at the bottom and it is to be venerated, not simply flopped out at the slightest provocation like titties at Mardi Gras.

I think that’s what you meant though. We are definitely no where near an appropriate time to start invoking “2nd Amendment remedies”.”

Sort of what myself and everyone else on this thread have been beating you over the head with Sam. Thanks for playing.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

3 for the J.D., and another one for the LL.M., crunch. But it was obviously a waste of time…because we’re a democracy, don’t you know…so says Sam I Am, who couldn’t find a clue if it was nailed to the back of his hand.

No worries, though. He’s proven himself to be the kind of person I don’t want at my back when the time comes.

————————————-

>You’re wrong. Pull your pants up, wipe your tears, move along.<

Keep dreaming, cupcake.

Sam

Now you’re just resorting to arguments from authority.

Your law degree doesn’t make the United Soviet Socialist Republics any less republican.

I don’t begrudge you your defensiveness, though. I would be embarrassed as well if I had a JD and didn’t know that. Especially after how stridently you put yourself out there. Hope it doesn’t leave a mark.

Sam

Sort of what myself and everyone else on this thread have been beating you over the head with Sam. Thanks for playing.

Right… except you’re flopping it out like titties at Mardi Gras, and you think that the time to take up arms against the government. And all of the other information in the recap that post was intended to supplement.

Thanks for playing.

Sam

Should read “…and you think that the time to take up arms against the government is near.

0311 crunchie

“except you’re flopping it out like titties at Mardi Gras, and you think that the time to take up arms against the government (is near). ”

No, I’m afraid it may be coming, but I don’t think it is time yet. That’s the key sticking point is at what point IS it time. To quote the Declaration “…a long train…” and all that. You’re the one jumping the gun and allowing your hypersensitivity to make you see blood running in the streets and dead judges and politicians piled like cord wood.

As to flopping titties out like at Mardi Gras, don’t see nuthin’ wrong with that every now and again, just as a reminder that they’re there. Grabbing a heaping hand full is another thing entirely. BTW, I hope you meant a hotties titties and not mine. Mine don’t flop and the idea of you thinking of them like that is… well, disturbing to say the least.

TerribleTroy

Sammy Sez…

“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”
———————————————————–
Parading around at every opportunity? Constantly reminding? You find ONE video to be “constantly” & “parading”? How does one video qualify as constant?

You don’t even have a logical basis for your faux indignation. Your agenda is obvious. You don’t want to debate, you came here looking for a excuse to denigrate. It’s obvious in the tone of your writing (from the get go), in your condescending manner and the terms that you use. You wanna walk in here and portray yourself as the enlightened moderate that seeks to keep a lid on “teh cwazy talk”, only problem being there was no “constant”, “parading” crazy talk, that was just a front for your real objective which is to create conflict and denigrate.

Oh and still waiting for your answer re: freedom fighters or anti-govt terrorists? Which one did you engage while in Iraq?

Sam

And I think that the notion you entertain that it may be coming is absurd. We are incredibly stable. The only possible infringements you could cite to me were at best minor transgressions based on technicalities, and others in the thread didn’t muster much else.

I think people confuse anger at politics they disagree with, and fear of politics that will destroy the foundations of the nation. And I think that echo chambers increase that sense of paranoia and the end result is a shattered, conspiratorial conservative electorate that is alienating the next generation, minorities, and me.

Spending so much rhetorical effort stewing in these fears instead of coming up with good policy positions is leaving republicans lacking. Republican representatives right now suck balls. There are people on the hill right now that are goddamn morons, and the only reason they are there is because of this mortally paranoid climate that would rather have an obstructionist in power than a strategist.

It’s a climate of fear, and I think it’s paralyzing conservative politics and alienating the smart set.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

