* Login   * Register
It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:10 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:41 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:59 pm
Posts: 111
hondo69 wrote:
Would would happen if that small country town in the middle of no where were overrun by foreigners running drugs? Or worse yet, what if it was discovered that our own Federal Government was actually aiding and abetting the bad guys by providing arms to these same drug runners? Does that town have the right to protect itself and its property?

Do they have the right? Sure. But is that realistic? The local townies get out their shot guns and take down the US armed forces? Is that your plan for defending american freedom?

hondo69 wrote:
Remember the one thing the Framers feared most of all was a large, overbearing, heavy handed Federal Government that would trample the Rights of the States.

True, but remember that our current constitution was the second attempt. The articles of confederation failed because the central government was too weak.

hondo69 wrote:
If you're not careful you'll end up with a Federal Government that picks and chooses which laws it decides to enforce.

That has been the status quo forever. Remember BP and all the unenforced safety regulations? Jim Crow largely worked like this too. (Harsh laws that were only enforced against blacks.) Remember a room full of adulterers voting to impeach the president? ...(while happily taking money from tabaco execs who swore under oath that they didn't believe that cigarettes were addictive or caused cancer?)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:10 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 7:33 pm
Posts: 6816
Location: Clarksville, TN
Algr wrote:
Remember BP and all the unenforced safety regulations? Jim Crow largely worked like this too. (Harsh laws that were only enforced against blacks.) Remember a room full of adulterers voting to impeach the president? ...(while happily taking money from tabaco execs who swore under oath that they didn't believe that cigarettes were addictive or caused cancer?)



Guys like him never will admit to that kind of stuff. They only see the world through Bill Oreilly colored glasses. The article he linked to claimed making BP pay for the spill THEY FUCKING CAUSED tantamount to a shake-down. BP is lucky, if I had been incharge they would have had to pay a lot lot more than they did.

Partisan worship at its best.

_________________
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:16 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 am
Posts: 1860
Location: Austin, TX
Let me try this again, this time real slow.

I have a long list of complaints about every president going back to Carter (before that I didn't pay much attention). To some on this board that makes me a partisan hack. I completely understand that such high concepts are difficult for some, so we'll try a 3rd grade approach for those with special needs.

If a person has before them a basket containing 8 apples and they say, "I don't like any of those apples, all 8 are bad" then that means they don't want to eat any of the apples. It does not mean they will eat some of the apples just because they have a "D" or "R" label on them. It means every one of them looks bad.

There will be a test on this tomorrow. And the answers will look like this:

a) 4 apples are bad
b) 8 apples are bad
c) 2 apples are bad

Notice that the answer your emotions are looking for (Yeah, that old Bush sure was a rotten President) is not one of the available choices. We're using logic here, not emotions. C'mon, I know you can do it, just think about it for a little while.

_________________
Fugitive from the law of averages


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:19 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:59 pm
Posts: 111
hondo69 wrote:
I have a long list of complaints about every president going back to Carter


Read your own posts Hondo. Your posts don't attack anyone but Obama. You act like everything was fine before him, and getting rid of him would solve all the problems. You only grudgingly fault anyone else when pressed. You may honestly think you are being fair and reasonable, but your own posts tell us all something you don't seem to know about yourself.

Before 2008 did you write posts full of accusations about Bush? If so, give us some links.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:08 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 am
Posts: 1860
Location: Austin, TX
If history has taught us anything, it is that the presidents can do whatever they can get away with. And President Obama is no exception. Lincoln arrested newspaper editors who challenged his politics. Wilson arrested people for speaking German in public. FDR arrested Japanese Americans just because of their ancestry.

President Obama is not only no exception, rather, he is an example, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now, when I say "corrupts," I don't mean corruption in the sense, in the tabloid sense of receiving something of value in return for the exercise of governmental power. That's not the case here.

Rather, the case here is different but equally as serious. You see? When Barack Obama was a senator, he argued against military trials for folks who are not accused of violating the rules of war. He argued against America operating a penal colony off our shores where no federal judges could assure fairness and he argued against the incarceration of people who have not been charged with a crime or people who juries, whether military or civilians, have already acquitted.

And when he became president, he promised to uphold the Constitution and the values that underlie it. But now that he has the power of the presidency, he has rejected what he once believed and he has refused his oath to uphold the Constitution. George W. Bush did the same and I did not hesitate to address those wrongs when he did them.

But here you have a president who was a star student at Harvard Law School, one of the best law schools in the country, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, also one of the best in the country. And who held himself out as an expert on the Constitution.

