Have we become a nation of demagogues?

[ABikerSailor]

1. Yes, if the person is of the age of consent, and both parties are willing to enter into a marriage, they should be allowed to do so.

2. I have no problem with what kind of weapon you own, I do have a problem with having the ability to throw 30 rounds or more downrange before reloading. Firepower like that is only required in a combat zone.

3. If you are referring to adults who came to this country illegally? Deport them when they are caught. If you are talking about the DACA kids who didn't come here of their own choice, and have lived here almost all their lives? I think they should be afforded a path to citizenship. Either serve 4 years in the military honorably, or get a degree in a job that we need here in the US, or serve 4 years in the Peace Corps. That way, they are showing that they want to be here and will benefit this country.

Quick question for you.......................how do you feel about the veteran who was deported just a little while ago who had served 2 tours in Afghanistan serving this country? He served, got out, had PTSD and was arrested for drugs, and was then deported. Is that right?

US Army veteran who served two tours in Afghanistan has been deported to Mexico - CNN

You say you have a problem with people having weapons only appropriate to a combat zone, but the whole reason why they have them is in case their neighborhood becomes a combat zone (whether due to a foreign invader, or a tyrannical domestic power). So unless you are claiming this is an impossibility, despite it happening innumerable times throughout history, how do you justify your objection?

Really? You do know we have a military to prevent that, right? When was the last time America was invaded by a foreign power? If I remember correctly, it was back in the early 1800's.

And, how exactly do you see the US becoming a tyrannical domestic power? How would that happen?

Let them take the guns, and you'll find out

You didn't answer my question. In what kind of scenario do you see the US government becoming a tyrannical power? How would something like that occur in your estimation?

I feel as though our government would like to have much more power, the ability to create a sort of dictatorship. If you look back in history, you see how these things happened, and history tends to repeat itself.

Also, it's not hard to see that we are in a soft dictatorship already. The government already pretty much has total control over your life. All the laws they pass, all the taxes they levy against us. Do you really believe you have freedom?

Look no further that the federal reserve act to understand that we are almost at that point, the only deterrence we have are 330 million guns. Remove them and the rest if your liberties will fall.

And yes, before you say it, that does sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is a lot of merit to the argument.

See, these are the conversations with people who disagree with me politically that I like. I get to hear concrete reasons why you think the way you do.

You said you feel like the government would like to have more power. Yeah, I can understand that, but the only problem is, they currently don't. I'm asking you by what path would it be possible for the US government to become a totalitarian dictatorship? Because, with the current form of government we have, I don't think something like that is possible.

Now, if you allow Trump to continue to do things that are definitely outside of the lines he's supposed to be in (emoluments clause), he may try to take even more power, and that is where Congress is supposed to stop him.

I mean, Congress already forced Trump to do something he didn't want to do when they made him enforce the sanctions they voted on several months ago. That is why I think that our government turning into a dictatorship is pretty far fetched.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Also, it usually the left that starts the fear mongering when it comes to government shut down. They say that, granny won't get her medicine, or kids will lose their doctors or the military will stop getting paid.

All essential services still function under a government shut down...which makes you wonder, if there are nonessential services...why do they exist?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I agree. I think they should shut the government down. I'm tired of them kicking the can down the road. If it were up to me, I'd throw every single one of them out if office and start over. I don't believe any of them are worthy if the office they hold.

And I also believe that lobbying should be against the law. No business should be able to influence votes. That's the job of the people.

Who's "they"?

I agree concerning lobbyists. They are one step below lawyers, who are one step below horse thieves.

I'm thinkin' I prefer the horse thief... They seem more honest and straightforward.

*****SMILE*****

 

[ThisIsMe]

From what I've seen since I started coming here, it's exactly opposite of what you have said.

The left are usually quick to insult, and they use emotions in most arguments. The left usually uses things like "the right wants to kill children", or, "The right wants old people to be sick" or "The right doesn't care about this or that".

Those are all arguments based on emotion, trying to affect the emotions of others.

From all of the talk radio I've listened to, the conservatives are the ones who boast freedom, self reliance, and keeping government out of people's lives and letting people reach as far as they can. Not once have I heard hannity, beck, Limbaugh, wilkow, or levin say any of the things the left claims, or even heard them elude to it.

From my perspective, the left argue from a position of emotion, and the right argues from a position of constitutionality, and logic.

Ever read what Sassy Irish Lass posts? How about some of the other right wingers on here?

