Moderator: Dave Roberts
Violent Overthrow Unnecessary
All this militia business...bad juju! Be patient! Violent overthrow of the government is totally unnecessary! The administration and congress have sowed the seeds of their own destruction with imprudent fiscal policies and confiscatory taxes. In a year, two at the most, the government will collapse on itself with no outside assistance due to a shortage of taxpayers. When that happens, China will sue for possession to recoup its losses in the World Court and win. Since no one trusts a liar, the Chinese will not permit Barack, the Tragic Negro, or congress to remain in power. Few will be willing to shed their blood to protect and defend Obama's America. BTW, how's that change working for you?
American Free Enterprise
The first law of American Free Enterprise is that there is absolutely nothing on earth private enterprise cannot do better than government, far faster, more efficiently and far cheaper. Even war would be different if done by private enterprise. It would be done totally in house with the company contracting combatants from the belligerent nation and setting them to fight against each other until the issue was settled or resolvable at the coffee break level by the janitors.
The Very Last Words...
The absolute very last words I want to hear coming from the mouth of a Republican or Independent federal representative after November is, "We need to put all this past 'unpleasantness' behind us and get on with the business of mending the country." Well, just BS, in the highest mound possible.
The single most important reason that resulted in the severing of the colonial bonds with England by decree and the foundation of this country by force of arms was justice!! It was unjust to tax the colonies differently; it was unjust to deny them a voice in Parliament: and it was unjust to treat the people of the colonies as less than equals with the British population in general.
What America needs most after the November elections is justice, Justice, JUSTICE, by the carload, the truckload, the trainload and the shipload. Democrats, liberals and Marxists will howl "revenge", but they will be wrong. Their minds can neither embrace nor understand the concept of justice because it runs contrary to their horribly flawed idea of fair which, in itself, condones, no, demands, treating people unfairly. A society cannot survive on anything but justice. Justice is dispassionate and can be written down, codified and enforced. "Fairness" is an emotional response and is a rudderless ship on a storm tossed sea with a compass that swings independent of any true reference. Fairness can no more be codified or enforced than the term happy because its meaning is emotional, varies due to situation changes and is not the same to all people.
A government that has run rough shod over the Constitution, that has treated Americans unequally, that has misspent tax dollars to remain in power, that has garnered support for unwanted legislation by unethical methods, that has nationalized large sections of private enterprise, that has refused to account to the people for billions of tax dollars literally given to major banks and lending institutions, that has refused to investigate known violations of ethics and statue in Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac, that caters to private interests at the expense of public interests, that has given succor and support to our enemies and, in general, that has operated in violation of federal RICO statutes must be brought to justice, from the greatest to the least among its members. The country needs it, the people demand it and they will get it; it only remains to be seen whether the acquisition will be bloodless or not. The one thing justice WILL NOT any longer be is denied. This country CAN NOT heal without it.
After the grand juries and trials, congress needs to be about the business of reviewing every single statute on the books and repealing every single one that does not have a solid base in or that does violence to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. This must be done to reverse the creeping socialism that has been encroaching on American society for eight decades. It takes but minutes, hours at most, to set the course for the longest journey, but it will take time to get there. No matter how frequent or how severe the storms enroute, given due diligence to the set course and the preservation of the vessel, arrival at the intended destination is all but inevitable.
Do you have an actual source for the name calling? Video? Audio? I'm not saying it was a hoax but I find it strange that with all of the recording devices present, I can't find any evidence besides the Dems who claimed it happened.
Sandy wrote:All the major networks have the footage, and have shown it repeatedly, including the sound. Where have you been? I think even Fox actually captured the words, and may have actually played it a couple of times, though I don't actually watch them.
Sandy wrote:Citing the National Review as a source for saying that this might not have happened is like quoting a Nazi apologist on what evidence constitutes proof of the Holocaust.
Jonathan wrote:This is just stupid, Sandy. The National Review is a credible publication with an historical libertarian bent.
Sandy wrote:Jonathan wrote:This is just stupid, Sandy. The National Review is a credible publication with an historical libertarian bent.
It's going to be a little bit more difficult for you to convince me that name calling, which is documented, witnessed, transmitted via video and audio footage, and testified to by those who were there and heard it, didn't actually happen when you yourself seem to have a tendency to do a little bit of namecalling yourself when someone disagrees with your conservative view.
Sandy wrote:Your use of the word "stupid" here subtracts from your credibility in asserting that the African American Congressmen who were subject to the ugliness as they entered the Capitol was "invented."
Sandy wrote:So why aren't those who were there making that claim? Because there are far too many witnesses to the ugliness to refute it.
Sandy wrote:As to the National Review, it is either "credible," or it has a "bent." But it can't be both.
Sandy wrote:Historically, it is not known for an accurate presentation of the facts.
Jonathan wrote:For example, I do see that Obama is very adept at using the Saul Alinsky handbook (ramming Obamacare through was a clinic) but this doesn't mean that everyone in the Democrat party or everyone on the Left has a disregard for Senate rules or the US Constitution.
Kaylor wrote:Let's try to get away from the incorrect partisan talking points.
Kaylor wrote:the health care was passed by using established Senate rules. Nothing tricky or new.
Jonathan wrote:Examples of Irony: one of the few remaining reasons that I have for wasting time on this forum.
Kaylor wrote:Jonathan wrote:Examples of Irony: one of the few remaining reasons that I have for wasting time on this forum.
Name a Senate rule that was broken or changed during this process.
Jonathan wrote:Kaylor wrote:The spirit of the reconciliation rule was violated. You know it, Obama knows it, Senator Byrd is the authority on the rule. The Dems knew that this bill could not have passed if it had to go through the regular process where Senate and House bill differences are addressed in committee hearings so they broke with history and set a dangerous precedent.
Stephen Fox wrote:I would hope Jonathan in particular would make an effort to watch Charlie Rose interview with David Remnick last night on PBS.
Remnick has new book on Obama, and from the conversation last night has done a stellar job.
Heartily recommend it to Kaylor as well; maybe he can do a review for ed.com in conjunction with Cliff Vaughn.
Remnick caught my eye couple years ago with his profile of Elaine Pagels. Wouldn't hurt for Jonathan to read that one sometime this spring if he can find or make the time for it. Good for Bruce Gourley as well; even Parham and Josh Villines.
Whatever the merits of your post above, I do hope you will engage David Remnick's new book on Obama, The Bridge, very soon.
Charlie Rose had a most fascinating interview with the author Monday night on PBS.
I encourage you to listen to the Kilgore/Posner conversation of last week and the discussion at www.religiondispatches.org; and or click over to my Baptist deacon blog where I have a tinyurl link for you there.
Hope you are otherwise well.
JOnathan is carrying the ball for you at bl.com. Hope maybe you could lower yourself for a short while and join us there as we pursue this, where Jonathan linked your blog today
William Thornton wrote:Let's try to get away from the incorrect partisan talking points. Love or hate it (or something in between), the Conservative Resurgence was passed by using established SBC rules. Nothing tricky or new. That doesn't mean it was the right change, but let's focus on real areas of contention and not made-up issues about process.
Big Daddy Weaver wrote:That someone would invest so much time and energy into challenging John Lewis' claim that he heard what he heard is revealing. Revealing is a generous word. I know John Lewis. I worked for John Lewis. I took phone messages from supposed constituents who used the N-word when describing my boss. I watched Chris Matthews last night as Chris played a recent message left on the answering machine of Congressman John Lewis. That message was a 20-second rant of G-D and the N-word, over and over.
BDW wrote:It's really shameful that folks would question the truthfulness and integrity of a man like John Lewis.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests