#2 2009-10-22 10:40:58
Where were these guys during Bush's tear through the Bill of Rights?
Offline
#3 2009-10-22 12:01:56
sometimesyoufeellikeanut wrote on October 22, 2009 06:11 AM: Scott:
no liberals don't want to change the Constitution. The Republican & Democratic parties just choose to ignore it entirely. Also, about your quote, you watched V for Vendetta, good for you.
Nutbaghater: you are 100% correct in asking where all these fruitcakes were for the past 20+ years. How do they think we got to this point? It didn't just magically happen when Obama's foot crossed the threshold to the White House.
Whenever you start gathering people in a group for some ideology, you have a serious danger of the more extreme elements of that group making it fly off into far left or far right field. The two political parties are fine examples of that.
Maybe people should start thinking for themselves, using their ability to reason (if they still have it) and stop following any nut with a message like dumb little sheep following a shepherd.
Offline
#4 2009-10-22 14:00:28
These people are merely preparing themselves for the possibility that Obama will issue orders to the military to take an unlawful action against American citizens. This is not out of the realm of of possibility as foreseen by Thomas Jefferson.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson
Offline
#5 2009-10-22 14:02:30
phreddy wrote:
These people are merely preparing themselves for the possibility that Obama will issue orders to the military to take an unlawful action against American citizens. This is not out of the realm of of possibility as foreseen by Thomas Jefferson.
So why didn't they prepare themselves for the possibility that Bush would do the same? Why didn't they disobey the unlawful torture orders given under that regime?
Could it be that these assholes have - gasp! - a specific political agenda? Perhaps are they displeased that their side lost the election and now they're going to have to - double gasp! - compromise with their fellow countrymen?
You wanna quote Jefferson? Fine. Let's quote Jefferson:
Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of a bitter and bloody persecutions.
Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2009-10-22 14:03:39)
Offline
#6 2009-10-22 14:35:37
Jesus wrote:
So why didn't they prepare themselves for the possibility that Bush would do the same? Why didn't they disobey the unlawful torture orders given under that regime?
Probably because Bush didn't hate the military, American business, and ligitimate opposition, hang out with known terrorists, and appoint admitted Communists and Maoists to important political positions. That's why. The torture accusations are total political bullshit and you know it. We're talking about potential military actions by the government against dissenting U.S. citizens. Ask me if the the National Guardsmen at Kent State should have refused to fire at the students. This is the kind of action we're talking about.
Offline
#7 2009-10-22 14:41:34
phreddy wrote:
Jesus wrote:
So why didn't they prepare themselves for the possibility that Bush would do the same? Why didn't they disobey the unlawful torture orders given under that regime?
Probably because Bush didn't hate the military, American business, and ligitimate opposition, hang out with known terrorists, and appoint admitted Communists and Maoists to important political positions. That's why. The torture accusations are total political bullshit and you know it. We're talking about potential military actions by the government against dissenting U.S. citizens. Ask me if the the National Guardsmen at Kent State should have refused to fire at the students. This is the kind of action we're talking about.
Thanks for keeping High Street special, Phreddy. You're magic.
Offline
#8 2009-10-22 14:42:52
phreddy wrote:
Jesus wrote:
So why didn't they prepare themselves for the possibility that Bush would do the same? Why didn't they disobey the unlawful torture orders given under that regime?
Probably because Bush didn't hate the military, American business, and ligitimate opposition, hang out with known terrorists, and appoint admitted Communists and Maoists to important political positions. That's why. The torture accusations are total political bullshit and you know it. We're talking about potential military actions by the government against dissenting U.S. citizens. Ask me if the the National Guardsmen at Kent State should have refused to fire at the students. This is the kind of action we're talking about.
What evidence do you have of these military actions? None, that's what. The same accusations about possible military actions were made by the same Alex-Jones-listening sky-is-falling nutjobs during Bush's reign, but you weren't listening then because your team was winning.
God the two-party system has fucked this nation up.
Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2009-10-22 14:43:13)
Offline
#9 2009-10-22 14:49:18
Interesting group and I can't say I disagree with much of what they're saying but, as our lord and savior asked, where were these guys during the Bush administration?
In all honesty, too, I don't want police and military personnel acting on their own. It's a tough line to follow, though, because as both Nuremburg and Abu Ghraib made clear, soldiers can be held liable for following orders even when those orders are immoral or illegal. Still, do we want a military acting on its own - a la Turkey or one of various Latin American nations - rather than under the direction of an accountable leader?
