| Author | Message | ||
     Buellhusker |
I found this on the BMW LT website & thought you might be intrested in him. (Message edited by blake on December 07, 2009) | ||
| Blake |
A'men to THAT! Stay tuned for all manner of hate drenched personal attack against this good man from the socialist far-left. | ||
| Phelan |
Amen! | ||
| M2me |
I'm a little confused. This guy earned a commission in the Army, served 22 years. But then he says that's not because the government tried to make the rules. Who made the rules? Did this guy make the rules? If you're in the Army, doesn't the government make the rules? Don't we the people make the rules? Is this guy a one man army? It's also kind of scary when he says, "these people are among us" and we have to fight them. "These people" are our fellow American citizens. Why do we need to fight them? When did they become the enemy? Then he talks about taking an oath to defend the Constitution but talks about fixing bayonets, etc. against the government or whatever. We're all in this together. Liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. We're all Americans. This is our country. Why do we spend so much time trying to make enemies of each other? I favor policies that are beneficial for America as a whole. That's all. If there is an energy policy that is beneficial for the country as a whole, but is maybe slightly less beneficial for Exxon, I'm all for it. But that doesn't mean I want to fix bayonets and kill Exxon and all who support it. We're going to destroy this country from the inside out if we don't try to see things from the other side's point of view and compromise a little bit. | ||
| Phelan |
I think you're taking it too literally. The message that I got from the video is that we as working class Americans need to become more actively involved in politics, and making our views and votes clear to our representatives, so that they actually "represent" us, rather than letting them listen to the "squeaky wheel" lobbyists. We've let too many founding principles change in this country because we were too "busy" with our own lives to worry about who is influencing the lawmakers in D.C. And what they are saying. | ||
| Blake |
"I favor policies that are beneficial for America as a whole." I favor freedom. I favor the constitution as intended by our founders, a weak central government and strong states. I abhor the nanny state. I and my family and my friends and my neighbors and church members will take care of ourselves and each other and those around us who we deem in need. The #$%*ing tax-and-spend corrupt socialist nanny state can go straight to hell. I and my wife live incredibly responsibly. No debt. Small home. No mortgage. Drive cars for decades and hundreds of thousands of miles. We choose to save for our retirement and avoid indebtedness. Yet we've come to a point in this @#$^ed up nation where those who don't live/behave responsibly, those who fail to live within their means, those who don't work hard to achieve success, and those who take huge risks are supported or bailed-out by the rest. That is WRONG! I'm very pleased to help support those who are unable to fend for themselves. I am outraged at being forced to support those who are too irresponsible to fend for themselves. I am outraged at the prospect of being forced to support anything having to do with the murder of unborn babies. I am outraged at the prospect of being forced to pay more for energy as a knee-jerk reaction to the biggest alarmist fraud ever perpetrated on humankind. The "stimulus" bill is on outrage to me. The Obama Administration is touting that their stimulus program has saved or created 640,329 jobs since it was enacted back in February through the end of October. This number is updated and posted on the Administration’s recovery.gov web site. That amounts to $246,436 per job based on the $157.8bn that has been awarded so far! Total compensation earned by the average payroll employee during October, on an annualized basis, was $59,867. If the government had simply used the funds awarded so far to pay for a year’s worth of labor, that would have paid for 2.6mn jobs! from: http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/12 /07/cost-benefit-analysis-of-jobs-stimulus/ The cap and trade bill is an outrage to me. The murder of unborn babies is a horrendous outrage to me. The redefinition of marriage to include any pairing desired is an outrage to me. | ||
| Phelan |
Thank you. Blake you said it better than I could think it . | ||
| Nevrenuf |
i like what he had to say and what i got out of it was that he earned his promotions through hard work and didn't become someone that used the race card to achieve his goal. he didn't need anyone to give him anything and wouldn't take it even if they tried to. unlike blake, i'm a little bit more in debt than what i was a year ago but i pay all my bills and if it came down to it i know what has to be done to stay solvent. if i lost this job, i know there are quite a few people that would want me to come work on their house because of what i'm capable of doing as a carpenter. like the guy said, the government should promote the general welfare not provide welfare. | ||
| Swordsman |
Man, I was hoping that, being from Atlanta, he'd be running here, but he's running in Florida. Bummer. I think I'll send him a campaign donation anyway. M2me, I believe it's called "metaphor". However, if you see someone coming at you with a pointy piece of metal fixed to the end of a rifle, run. ~SM (Message edited by Swordsman on December 08, 2009) | ||
| Nevrenuf |
he mentioned that he was in sunrise. that whole area can use someone like that. when my truck got stolen out of my driveway in hollywood, they found it over in sunrise, missing 90% of my tools. wasn't a great place 21 years ago and i'm sure it hasn't changed that much since then. | ||
| Fahren |
...I thought this was going to be a football thread.... | ||
| Jerseyguy |
Blake - 1++++++++++ on every point. I just bought another thousand rounds of .223. I pray to God that I'll never have to use them....... | ||
| Percyco |
Im with Blake !  | ||
| Oldog |
Ok Who is that? I like the retoric, | ||
| Gaesati |