Alex Jones (who most Trump supporters appear to like), is nothing BUT a demagogue. He pumps his website with fear inducing articles and generally very little in the information department, but really heavy in the emotional department. Check out InfoWars sometime. They are a definite conservative news source.

I'm sure there are some conservatives that fit the description you give, and there ate some liberals as well. You can't lump everyone together.

Most of the right wing I've seen want people to advance, and become prosperous, but do so on their own, and by keeping government out of their lives.

Also, Alex jones may hold some conservative values, but I wouldn't associate him as a conservative. Most people on the right know that he is a fear mongerer.

It is unfortunate that there are a few bad apples on this forum that give the right a bad name. They are all, from what I've seen, good people who just want to abide by the constitution and allow people to be free.

Listen to the conservative politicians sometime. They use fear as a way to sell you on the wall and spending. Matter of fact, fear is why the spending bill was passed. They didn't want the government to shut down, so they passed a huge bill with a lot of excess stuff in it that didn't need to be there. A good for instance is the part of the bill that keeps minor league baseball players as "seasonal workers" who only get 1,100/mo, even though they show up for games and practice around 60 hours a week. They aren't even making minimum wage.

So tell me, what does pay for the minor league baseball players have to do with the spending bill of this country? Quick answer, nothing. But, the lobbyists for the MLB got them to include it in this one so they could save money.

I agree. I think they should shut the government down. I'm tired of them kicking the can down the road. If it were up to me, I'd throw every single one of them out if office and start over. I don't believe any of them are worthy if the office they hold.

And I also believe that lobbying should be against the law. No business should be able to influence votes. That's the job of the people.

Who's "they"?

I agree concerning lobbyists. They are one step below lawyers, who are one step below horse thieves.

"They" are, both democrats and republicans who are in the Senate and Congress. I think our lawmakers have strayed so far from the values and ideals that were a part of the writing of the constitution.

Government is supposed to serve the will of the people, but government now serves it's own purpose. Most politicians only desire power and will do and say anything to keep that power.

Newly elected lawmakers probably enter their seat with good intentions, but quickly get caught up in the machine of the political system, and they become corrupted and are likely told if they don't tow the party line, that they will be ineffective during their term.

The only way to fix this is to send a strong message, that we the people want our country back, and we will no longer stand for the injustice and criminal behavior that has become our government.

If I had a platform, I'd say that this coming mid term election, vote for anyone other than the incumbent. Time to refresh the tree of liberty, and have a major overturn of both the house and Senate, in BOTH parties.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Also, it usually the left that starts the fear mongering when it comes to government shut down. They say that, granny won't get her medicine, or kids will lose their doctors or the military will stop getting paid.

All essential services still function under a government shut down...which makes you wonder, if there are nonessential services...why do they exist?

I was active duty Navy when they shut down the government back in the 90's. And, while we were still supposed to show up for work and do our jobs, the civilians were furloughed, and we had to take up the slack due to their absence.

And no, we didn't get a paycheck until the government opened back up. Granted, we got back pay, but for many of the lower ranks, they had to go to Navy Relief and take out an interest free loan to meet their bills until the government opened back up.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You say you have a problem with people having weapons only appropriate to a combat zone, but the whole reason why they have them is in case their neighborhood becomes a combat zone (whether due to a foreign invader, or a tyrannical domestic power). So unless you are claiming this is an impossibility, despite it happening innumerable times throughout history, how do you justify your objection?

Really? You do know we have a military to prevent that, right? When was the last time America was invaded by a foreign power? If I remember correctly, it was back in the early 1800's.

And, how exactly do you see the US becoming a tyrannical domestic power? How would that happen?

Let them take the guns, and you'll find out

You didn't answer my question. In what kind of scenario do you see the US government becoming a tyrannical power? How would something like that occur in your estimation?

I feel as though our government would like to have much more power, the ability to create a sort of dictatorship. If you look back in history, you see how these things happened, and history tends to repeat itself.

Also, it's not hard to see that we are in a soft dictatorship already. The government already pretty much has total control over your life. All the laws they pass, all the taxes they levy against us. Do you really believe you have freedom?

Look no further that the federal reserve act to understand that we are almost at that point, the only deterrence we have are 330 million guns. Remove them and the rest if your liberties will fall.

And yes, before you say it, that does sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is a lot of merit to the argument.

See, these are the conversations with people who disagree with me politically that I like. I get to hear concrete reasons why you think the way you do.

You said you feel like the government would like to have more power. Yeah, I can understand that, but the only problem is, they currently don't. I'm asking you by what path would it be possible for the US government to become a totalitarian dictatorship? Because, with the current form of government we have, I don't think something like that is possible.