Nice sentiments, dangerous idea. I suspect this is the dangerous situation they had in mind when early American leaders warned us against keeping a standing army.
Offline
#10 2009-10-22 15:56:25
phreddy wrote:
because Bush didn't hate the military
Sure he did:
1. He hated the military so much he just stopped showing up for his appointed duties.
2. He hated the military so much he started a war in Iraq just so he could watch the life being slowly sucked out of the troops.
3. He hated the military so much he refused to fund the upgraded armor requested by the services.
Phreddy - Those are the actions of a man with absolutely no respect for the US servicemen.
Offline
#11 2009-10-22 17:08:47
jesus wrote:
What evidence do you have of these military actions? None, that's what.
Jesus, jesus didn't I cite the military action at Kent State in the very post in which you accuse me of not citing a military action? Hello!!!
Offline
#12 2009-10-22 17:47:35
phreddy wrote:
Ask me if the the National Guardsmen at Kent State should have refused to fire at the students.
If I am not mistaken, the Ohio National Guard were under the command of the governor at the time of the Kent State action. It was not a federal situation.
Offline
#13 2009-10-22 18:05:04
phreddy wrote:
jesus wrote:
What evidence do you have of these military actions? None, that's what.
Jesus, jesus didn't I cite the military action at Kent State in the very post in which you accuse me of not citing a military action? Hello!!!
Obama ordered Kent State?
That nefarious bastard!
Offline
#14 2009-10-22 18:05:48
MSG Tripps wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Ask me if the the National Guardsmen at Kent State should have refused to fire at the students.
If I am not mistaken, the Ohio National Guard were under the command of the governor at the time of the Kent State action. It was not a federal situation.
The same principle applies. Should members of the military blindly carry out orders to attack American citizens.
Offline
#15 2009-10-22 18:19:23
phreddy wrote:
The same principle applies. Should members of the military blindly carry out orders to attack American citizens.
Of course they shouldn't.
....so why didn't this organization form until now, and why does it "happen" to be made up almost exclusively of right wingers?
Offline
#16 2009-10-22 18:19:50
phreddy wrote:
The same principle applies. Should members of the military blindly carry out orders to attack American citizens.
Trick question....
The answer is to avoid putting the soldier in that position, in this case these right-wing militia's are trying to create those situations under the guise of avoiding them.
Lessee: We swear to never blockade an American city thereby creating a concentration camp
The point of that oath is to create the illusion of a threat and of course the allusion is that Obama/Reid/Botox-face would be the evil communists/facists who have threatened to do this.
Last edited by Emmeran (2009-10-22 18:20:08)
Offline
#17 2009-10-23 00:16:39
"More specifically, the group's members, which number in the thousands, pledge to disobey orders they deem unlawful"
I had thought that was already part of their oaths-- from wikipedia, cause I'm lazy...
"while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States."
...so enlisted men only have to obey lawful orders, and officers are required to disobey unlawful orders.
In other words-- this pledge is meaningless.
Offline
#18 2009-10-23 00:43:33
Regardless of the "liberty" minded post, the people at that site still got it wrong. They're like a slave screaming "Stop beating me master!". When you ask that someone "please" stop beating you then you're admitting that they have the power and option to stop beating you. The proper response is "Stop beating me or else.", if someone is stealing your capital and your rights you don't ask them to "please" stop doing it, you cut their fucking nuts off. Those people are talking about asking the government to "please" not take their guns and their rights. People need to give up voting and giving legitimacy to these people and just tell them to "fuck off" when the "collective" tries to tell them how to live their lives.
Offline
#19 2009-10-23 01:25:11
DupeOrNot wrote:
"More specifically, the group's members, which number in the thousands, pledge to disobey orders they deem unlawful"
I had thought that was already part of their oaths-- from wikipedia, cause I'm lazy...
"while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States."
...so enlisted men only have to obey lawful orders, and officers are required to disobey unlawful orders.
In other words-- this pledge is meaningless.
No!!
All are bound to support the Constitution; rank has no standing in the Constituion.
Please grow a brain.
Offline
#20 2009-10-23 11:29:33
Emmeran wrote:
No!!
All are bound to support the Constitution; rank has no standing in the Constituion.
Please grow a brain.
You are correct on this Em and I believe this is exactly the point the Oath Keepers are making. They are pledging to refuse a court order or an order from a superior officer, all the way up to the president, if that order is in conflict with the Constitution and the oath they swore to uphold it. One could argue that any order from the president that comes down through the chain of command is a lawful order that must be obeyed. However, it could still be in conflict with the Constitution. As I said before, Thomas Jefferson knew such a situation could arise and this group is simply preparing for that possibility.