Blake likes a "weak central government" How about this: The tax "industry" is dismantled. Everybody pays a flat rate with no deductions of any sort. The government becomes responsible for legislation and executive direction and judiciary only. A free market is re-instituted this means no government interference in banking, the market or commerce. Caveat Emptor becomes the only business rule which applies. All infrastructure:roads, rail, airways and telecommunications becomes the full responsibility of private industry on a user pays basis. Similarly, hospitals, medicine and education and prisons and all media become private industries free from government regulation. Foreign labour is allowed free access so that labour costs will find their true level. A free market will then determine what are appropriate worker benefits. Unemployment benefits and pensions would be abolished on the grounds that people should take responsibility for their own welfare. Industry would be set free from environmental regulation to reduce costs. All citizens who own guns would be required to join a militia so that the 2nd amendment can be fully instituted. The taxation office should be privatised with payment based on a percentage of what is collected and passed on to the government. Similarly, militia should take over much of the work of police forces. The remainder can the be privatised by tendering to police/security companies who are paid on a performance basis based on their clear up rates. Military corporations would then tender to manage, train and supply the militias with appropriate weaponry. Large capital military equipment would be part of the tender requirements for private corporations. Iraq could then be managed in a similar way to the large security companies which operated in Iraq. Problem solved: weak central goverment under a truly free enterprise system protected by the constitution, the legislature and the nation in arms. (Message edited by gaesati on December 08, 2009) | ||
| Blake |
Not so much. You've taken a ridiculous leap past "weak central government", to no government at all anywhere. I guess you are trying to make a point that we need government. You've confused "weak central" with "nonexistent". You apparently confuse what many view as grossly over-reaching actions/legislation with valid services providing directly for "the general welfare" of Americans as a whole. "Weak" doesn't mean nonexistent or feckless. How about we start with eliminating all the bogus "commerce clause" legislation and take it from there. It is an outrage that congress ties federal funding for roads and/or education to their partisan agenda. Examples: If you don't raise the legal drinking age to 21, then you don't get your own money back for highway work. If you don't run your education system the way we want, no education funding. It's an outrage and a completely unconstitutional usurpation of states' rights. It should not be happening. THAT is what I mean by "weak" central government, as our founders intended. Legislation protecting ALL from the threat of monopoly and the threat of nefarious business activity is a good thing and EXACTLY what the commerce clause is intended to address. Open borders? No. That would violate the sworn duty of the executive, each of whom for the past five decades has shirked their duty in that regard. The exact opposite needs to happen as happened multiple times in the past when the problem became a national concern. Send the short term illegals home. God bless Sheriff Joe Arpaio! Unemployment insurance is run by the states. Re your militia gun point: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't jibe with requiring militia service as a prerequisite to owning firearms. "Shall not be infringed" is crystal clear. Your proposal is a significant infringement. No protection for the environment? Again, you leap ridiculously from "weak central" to "none whatsoever". Maintaining a healthy environment for the general welfare of all Americans is a responsibility mandated by the constitution. Pretending that CO2 is a pollutant so that the executive can exploit/abuse that responsibility to further a partisan agenda is an outrage. Ensuring clean waterways, and the health of PEOPLE is what is mandated in the constitution. The snail darter has no constitutional rights, yet it has been given status that usurps the rights of people on account of a wildly over-reaching federal gov. Privatizing tax collection and making it a for profit endeavor? Already in place and happening. Better yet, kill income tax and institute consumption/sales tax. Flat tax would raise taxes for the middle class. I'd vote for a flat sales tax, including a 0.3% tax on all stock, commodities and other Wall Street trading/speculative investing. Police are not federal gov. "Problem solved: weak central goverment under a truly free enterprise system protected by the constitution, the legislature and the nation in arms. " What problem were you trying to solve? Or were you just expressing what you imagine the nation would turn to if libertarians had their way? It doesn't make much sense if that is the case. Is that really what you imagine? Please explain. | ||
| Gaesati |
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Means? | ||
| Gaesati |
Is the citizenry of America over governed? Freedom suggests personal responsibility for one's actions. Perhaps State governments have too much power also? I take your point about a consumption tax. Does the inscription on the statue of liberty say something like" give me your poor your needy, your masses yearning to be free..." is excluding people from a "Free" society then inconsistent? If the government controls legislation, executive direction and the judiciary is this not the right to govern? Has there not been a huge rise in legislation and litigation within the United States within the last 100 years? Maybe government activity needs to be limited so that the machinery of implementation is in private hands. Certainly many badwebbers seem to be of the opinion, that, the military excluded, public servants are at best inefficient and at worst incompetent and self-serving. | ||
| Blake |
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Means?" Funny, you don't even quote accurately. Our right is not just to "bear arms", but to "keep" them as well. The 2nd amendment means that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state and that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The inscription on the statue of liberty is speaking to those seeking LEGAL entry into the nation. Further, the inscription on the statue of liberty is not a legal document in any way, shape, or form. Your argument is emotionally based with no actual constitutional support. Privatization of government... You still seem to be arguing against a view that no one has offered. That said, I'd be for privatizing the post office.  "Certainly many badwebbers seem to be of the opinion, that, the military excluded, public servants are at best inefficient and at worst incompetent and self-serving." I'd certainly never say that, have never said that, would never say that. You are confused. Why do some seem so comfortable putting words into others' mouths? Why not stick to the issues as presented and have a discussion of ideas rather than turn to personal critique? I don't get it. Please explain why you would rather aim your debate at those opposing your views than their ideas. You seem to have invented a new right, "the right to govern." I sure don't like the sound of it. I prefer our government to be entirely of the people, by the people, and for the people. It hasn't been that for some time in my view. All your points are answerable in one simple rebuttal; honor and uphold the constitution as intended by its authors. PERIOD! (Message edited by blake on December 09, 2009) | ||