You overestimate your abilities as well as your intellect. How very entertaining. Perhaps you have more in your bag? Maybe another lecture on removal of federal judges? More on how an executive agency has carte blanche to promulgate regulations on subjects that Congress has refused to delegate to them? No? Well, then by all means, how about more on how harmless it is to have celebrities, no matter how brainless they might be, publically pledging themselves to serve a President. I know, I know. Its all harmless to you, because there are methods of redress under the Constitution. And I’m sure you say the exact same thing whenever the left circumvents the methods set forth in the Constituion, and subverts the legislature, and the amendment process by getting sympathetic jurists to “find” the necessary law in penumbras and eminations, amirite? And I’m sure that there is adequate redress when a President and his administration overide bankruptcy laws in order to screw over secured creditors in favor of the unions that caused the collapse of GM to begin with? And a sitting president, in a stunning display of audacity and mendaciousness, uses the State of the Union to criticize a co-equal branch of government for its decision, in a forum in which they have no opportunity to respond, and tells two glaring lies in the process about it. Or the administration, fed up with a vocal group of knowledgable citizens calling bullshit on the great healthcare takeover, decides to encourage Americans to snitch on fellow citizens who “tell lies about the health care law”. Or perhaps you could tell us about the Kabuki Security Theatre, by which the TSA gets to feel up little boys, and dying Grannies who shit their drawers, while waiving through 20-something foreigners with expired bording passes issued to people with completely different names? I could go on, but of course, you are never wrong, and have completely comprehended the entire picture of what is going on, and have concluded that all the remedies before the last are still adequate to the task, thus making any conversation… Read more »

Sam

Troy, maybe if you read the thread you would know. Do a word search for “Mahdi”.

Sam

Blackiswhite, blah blah blah. Stay on topic.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

*yawn*

Are you still here, cupcake?

Sam

and have concluded that all the remedies before the last are still adequate to the task, thus making any conversation on the subject some dangerous and violent “wingnut” fantasy.

See what I mean, 03. Blackiswhite no longer has faith in three of the boxes. Why is that? Are we actually on the brink of the apocalypse? Or is this paranoia?

Sam

I have a feeling we’ll be here for a while, Blackiswhite. Occasionally when I gain traction with 03 it’s an enjoyable conversation. Either grab a chair and take your blood pressure medicine, or move along. It’s one thread on the entire internet, I think it’ll be OK.

LC Lobo

Sam spews, “LC Lobo, read more. Comment less.” Spoken like a true libtard.
As for me I am done. I can no longer deal with giving idiots the truth and being told to shut up. I know that it seems like I am giving up, I’m not. I have more important things to do than try to educate someone who thinks wiki is the absolute, final word.
And ya’ll are right. I wouldn’t want sammy at my back. His type would shoot you to save themselves.

0311 crunchie

“Troy, maybe if you read the thread you would know.”
And if you read Troy’s comment you would know he want’s YOUR definition.

“politics that will destroy the foundations of the nation.” Isn’t that what “fundamentally change our country” means? Fundamentals are the foundations. Dear Leader himself said it. We were just paying attention to what he meant, while the fiddytwoers swallowed the bullshit.

NHSparky

People, don’t bother with this self-important little noob. As soon as you destroy one point, he’ll just run off and find another one, or try to convince you that somehow HE runs the conversation and the tone of the discourse on this website.

I know I don’t, dickcheese. I’m just a poster here, but I will say that my views are a lot closer to the site owner’s than to yours. At least the right–hateful and quick to pull the trigger as you claim–can stand a little debate. I’m guessing your buddies at DU, Kos, Huffpo, et al, aren’t so eager to join in the white hot sunlight of reasoned discourse, as evidenced by their all too quick ostracism of anyone who dares to challenge the hive mentality.

So again, what is it about the Founding Fathers and their willingness to, as a last resort, use violence to defend the Constitution and the republic they created FOR THE SAKE OF THE PEOPLE, or as more often the case, change the republic should it become too tyrannical? Frogs in pot, shit like that. If you think people aren’t pissed off, you’re sadly mistaken.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

I said I didn’t have faith in the other three boxes? Really?

I pointed out some areas where what redress might exist is not going to be adequate, and that there is discussion about option four.

As long as there is still a discussion, people like you can keep your sphincters unpuckered. Its when there is no more discussion and a long train of abuses continues to roll on that you should be concerned about how other people feel about the boxes, cupcake.

I know some of these guys. When it gets quiet, it means that they are working.

As for my blood pressure, don’t fret about it, cupcake. You don’t have the necessary capabilities to move that needle.

0311 crunchie

“See what I mean, 03. Blackiswhite no longer has faith in three of the boxes. Why is that? Are we actually on the brink of the apocalypse? Or is this paranoia?”

