GOP Broden: Violent Revolution Is "On the Table"

[LiberalNut]

Welcome to the fray.

Thanks. What did you think of my extended schpiel on Jefferson? Not bad for off the cuff eh?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Just stay armed and no one can fuck with you. Our Founding Fathers knew this. Some and especially the Government,would call it a "Revolution" but i would call it "Defending yourself against a tyrannical Government." Our Founding Fathers could dig that. Don't let em take your guns and you'll be just fine. There will be no need for "Revolution."

 

[California Girl]

He's already been blatantly wrong on one historical point.

Well, I was sloppy enough in my verbiage that i could be considered to have been wrong. I recovered well though i thought. In any case, it is inevitable that i will from time to time make mistakes just as it is inevitable that you will use those mistakes as an excuse to ignore every fact that I offer in contradiction of your pre-conceived notions. Such is the lot of those who attempt rational debate with wingnuts.

It was not verbiage. You said A, when B is actually true.

It was flat out wrong.

Care to point out any views of mine that you consider wingnuttery?

My bet is that you're wrong there too.

When someone can't figure out how to use the quote function, I'm quietly confident he's not smart enough to understand what an idiot he is.

 

[LiberalNut]

This is my rifle, this is my gun.
This is for fighting, this is for fun.

Your schpiel is paranoid, pre-packaged and boring. Your pop-gun, though it makes you feel all manly, will not cure any of the ills of your pathetic existence. It is not a penis substitute. Indeed, by owning it, you have increased your odds of being shot by like 300%.

 

[LiberalNut]

When someone can't figure out how to use the quote function, I'm quietly confident he's not smart enough to understand what an idiot he is.

I don't like the quote function Girl and when someone ignores the topic and engages in pure personal attacks, I'm quite confident they they know pretty much nothing. You're a bot. I bet you even go so far as to call the smart people "pointy headed" and other such nonsense, don't you?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This is my rifle, this is my gun.
This is for fighting, this is for fun.

Your schpiel is paranoid, pre-packaged and boring. Your pop-gun, though it makes you feel all manly, will not cure any of the ills of your pathetic existence. It is not a penis substitute. Indeed, by owning it, you have increased your odds of being shot by like 300%.

Obviously we just have a big disagreement on the use of the term "Revolution." It's not about "Revolution" it's about Self Defense. Just keep your guns and no one can fuck with you. Our Founding Fathers really were brilliant in that they understood that all those years ago. That being said,if you own a gun,you really should learn how to use it safely. In the end,you cannot completely control the People unless you disarm them. And that ain't gonna happen here. We really should all be grateful to our Founding Fathers for that.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Welcome to the fray.

Thanks. What did you think of my extended schpiel on Jefferson? Not bad for off the cuff eh?

Not bad, but there's a lot of wiggle room in it for a poster to drive a few holes through.

 

[code1211]

<snip>

hopeful that they could produce something better

Better than what? The Articles of Confederation, yes? The entire exercise was one of creating a stronger central government, yes? A government that specifically would be powerful enough to respond quickly to uprisings like Shays' Rebellion, right? A government rich enough to raise a Navy to combat the Barbary Pirates and so on and so forth.

<snip>

It seems to me that the so-called "strict constructionists" are indeed insisting that we wear still the coat that fit us as a boy and that we are somehow bound to remain under the Regimen of our barbarous ancestors. I reject this utterly.

Better than all of the other attempts to organize a people under a central government.

That the Constitution is a bare bones, limiting document is telling. The framers did not want a central government that could run rough shod over the states' rights in Massachusettes or Virginia. The folks from those states seemed pretty pleased by what they had at home and wanted to keep it that way. The language reserving so much power to the states and to the people was not a accident of omission. It was purposely and purposefully inserted as a part of the overarching fear of central, remote governance of induviduals far from the seat of power.

That fear, as it turns out, was justified by their circumstance of the moment and now has been justified by the incremental insertion of the powers of the central government into the lives of and against the rights of the individual.

By saying that anything not specifically outlined as a Federal power is reserved to the States and to the people, the framers made their intention crystal clear. It is only by torturing obscure and minor words and clauses that the Constitution will say that rights like the right to abortion are guarenteed at the federal level. The framers had no intention of this being the case and only the most agenda driven would assert they did.

That abortion is now the law of the land is a monument to expediancy over over law.

The intent of the framers was a central government that would regulate and coordinate the relations between the states. The current state of affairs is a central government that dominates the states and under Obama, seeks to obliterate entirely states rights. It has been an incremental approach to this imbalance up to now and the suddeness of the Healthcare Insurance take over is a wake up call.

People are waking to a new reality and they don't seem entirely pleased by what they are finding.