| Gaesati |
Sorry Blake there were no quote marks around my reference to the 2nd amendment I.e. It wasn't a quote. A reference to my reading of badwebbers comments is not an insult or attack on them. They have just as much right to an opinion as you or I. If it's an observation it's not an emotional argument Working out what the authors of the constitution intended seems to have occupied a great deal of the time of the judiciary over the past 100 years and a Democrat's interpretation is often different to a Republican's. it seems to me that all government involves the surrender of indiviual freedoms of someone. It becomes aquestion of how much freedom any person is prepared to sacrifice. | ||
| Gaesati |
Perhaps instead of right to govern I certainly should have said mandate to govern extended by the people. Certainly, I agree with you that government is too far removed from the constituents. A minor point; wrt the statue of liberty I was not referring to it as a legal matter but as a sentiment. In any case I am sorry that you seem to have become heated enough to resort to capitals. It is only a discussion about the degree to which the powers of government should be limited. | ||
| Blake |
Again you turn the discussion to a personal one. Why? Why not stick to the issues? | ||
| Phelan |
I think one of the biggest problems is that, in this day of smooth talkers and lawyers, unless the people step up and insist that their representatives actually represent them, these people find a way to "interpret" the constitution however they want. It's similar to the Bible. If you don't have a desire to learn the balance in it, you can find a single scripture to justsify whatever you want to do if you ignore the thousands of others. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Blake i believe we fought a Civil War over your idea. | ||
| Reindog |
drkside79, I point you to the Tenth Amendment which is part of the Bill of Rights. The federal government is only empowered by what is enumerated by the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. The States or the People have the remaining power. The US government has exceeded its Constitutional authority and needs to be reigned in. The federal government has no right to legislate health care which is a States right issue. Same for the Department of Education. The Second Civil War may be necessary if the Federal Government doesn't step down. | ||
| Drkside79 |
But i suppose if we need to use scorched earth tactics again in Georgia we could always do that..... I'm joking by the way. However States rights over Central Government opens up a lot of issues considering I personally think a few areas of this country are unable to tie their own shoes let alone make educated decisions without letting religion into it. | ||
| Drkside79 |
If we allow states too much power we will have 50 countries instead of states. Or at least 49 states and Texas which might not be a bad idea. (Message edited by drkside79 on December 09, 2009) | ||
| Texastechx1 |
i like that guy... | ||
| Ratyson |
Gaesati:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Means? The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is a very clear and concise statement. There are two topics covered, in no order of importance: The Federal Government shall not infringe upon the rights of the people to: (1)Maintain a State Militia in order to ensure security of that state. (2)To own, and use if necessary, arms (weapons). I know the "meaning" of this Amendment has been debated over an over again by Senators, Lawmakers, Lawyers, the Press etc. However, that "debate" is fueled by nothing more than personal agenda. All one has to do is read the statements of those who were originally involved in the forming of our great nation. I have included some quotes below that leave absolutely no question as to what the intention of the second amendment is. In fact, I would question anyone's agenda who can read these statements, and still feel that the Second Amendment does not clearly and plainly guard the individual citizen's right to own and use firearms.} "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individualdiscretion, in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88 ----- "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 ----- "Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust God it will forever remain, in the hands of the people." Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, Feb 20, 1788 ----- "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the (SECOND) article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe, in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 ----- "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8 ----- "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Every man who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, During Virginia's ratification convention, 1788 ----- "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, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344 ----- "And what country can preserve it's liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take up arms. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William S. Smith, 1787 ----- "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764 ----- "The Constitution of most of our states, and the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves: that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776 ----- "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights. Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788 ----- "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist No. 46 ----- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789) ----- "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788 ----- "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775 ----- "A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." George Washington, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1785 | ||
| Blake |
"Blake i believe we fought a Civil War over your idea." The battle cry of the rebellion was indeed "states rights." They wanted the right to continue brutally enslaving people. They lost. Most Johnny Rebs were simply fighting for their state, which at the time was viewed more as a nation, and rightly so. America is a union of states and was only and ever meant to be a union, never a subjugation by an overbearing central government. Fraudulently exploiting the commerce clause of our nation's constitution to justify threatening folks with bankruptcy and jail should they produce firearms that some idiots in Washington, DC imagine are too unsavory or dangerous is an outrage and a clear violation of our 2nd amendment. |