No longer has, or is losing. When you look at it in toto, as BiW does rather well, it becomes a concern. It’s a preponderance of events, policies, and procedures that make it obvious to anyone who pays attention that the Constitution is in jeopardy. Hell, Time Magazine just ran a cover story about whether it even still matters. If refusing to bury our head in the sand and daring to ask questions and call people out is paranoia, so be it.

My sincere hope, and I believe the hope of the people on this thread is that the presence of an armed and vigilant population will ensure that the other three boxes remain powerful checks against the ambitions of power hungry demagogues, the same way that an armed populace scared Yamamoto when the Imperial High Command discussed a land invasion of the west coast.

Sam

And if you read Troy’s comment you would know he want’s YOUR definition.

I’m going to purposefully not answer the question because one, it’s a stupid and obvious question, and two, I like the idea of Troy agonizing over the idea that I might be an insurgent sympatizer.

What about you, 03? Is you is, or is you ain’t a turr’ist? I demand to know.

Isn’t that what “fundamentally change our country” means? Fundamentals are the foundations. Dear Leader himself said it. We were just paying attention to what he meant, while the fiddytwoers swallowed the bullshit.

I’m sure a lot of people say things that could be misunderstood due to amphiboly. “I’m going to fundamentally change America.” Does that like putting in an interstate highway system, or entering into World War II? Those things pretty fundamentally changed America. It doesn’t imply that Barack Obama is going to destroy the Constitution. It could, but inductively that’s not a very reasonable conclusion to arrive at… unless you’re primed with paranoia. It’s only devious foreshadowing if that’s how you choose to hear it.

Sam

When you look at it in toto, as BiW does rather well, it becomes a concern. It’s a preponderance of events, policies, and procedures that make it obvious to anyone who pays attention that the Constitution is in jeopardy.

Yeah, I’ve got a step-father that “looks into it” rather well, too. By “looking into it” I mean he has immersed himself into an echo chamber that has generated a very deep paranoia in him that he cannot account for with specifics when asked.

How is the Constitution on the brink of being mortally wounded… I haven’t gotten a cogent answer yet. I don’t think one exists. I think it’s all paranoia politics.

Sam

I’m stepping out, I look forward to your response.

0311 crunchie

“It doesn’t imply that Barack Obama is going to destroy the Constitution. It could, but inductively that’s not a very reasonable conclusion to arrive at… ”
It doesn’t? Like I said, for those of us who paid attention, listened to what he had said, looked at what he had done (as little as that actually was, but still), and bothered to actually understand his belief system, it’s a very reasonable conclusion to arrive at.

Sam

It doesn’t? Like I said, for those of us who paid attention, listened to what he had said, looked at what he had done (as little as that actually was, but still), and bothered to actually understand his belief system, it’s a very reasonable conclusion to arrive at.

I don’t think it is. Otherwise you would be able to account for it with specifics. I think it’s paranoia.

Stepping out.

0311 crunchie

“What about you, 03? Is you is, or is you ain’t a turr’ist? I demand to know.”
According to Ears and Nappy I am.

UpNorth

I’d opine that the ramblings of Sam-I-Am sound like they could emanate from the pie hole of Methis, and that would be close. The frenetic need to dominate a conversation, to “demand” answers(answer the question!), to mock when it can’t answer a question, or is caught in yet another plain falsehood, or stupidity yet again, “stepping out”, oops, gotta get in the last word, “stepping out”, oops, the final last word. It all sounds like the ramblings and demands of a meth head.
Maybe not, maybe just the ramblings of an incoherent mind.

TerribleTroy

Oh, so you pick up the phrase “Mahdi” and expect everyone to intuitively know how YOU characterized who you were engaging? Not so sure your position would pass the Mr. Spock logic test there Sam.

Agonizing over your answer? Now really, do you really think anyone “agonizes” over your comments? How wonderfully self -centered in a juvenile kinda of way.

Sam

Yes, Troy, I would expect most people frequenting this blog to know what the Mahdi Army is. They’re kind of a big deal.

UpNorth, I know you are but what am I?

Sam

According to Ears and Nappy I am.

I’ll assume that’s a troll.

0311 crunchie

“I’ll assume that’s a troll.”
No dumb ass, Ears as in Ear Leader, as in Ogabe, as in Obama, and Nappy as in Janet Napolitano. Remember, us vets are potential domestic terrorists according to DHS.