The Framers had some very good ideas and were generally a pretty brilliant group of guys. It pains me that people of the caliber of Bush II and now the Big 0 are trying to sweep away thier ideas. It pains me also that there are those who don't seem to be bothered by their efforts.

 

[code1211]

Is The Army Times a source you might trust?

Yeah, yeah, I read up on it. If you read up on it you will find that there is an easy remedy for any troop who didn't get a ballot. You go to your unit voting officer and you tell them you didn't get a ballot. You are then given a standard DoD issue write-in ballot which can be faxed to the States Immediately. Some troops of course can take advantage of Internet voting.

In short, accusations of intentional voter suppression are the worst form of hyperbolic, partisan hackery.

Election laws, even in Federal elections are not a Federal Powers issue. This is a States Rights issue. Remember Florida in 2000? The DoD can do whatever they want to do, but unless the state from which the soldier hails wants to recognize that ballot, it will not.

This is why the DoJ is suing the states. It cannot interfere with nor dictate the rules of running elections.

 

[code1211]

If you rightwingers revolt and establish a new government, it will have to be an undemocratic one if you want to sustain your agenda, because if you set up one that is democratic, i.e., that supports the will of the people,

you'll end up right back where we are,

because most Americans don't agree with your agenda.

The will of the people should not always be followed. What if the will of the people were to kill all people with user names of "NYcarbineer"?

The founders established a constitutional republic to protect the minority's rights. We are not a mob rules nation. We abide by the rule of law....At least were supposed too.

The Supreme Court is the Constitutional guardian of minority rights and conservatives love to hate it.

Why is this the job of the Supreme Court instead of protectig the rule of law?

How does the Dred Scot decision play into your theory?

 

[LiberalNut]

Better than all of the other attempts to organize a people under a central government.

Which, when put in context, means the weaker confederation under the Articles of Confederation. I see nothing in your writing that opposes the basic notion that the Constitutional Convention was in essense and exercise in creating a stronger federal government.

The framers did not want a central government that could run rough shod over the states' rights in Massachusettes or Virginia.

And here we have what is essentially a statement of faith. Catch phrases like "run rough shod" are coupled with fictional notions of a monolithic "intent of the founders" to produce an idea that has nothing to do with actual history. Madison for one clearly wanted a federal government that would be clearly superior to the states. Indeed, the supremacy clause shows that even the compromise position would be that laws passed by the new Congress would be, well, supreme over the states.

The language reserving so much power to the states and to the people was not a accident of omission.

That language, as found in the 9th and 10th amendments, wasn't even part of the original compromise formed at the convention. Indeed, those two amendments have been for the most part functionally meaningless both in our governance and in our jurisprudence.

overarching fear of central, remote governance

Well, yeah. Those words were added to allay unfounded fears of the States and were very useful in propaganda pieces like the Federalist Papers in selling the document to said States. After that however, those words were functionally meaningless though still philosophically important.

That fear, as it turns out, was justified by their circumstance of the moment and now has been justified by the incremental insertion of the powers of the central government into the lives of and against the rights of the individual.

This is nothing but straightforward, right wing boilerplate. The reality of the history of the United States is that freedom has expanded since the founding. There are no more slaves. Women can vote and so on and so forth. These imagined infringements on your liberty are illusory unless of course you are actually talking aout the right to own slaves or to supress half the population from voting.

It is only by torturing obscure and minor words and clauses that the Constitution will say that rights like the right to abortion are guarenteed at the federal level.

More standard, right wing boilerplate. The document itself, in Article III, tells us who actually has the power to authoritatively interpret the Constitution and that wouldn't be you. What you call "obscure" and "torturing" was, to the people who actually held the Constitutional power, sound jurisprudence. Though you act as though your ideologically based interpretation of the Constitution is somehow authoritative, it is not. You can no more dictate the interpretation of the commerce clause than I can authoritatively interpret the 2nd amendment. This is how it should be and this is in accordance with the system the founders actually created. The Supreme Court and other courts the Congress sees fit to create from time to time get that power and all knew at the convention and beyond that it would be the people who held these positions of power that would actually dictate how the Constitution functioned in the real world.

The intent of the framers was a central government that would regulate and coordinate the relations between the states.

You simply have to get over the notion that there was an overarching "will of the founders" that you can reference in religious fashion as one would reference the will of God from scripture. This kind of talk, though common among right wingers, is completely ahistorical.

The current state of affairs is a central government that dominates the states and under Obama, seeks to obliterate entirely states rights.

Now we're into staightforward partisan hackery. This comment is unworthy of serious response and I don't take it seriously. The rest of your post is hereby judged likewise.

 

[LiberalNut]

Remember Florida in 2000?

Indeed I do. I distinctly remember the US supreme court, twice, overturning the jurisprudence of the supreme court of the State of Florida so that it could get the outcome it desired in direct contradiction of your assertion that said rules are a state issue alone.