Last edited by phreddy (2009-10-23 11:31:18)
Offline
#21 2009-10-23 11:37:11
phreddy wrote:
As I said before, Thomas Jefferson knew such a situation could arise and this group is simply preparing for that possibility.
...and they have absolutely no political agenda beyond that.
Poor, simple phred.
Offline
#22 2009-10-23 11:55:21
jesusluvspegging wrote:
phreddy wrote:
As I said before, Thomas Jefferson knew such a situation could arise and this group is simply preparing for that possibility.
...and they have absolutely no political agenda beyond that.
Poor, simple phred.
Of course they have a political agenda. The only reason we've never seen a group like this before is because we've never had a Marxist in the White House before. Obama is a clueless thug who would be better suited running a banana republic in South America. Unfortunately, he's here and he's determined to level our playing field with the Third World. Do I think he will order the army to invade Montana to enforce some draconian leftist policies? Probably not, but within the realm of possibility.
Offline
#23 2009-10-23 13:47:55
Phreddy, are you familiar with a rather vague concept frequently referred to as "the rule of law"? It's one of the things that distinguishes imperfect democracies from places such as Iran, Russia, China, and any number of dilapidated Third World countries.
As I noted before, I don't disagree with much of their ideals. I have numerous friends, for example, who were interned during WWII despite the fact they were American citizens. Being gay, I'm sort of used to being on the outside of a great many privileges that many consider basic rights. Having said that, I have no desire to see self-appointed vigilantes determining for themselves what is constitutional and what is not. That's one of the reasons we have something called the Supreme Court. Do I always like what comes out of that court? Not at all. Do I wish it were loaded down with people who think exactly as I do? As a matter of fact, I do, but the reality is that we live in a federal republic which encompasses a wide range of viewpoints and regions and cultures and, alas, I don't always get to have my way.
That's democracy. It's slow, it's cumbersome, it's frequently stupid, but I don't see too many other options coming down the pike and I'll be damned if I'm going to let some self-appointed yahoo with a gun and satellite dish tell me what's correct and what is not.
Offline
#24 2009-10-23 21:01:47
Phred, he's not a Marxist. You've got no reason to believe that he is. Even if he was a Marxist, he was put into office by a clear electoral mandate. His socialist policies (oh noes, health care for everyone! it's teh end times!) are favored by a large majority of the citizens, and are being put into place by legal means. He's not gonna order the army to shoot Americans. You have no evidence to suggest that he will.
Don't like his politics? Fine, you'll get a chance to beat them in 2012, and then in 2016 you'll get him out of office. That's how it works around here. As taint points out, it's the rule of fucking law.
Phred, I'd like you to take a moment, shut your eyes, take a few long, deep breaths, and try to unclench your asshole a little bit. Relax. There you go. Take Rush's example and eat a Valium. It's the other party's turn right now, and that's the way it's supposed to be. You'll get your chance again, just as soon as we fix a few of these problems you guys have caused. In a few years, you get to come in and fix some of the new problems that we've caused. It's gonna be ok. Nobody's gonna get shot by army men. Turn off the radio and unclench.
Repeat after Me, kiddies, "Neither party is totally correct."
Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2009-10-23 21:28:07)
Offline
#25 2009-10-23 21:49:16
You know, I used to think you were joking, and just taking a right wing stance. You really believe all this shit don't you. Man, that is fucking disappointing. You really can't be that much of a tool where you sincerely believe all that crap your keepers are feeding you?
Offline
#26 2009-10-23 22:17:09
Frankly, I was more worried by the previous administration’s attitude that The Constitution is just a piece of paper that might as well be used for ass wiping. One thing you have to remember is the president is a creature of his handlers, advisors, and the special interests that bought the job for him. This is why I’m not freaked out by the color of the current president’s skin. While I’m concerned that his team isn’t as forceful as the typical Republican team in ramming their stated policies through, I consider it far less likely now that government storm troopers will haul dissidents off to FEMA concentration camps.
Last edited by fnord (2009-10-23 22:18:02)
Offline
#27 2009-10-24 12:26:28
Dmtdust wrote:
You know, I used to think you were joking, and just taking a right wing stance. You really believe all this shit don't you. Man, that is fucking disappointing. You really can't be that much of a tool where you sincerely believe all that crap your keepers are feeding you?
Nah... coast guard boy outed himself in another thread - he's a state "union" employee also isn't he?
Offline