Now, if you allow Trump to continue to do things that are definitely outside of the lines he's supposed to be in (emoluments clause), he may try to take even more power, and that is where Congress is supposed to stop him.

I mean, Congress already forced Trump to do something he didn't want to do when they made him enforce the sanctions they voted on several months ago. That is why I think that our government turning into a dictatorship is pretty far fetched.

You may be right, but how far would it be between gun bans, and Marshall law? Again, this is in the conspiracy slope, but, really, we are pretty much already there. Our constitution says that government can craft laws, well, what that really has turned in to is that, government crafts laws that strangle the freedoms of its citizens.

Most of what I'm talking about is the monetary system. We are in a form of indentured servitude due to the fact that government can take from it's citizens that which they exchange for manual labor. The government then turns and uses those funds for things which are against the will if the people.

You work to make money, but the government gets to tell you how much of that money you can keep, or conversely, they can tell you how much your time and labor are worth.

As far as Trump goes, I agree, he has issues, but I'm not aligned with any particular party. If they find credible evidence of criminal behavior, then I think he needs to go, but for the sake of our country, we hope that his replacement will put the people first, the way it should be.

I want leaders who value the constitution, and who are willing to make the decisions to make the country prosper. They way it is now, is not what I imagine how it was supposed to be.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Also, it usually the left that starts the fear mongering when it comes to government shut down. They say that, granny won't get her medicine, or kids will lose their doctors or the military will stop getting paid.

All essential services still function under a government shut down...which makes you wonder, if there are nonessential services...why do they exist?

I was active duty Navy when they shut down the government back in the 90's. And, while we were still supposed to show up for work and do our jobs, the civilians were furloughed, and we had to take up the slack due to their absence.

And no, we didn't get a paycheck until the government opened back up. Granted, we got back pay, but for many of the lower ranks, they had to go to Navy Relief and take out an interest free loan to meet their bills until the government opened back up.

A good reason to have the military budget decoupled from the rest of the government spending. The protection of this country is what our military is there for, and they should not have to deal with things like that.

Here is what I think. The reason bills are so hard to pass is because there is so much red tape when it comes to passing laws. There should be no pork, no ear marks. I think every bill should be it's own stand alone item and voted on based strictly on what the bill says. Then, we would see who really are the culprits in all the bad laws that have been passed. Sure, we would have a lot more laws being passed, but it would be a quicker and smoother process and law makers wouldnt be able to hide behind the argument "I didn't vote for that bill because it had riders I didn't agree with"

 

[ABikerSailor]

Really? You do know we have a military to prevent that, right? When was the last time America was invaded by a foreign power? If I remember correctly, it was back in the early 1800's.

And, how exactly do you see the US becoming a tyrannical domestic power? How would that happen?

Let them take the guns, and you'll find out

You didn't answer my question. In what kind of scenario do you see the US government becoming a tyrannical power? How would something like that occur in your estimation?

I feel as though our government would like to have much more power, the ability to create a sort of dictatorship. If you look back in history, you see how these things happened, and history tends to repeat itself.

Also, it's not hard to see that we are in a soft dictatorship already. The government already pretty much has total control over your life. All the laws they pass, all the taxes they levy against us. Do you really believe you have freedom?

Look no further that the federal reserve act to understand that we are almost at that point, the only deterrence we have are 330 million guns. Remove them and the rest if your liberties will fall.

And yes, before you say it, that does sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is a lot of merit to the argument.

See, these are the conversations with people who disagree with me politically that I like. I get to hear concrete reasons why you think the way you do.

You said you feel like the government would like to have more power. Yeah, I can understand that, but the only problem is, they currently don't. I'm asking you by what path would it be possible for the US government to become a totalitarian dictatorship? Because, with the current form of government we have, I don't think something like that is possible.

Now, if you allow Trump to continue to do things that are definitely outside of the lines he's supposed to be in (emoluments clause), he may try to take even more power, and that is where Congress is supposed to stop him.

I mean, Congress already forced Trump to do something he didn't want to do when they made him enforce the sanctions they voted on several months ago. That is why I think that our government turning into a dictatorship is pretty far fetched.

You may be right, but how far would it be between gun bans, and Marshall law? Again, this is in the conspiracy slope, but, really, we are pretty much already there. Our constitution says that government can craft laws, well, what that really has turned in to is that, government crafts laws that strangle the freedoms of its citizens.

Most of what I'm talking about is the monetary system. We are in a form of indentured servitude due to the fact that government can take from it's citizens that which they exchange for manual labor. The government then turns and uses those funds for things which are against the will if the people.