But now that he has the ability to affect human liberty and to enhance his standing with certain political groups here at home, he has claimed for himself powers nowhere even in to that in the Constitution and utterly rejected by the Supreme Court.

A school child could tell you that when a jury finds you not guilty, the government lets you go. A first year law student knows that if the government doesn't have enough evidence to charge you, the government must let you go. All lawyers know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the president must uphold it whether it's convenient for him or not.

But this president has rejected those truths. How about this, Mr. President? All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Does that sound familiar, Mr. President? The rights are inalienable, as you cannot take them away.

When you reject words upon which the nation was founded, the framers gave us a president not a king. If the president can decide what laws to enforce and what laws to reject, if he can decide that the government will respect the rights of some and reject the rights of others, if he can claim powers on some unnamed source other than the Constitution, then he is a king and not a president. And you all know what happened the last time we had a king.

_________________
Fugitive from the law of averages


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:46 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 am
Posts: 1860
Location: Austin, TX
I case anyone missed it, the outlaw struck again.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577140770647994692.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

_________________
Fugitive from the law of averages


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:17 am 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:55 pm
Posts: 4943
Just out of curiosity hondo, who do you support in this election?

_________________
Oh, the humanity...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:57 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 am
Posts: 1860
Location: Austin, TX
I'd vote for Ron Paul, but with reservations.

Much like Dan has said many times before Paul is the only candidate that would plant a stick of dynamite in the middle of D.C. and blow the whole damn thing to pieces. Everyone else simply wants to massage the current system. They're simply taking that big chunk of play-doh and pressing on this corner here and bending that corner there. It's still the same old can of play-doh.

Paul wants to blow the entire can of play-doh to pieces. To me, that's the only way out.

I do have trouble picturing a foreign policy under Paul's guidance. No doubt I'm unhappy with the current policies and military expenditures. But exactly what is the right balance between isolationism and meddling in foreign affairs? I truthfully don't know, I'm just not smart enough.

Seems to me a good foreign policy would revolve around supporting democracy wherever it showed its face. But how do you implement that policy? Syria, for example, is butchering its own citizens who have protested against the regime. But do their citizens really want democracy? The Iranian people have protested as well, but we haven't lifted a finger to help them. In each case I'm unsure of the correct response, but it does seem like we should help where we can. It's an enigma shrouded in a mystery.

Something I would like to see is a series of debates between Ron Paul and the President. On one hand you have a man who claims to be an expert on the Constitution, but stomps all over it at ever turn. On the other hand you have a person that has consistently supported the Constitution for many years. He walks the talk. I think it would be a great debate and good for the country as a whole to witness.

_________________
Fugitive from the law of averages


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:36 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 pm
Posts: 32612
I can still barely remember Ford on television. In hindsight, he is probably my favorite because he was so hilarious. George H. Bush hitting people in the face with golf balls and vomiting on world leaders was funny too. But the president falling down stairs over and over is just too awesome. I don't remember Reagan making any stupid mistake like that. Bastard. A close second was Clinton and his McDonald's jogs. That was pretty awesome too.

Other than that.. It's really just been a great big pile of shit sliding down a sewer drain since Eisenhower retired.

_________________
With great power comes great risk of getting yourself killed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:38 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 11016
With Reagan, he was the first person I ever saw who had full blown Alzheimer's.

_________________
The term "magic" loses it's meaning once you know what's going on.

HJK


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:42 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 pm
Posts: 32612
In a way, that's what made Dan Quayle so frightening. Towards the end of the Reagan administration, it was apparent he was not really calling the shots any longer. But once we had Bush in there, with a complete idiot VP, the risk of an unacceptable VP once again became apparent.

Do you guys realize that in three years, the release of Back to the Future will be as far in our past as 1955 was to Mary McFly?

_________________
With great power comes great risk of getting yourself killed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Wild West
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:43 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 am
Posts: 1860
Location: Austin, TX
I'm old enough to remember the day JFK was shot. Sitting in a 3rd grade class with the principle coming in with tears in his eyes left quite an impression. Makes a kid pay attention.

So I did.

Neither Johnson nor Nixson came across well on black and white TV. But by the time Ford came rolling around my dad had sprung for a color TV, just in time. Hitting spectators with golf balls and falling down the steps was primo entertainment. All in all, seemed like a nice guy that just couldn't catch a break. But that all set the stage for the best of them all . . .

Pat Paulson, having fun at the expense of Hubert Humphrey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4kWLUnorTU&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL2624AB7650960635

Or the skit later censored
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owDUPtBuY78&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLC67E04437FA27181

_________________
Fugitive from the law of averages


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us