How do we take our country back?

[thatguy]

The GOP will NOT change if people, by and large, support W and McCain. Why would it? The Democrats just proved that by fighting for what you REALLY want, a true blue socialist, you CAN win instead of settling for a pseudo socialist like Kerry or Gore or Clinton(s).

while i dont agree with the "true blue socialist" part, i do agree that as long as my republican brothers continue to blindly support whatever candidate the GOP sends up, the GOP will never change.
I will not vote for another person strictly along party lines, W was the last.

 

[Larry Gude]

Larry's solution is like Communism: works on paper, but fails when you add the humans to the mix.

That is a terribly unfair analogy. Communism can NOT work, no matter how hard anyone tries. Our nation has in fact worked for well over 200 years and can very well continue to work and even improve IF people will do what is very possible; exercise some sound judgement and put forth a little effort.

This nation was not built on dragging people to water and making them drink. That is why our wars on A'stan and on Iraq have failed; we tried to lead people to water and lead them to drink. It can not be done with values that are the epitome of free will. You either impose our will, as in Japan, as in Germany, or you get a mess, as in Korea, Vietnam and now this, or you don't get enmeshed in the quagmire of nation building in the first place.

Our system actually doesn't work on paper; it's a messy, living, breathing thing with far too many moving parts and far too much freedom to ever be something pointy headed intellectuals can teach, chapter and verse, as though it was some simple minded bludgeon, like communism and socialism, whose key component is force, not free will.

I'll thank you to come up with a better analogy.

 

[Larry Gude]

while i dont agree with the "true blue socialist" part, i do agree that as long as my republican brothers continue to blindly support whatever candidate the GOP sends up, the GOP will never change.
I will not vote for another person strictly along party lines, W was the last.

Well, how would you describe Obama and his record and his current ideas?

 

[thatguy]

Well, how would you describe Obama and his record and his current ideas?

typical liberal big government democrat....


unless we want to throw mccain, W and all the other candidates in recent memory into the same "true Blue" category i dont think it is appropriate to use that label.

 

[vraiblonde]

unless we want to throw mccain, W and all the other candidates in recent memory into the same "true Blue" category i dont think it is appropriate to use that label.

I don't know, man. Obama has those guys beat by a mile, and that's saying something. Part of it is probably his extreme Left Congressional majority leaders, since there's no balance there. But this is easily the most hard Socialist administration we've ever had in this country. He almost makes George Bush look like a Republican.

 

[Larry Gude]

typical liberal big government democrat....


unless we want to throw mccain, W and all the other candidates in recent memory into the same "true Blue" category i dont think it is appropriate to use that label.

Obama is not typical. He had the MOST liberal voting record in the Senate. The MOST. Look at who that includes.

Obama's Illinois record is nothing but left.

McCain is not a socialist; he has no politics. The only reason he is even a GOP'er is because the seat he targeted for congress was an R district, same as Bob Dole. He was very much apolitical until he set his post military course to get into politics.

W I don't think meant to institute socialist policies. I'm not sure he could distinguish what is or is not socialism or why. I don't think he meant for things to get out of control in the economy, energy, A'stan or Iraq.

Obama, in my view, based on his record, his rhetoric, his associations and so forth is, was and intends to be very much a socialist and is very much enjoying the daily conversation about the next thing that we MUST bring under the scope and control of the federal government. I think he very much means it.

 

[Larry Gude]

He almost makes George Bush look like a Republican.

*spew*


OK, THAT was a good 'un!!!

 

[thatguy]

Obama is not typical. He had the MOST liberal voting record in the Senate. The MOST. Look at who that includes.

Obama's Illinois record is nothing but left.

McCain is not a socialist; he has no politics. The only reason he is even a GOP'er is because the seat he targeted for congress was an R district, same as Bob Dole. He was very much apolitical until he set his post military course to get into politics. and how many years ago was that?
W I don't think meant to institute socialist policies. I'm not sure he could distinguish what is or is not socialism or why. I don't think he meant for things to get out of control in the economy, energy, A'stan or Iraq. so if you dont mean it or you are too stupid to realize you are, you are not a socialist?

Obama, in my view, based on his record, his rhetoric, his associations and so forth is, was and intends to be very much a socialist and is very much enjoying the daily conversation about the next thing that we MUST bring under the scope and control of the federal government. I think he very much means it.

come on larry, who ever was elected was going to have to make these decisions. WHile i dont agree with all the bailouts, there is no reason to believe mccain or anybody else, (r) or (d) would be doing anything different.

the only thing that i believe Obama had planned to convert to a socialist state was health care, hardly a new idea. Hell CLinton won on that platform and didn't deliver, and Mccain was running on the same ticket in that respect.

the rest is just the governments response to the S sandwich we were handed, and noone seems to want to take responsibility for the mess.