The DoD can do whatever they want to do, but unless the state from which the soldier hails wants to recognize that ballot, it will not.

This is simply not the case. The federal courts can and probably would force the state to comply with federal law. You even recognize this...

This is why the DoJ is suing the states.

Where would they be doing this? How does this square with your notion of this being a "states rights only" matter? How does it square with the unjustified railing against the administration?

Your schpiel is self-contradictory and transparent. There is not intentional voter suppression. Saying that there is is pure partisan hackery.

 

[LiberalNut]

Why is this the job of the Supreme Court instead of protectig the rule of law?

Why don't you realize that you just asked a nonsensical question? It is the role of the courts to decide how stautory law operates in the real world in specific cases. This is simply what courts do. This right wing notion that courts simply mindlessly consider a fact scenario, place it against a codified set of rules and spit out an answer as a computer might has nothing to do with how the law operates in the real world.

How does the Dred Scot decision play into your theory?

I will not answer for the other poster but for me, Dred Scott is a study in accepting the system that the founders actually created. While i do not agree with what the majority decided in that case, I have to recognize that the Court had every right to do what they did. Once the court ruled thusly, the only remedy was constitutional amendment.

 

[Sallow]

Is The Army Times a source you might trust?

Yeah, yeah, I read up on it. If you read up on it you will find that there is an easy remedy for any troop who didn't get a ballot. You go to your unit voting officer and you tell them you didn't get a ballot. You are then given a standard DoD issue write-in ballot which can be faxed to the States Immediately. Some troops of course can take advantage of Internet voting.

In short, accusations of intentional voter suppression are the worst form of hyperbolic, partisan hackery.

Election laws, even in Federal elections are not a Federal Powers issue. This is a States Rights issue. Remember Florida in 2000? The DoD can do whatever they want to do, but unless the state from which the soldier hails wants to recognize that ballot, it will not.

This is why the DoJ is suing the states. It cannot interfere with nor dictate the rules of running elections.

The Constitution has supremacy. That is what the Republic is founded upon. Our Union is not nor will be any time in the near future (and hopefully never) a loose confederation of states. There are powers not in the Constitution that are granted to the states..particularily in matters of local affairs..but make no mistake..federal government is the law of the land. The Whiskey Rebellion and Civil War settled that.

 

[Revere]

Is The Army Times a source you might trust?

Yeah, yeah, I read up on it. If you read up on it you will find that there is an easy remedy for any troop who didn't get a ballot. You go to your unit voting officer and you tell them you didn't get a ballot. You are then given a standard DoD issue write-in ballot which can be faxed to the States Immediately. Some troops of course can take advantage of Internet voting.

In short, accusations of intentional voter suppression are the worst form of hyperbolic, partisan hackery.

Election laws, even in Federal elections are not a Federal Powers issue. This is a States Rights issue. Remember Florida in 2000? The DoD can do whatever they want to do, but unless the state from which the soldier hails wants to recognize that ballot, it will not.

This is why the DoJ is suing the states. It cannot interfere with nor dictate the rules of running elections.

The Constitution has supremacy. That is what the Republic is founded upon. Our Union is not nor will be any time in the near future (and hopefully never) a loose confederation of states. There are powers not in the Constitution that are granted to the states..particularily in matters of local affairs..but make no mistake..federal government is the law of the land. The Whiskey Rebellion and Civil War settled that.

Bullshit. The Federal government has limited powers, which are articulated in the Constitution.

The Civil War was a remedy for secession, not states suing the Federal government because of powers the Federal Government grabs which does not belong to it.

The Civil War did not settle the issue of whether the Federal government can force states to enforce its health care laws.

 

[LiberalNut]

You know, I used to get discouraged when I put a lot of thought and effort into posting just to be met with mindless poof like the last post. Then I realized that many more were viewing the thread than actually writing in it.

I don't post for you Revere. I post for the others. You're beyond hope, at least for now.

 

[Revere]

It was a reply to Sallow.

It's not always all about you.

Does your ignore function work? Mine does.

 

[Yurt]

it is the winners who determine what treason means

No, the constitution says what treason means. Once again, the righties show no respect for the constitution whatsoever.

the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants

Again, later in his life, after witnessing the horrors of the French Revolution, Jefferson retracted and denounced these words. You need to get over your soundbite mentality.

link to his retraction

and dumbass....if there is a civil revolution, the winners won't be guilty of treason by virture of their claim that they defended teh constitution

think before you type

still no link huh.....

 

[Revere]

Who "voted" for what the EPA is doing? Where is their Constitutional empowerment to do what they are doing?

 

[Revere]

Who voted for the FCC to hand control of the internet over to the Federal government?