 

[Larry Gude]

come on larry, who ever was elected was going to have to make these decisions. WHile i dont agree with all the bailouts, there is no reason to believe mccain or anybody else, (r) or (d) would be doing anything different.

the only thing that i believe Obama had planned to convert to a socialist state was health care, hardly a new idea. Hell CLinton won on that platform and didn't deliver, and Mccain was running on the same ticket in that respect.

the rest is just the governments response to the S sandwich we were handed, and noone seems to want to take responsibility for the mess.

Oh, I agree about McCain, he of the greatest single blunder in the history of the universe, suspending his campaign, building the moment and...punting.

All I am arguing is McCain will do what he thinks is most middle of the road, W I really don't think understands all of this and Obama MEANS to do this, said he'd do this and intends to do this.

 

[thatguy]

Oh, I agree about McCain, he of the greatest single blunder in the history of the universe, suspending his campaign, building the moment and...punting.

All I am arguing is McCain will do what he thinks is most middle of the road, W I really don't think understands all of this and Obama MEANS to do this, said he'd do this and intends to do this.

yeah, if mccain would have just stood up and said no i would have crossed back over, no problem even though i hate him.


And i will give you that Obama means it. Exactly what it is i think is still to be determined. But he, like most democrats before him, thinks he is doing "the right thing" and just like i gave bush credit for being decisive and sticking with his decisions, i give obama credit for thinking he is doing the right thing.


Besides, i am hopeful the economy will "self right" before the govenrment ends up owning everything

 

[RadioPatrol]

A terrorist attack is probably part of the plan.
It would legitimize a need for a special security force. Their charter will not require them to swear to defend the constitution.

 

[RadioPatrol]

I see tyranny as a sliding scale. Just like capitalism - socialism.

No government behaves without some degree of tyrannical policy. And, no government behaves with completely tyrannical policy.

Road To Serfdom F A Hayek


this about sums up the slide to Socialism by Capitalists Countries

 

[Pushrod]

agreed.

but considering the president was freely elected by a majority of the country, and very few would actually support, let alone take part in rising up in arms against this USofA, i'd wager any such action would fail miserably and would indeed be considered treason.

BTW, would you even consider Obama a tyrant, or this governemnt? according to the definition i dont think it really fits.

Mr. Tory, if you knew your Revolutionary War history, you would know that only about 3% of the population stood up to resist the British in the beginning of the Revolution, THREE PERCENT!

And if a new Revolution/Civil War is started, it wont be against the US of A or because of the dislike of one person who was elected. It will be against a Federal Government that has strayed far from the principles that our founding fathers set forth to govern this Republic, described as law in our Constitution.

It would be to re-establish the rightful Constitutional Law that has been increasingly kicked to the wayside.
Label me a 3%er!

 

[thatguy]

Mr. Tory, if you knew your Revolutionary War history, you would know that only about 3% of the population stood up to resist the British in the beginning of the Revolution, THREE PERCENT!

And if a new Revolution/Civil War is started, it wont be against the US of A or because of the dislike of one person who was elected. It will be against a Federal Government that has strayed far from the principles that our founding fathers set forth to govern this Republic, described as law in our Constitution.

It would be to re-establish the rightful Constitutional Law that has been increasingly kicked to the wayside.
Label me a 3%er!

so far you dont even have one person who has decided to "stand up". All you have is a bunch of people moaning about a freely elected president and congress.

as for 3%, i'd be willing to be that 99.9% of the people who use this site think it is stupid to even suggest an attempt to violently overthrow over freely elected government. You might get a handful who frequent the politics forum to talk big about it online, but when compared to the total number of people who use the over all site even that would be a minute percentage.

 

[aps45819]

so far you dont even have one person who has decided to "stand up". All you have is a bunch of people moaning about a freely elected president and congress.

as for 3%, i'd be willing to be that 99.9% of the people who use this site think it is stupid to even suggest an attempt to violently overthrow over freely elected government. You might get a handful who frequent the politics forum to talk big about it online, but when compared to the total number of people who use the over all site even that would be a minute percentage.

Next time you're in Walmart, go to the back corner and ask how long .357 or .38sp ammunition stays in stock.

 

[Tilted]

Great post! However, a sliding scale implies some sort of measured order.

I just looked up 'sliding scale', and now realize that what it refers to isn't really consistent with how it is often used - and it wasn't the right term in this context. I was referring to distinguishing tyranny from the lack thereof, and suggesting that there is no clear line that separates them. Kind of like saying something is heavy or light. There are infinite points of possible weight, and each point is a little lighter or heavier than the ones beside it. You can't really identify a clear demarcation, below which everything is light, and above which everything is heavy. It’s a relative determination, which is usually contextually based.

I would argue that the great political shifts, our Revolution, our civil war, Germany under Hitler, the Russian October revolution (the rise of Lenin) the USSR under Stalin, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US under Bush, while the warning signs were evident to anyone paying even a little attention, were moresoe the results of sudden explosions; the coming together of various sparks and pressures and 'fuels' that had been happening, individually, for some time but never in the right combination to actually explode. An internal combustion engine that has spark and fuel is nothing without air. Air and fuel are nothing without spark and so forth.

So, while we've been increasingly ignoring the constitution, for the most part, for some time now with the occasional Heller thrown in to instill some sort of vague trust that all will be well, we have, mostly, been ignoring the document that is the foundation, the thread, hell, the straight jacket that holds us together and, coupled with the extra constitutional spending, growth of government, (which is the textbook definition of how to get to tyranny), decay inducing social practices and so forth, we may well be approaching one of the explosions that many will say "How'd that happen?" when they really mean to say "I knew we were doing wrong, I just hoped it would all work out."

That is the lament of those who did not want Lenin or Stalin or Hitler or our revolution or our civil war or Bush (what he actually did) or Obama.

The other side of that coin is that there very much were/are those who WANTED Lenin and Stalin and Hitler and split from England and violent end of slavery and Bush the 'reluctant socialist and now Obama, thew vigorous socialist.

So, explosion isn't always bad from the American mind and viewpoint. However, what we're experiencing now is ominous; the gathering of the various storm clouds that tend to lead to explosion.

And we're not talking about explosions to free slaves or breaking from a monarch or even defeating an foreign enemy. We're talking about the practical end of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as individual, guaranteed rights.

If I understand your points correctly, I would agree. Sometimes a gradual trend toward something (such as tyrannical policies) builds up pressure in front of it, which makes an explosion increasingly possible and likely - and when the right factors converge, an event can be triggered.

And, it is definitely our ignoring of our Constitution which has facilitated the pursuit of most of these policies - we've been ignoring that document, to some degree or another, for a very, very long time.

With regard to that, I have a (not so) funny anecdote, which has stuck with me, because I think it is symbolically very telling. About a decade ago, my brother went up to the GPO office to get some resources for some research we were doing. In case you don’t know, the Government Printing Office is supposed to have all the government information that someone might need or want - any official government publication, obscure regulations about such and such, etc., that someone may need access to for some reason. A copy of any official government document should be accessible there.

While my brother was there, he asked if he could get a copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. What was he told? No – we don’t have those, you’ll have to go to the Smithsonian to get them.

I realize that the meaning here is mostly symbolic – but it’s a powerful symbol, don’t you think?

 

[Larry Gude]

I realize that the meaning here is mostly symbolic – but it’s a powerful symbol, don’t you think?

It's about as poweful as this in terms of symbolism;







A conversation with Obama, or Bush for that matter, on the meaning of the oath, would be the best civics lesson one could have on judging a candidate.

 

[ylexot]

Next time you're in Walmart, go to the back corner and ask how long .357 or .38sp ammunition stays in stock.

Or try to buy a gun...any gun. Ones that used to just be popular are now nearly impossible to find. I'm trying to get an AR-15 lower so that I can build one. My dealer has had some on order since November. If you look around for AR-15 parts, you'll find a whole lot of "Sold Out". I've even seen estimated delivery dates of 1-2 YEARS on some parts!

 

[chernmax]

 

[Pushrod]

so far you dont even have one person who has decided to "stand up". All you have is a bunch of people moaning about a freely elected president and congress.

as for 3%, i'd be willing to be that 99.9% of the people who use this site think it is stupid to even suggest an attempt to violently overthrow over freely elected government. You might get a handful who frequent the politics forum to talk big about it online, but when compared to the total number of people who use the over all site even that would be a minute percentage.

Have you ever considered the tipping point hasn't been quite reached yet?
I have nothing against obama or Congress, per se, just the UnAmerican, UnConstitutional policies they are initiating. They keep piling those straws on the back of America. Its bound to break at some point.