You work to make money, but the government gets to tell you how much of that money you can keep, or conversely, they can tell you how much your time and labor are worth.

As far as Trump goes, I agree, he has issues, but I'm not aligned with any particular party. If they find credible evidence of criminal behavior, then I think he needs to go, but for the sake of our country, we hope that his replacement will put the people first, the way it should be.

I want leaders who value the constitution, and who are willing to make the decisions to make the country prosper. They way it is now, is not what I imagine how it was supposed to be.

Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald Attacks Parkland Survivor Kyle Kashuv, Blames a 'Mistake'

See, that is the problem right there. I'm not advocating for the banning of all guns, I'm asking for there to be a limit as to how many rounds you can throw downrange before reloading. When the AR-15 first came out, it only fired 5 rounds before needing to be reloaded. AR-15's like that I am fine with. Same with revolvers and bolt action rifles. I want to make it hard for mass shootings to take place. And, if you have to carry a whole bunch of ammo in a whole bunch of magazines, you are limited in how many people you can kill before someone stops you. Yes, you can reload a magazine in around 3 seconds, or 1.5 if you were trained like I was, but those 3 seconds might just be the thing needed to stop a gunman.

Besides, outside of a war zone, can you really give me a good reason why you need to squeeze off 30 rounds in 30 seconds?

 

[ptbw forever]

First, it helps to start off with the actual definition of the word, so that people who may be unfamiliar with it will know what it is and what it means.........................................

the definition of demagogue

demagogue

or demagog
[dem-uh-gog, -gawg]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
verb (used with object), demagogued, demagoguing.
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
verb (used without object), demagogued, demagoguing.
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.



Okay, there it is................we all know what the definition of a demagogue is.

Have you people noticed that there are a lot of posters on here who instead of using facts and actual things happening, they instead prefer to offer up opinion, emotional language and insults?

Me? I prefer to discuss things with people who use facts, logic and reason instead of emotion, rhetoric and opinion. Even if you disagree with me, if you use facts and reason, you have a much better chance of convincing me that your side is right. And, I might even learn something new in the process and will be grateful to you for the instruction.

But you will never convince me of anything if you only use insults and opinion instead of fact.

Interestingly enough, it appears that more conservatives are demagogues than their liberal counterparts, because they appear to be more prejudiced.

Demagoguery="progressivism"

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So you're one of those who believes....

1. That all mature willing companions have the right to form a marriage union as they choose?

2. That because it looks evil those guns are going out and killing people in gun free zones and that banning those guns will stop it?

3. That people can break US law and stay here even though they came here illegally?

....I have more questions but we'll start with those for you to answer.

*****CHUCKLE*****

1. Yes, if the person is of the age of consent, and both parties are willing to enter into a marriage, they should be allowed to do so.

2. I have no problem with what kind of weapon you own, I do have a problem with having the ability to throw 30 rounds or more downrange before reloading. Firepower like that is only required in a combat zone.

3. If you are referring to adults who came to this country illegally? Deport them when they are caught. If you are talking about the DACA kids who didn't come here of their own choice, and have lived here almost all their lives? I think they should be afforded a path to citizenship. Either serve 4 years in the military honorably, or get a degree in a job that we need here in the US, or serve 4 years in the Peace Corps. That way, they are showing that they want to be here and will benefit this country.

Quick question for you.......................how do you feel about the veteran who was deported just a little while ago who had served 2 tours in Afghanistan serving this country? He served, got out, had PTSD and was arrested for drugs, and was then deported. Is that right?

US Army veteran who served two tours in Afghanistan has been deported to Mexico - CNN

You say you have a problem with people having weapons only appropriate to a combat zone, but the whole reason why they have them is in case their neighborhood becomes a combat zone (whether due to a foreign invader, or a tyrannical domestic power). So unless you are claiming this is an impossibility, despite it happening innumerable times throughout history, how do you justify your objection?

Really? You do know we have a military to prevent that, right? When was the last time America was invaded by a foreign power? If I remember correctly, it was back in the early 1800's.

And, how exactly do you see the US becoming a tyrannical domestic power? How would that happen?

We have a military to prevent that? Plenty of countries had a military when they were invaded; that doesn’t “prevent” anything. Is it unlikely, given our location? Yes, but it’s also unlikely that your house will burn down, but you still buy insurance. No matter how small that chance, it’s not a situation where you want to be caught with your pants down.

And there are those who feel they should shoulder some of the responsibility for defending their own homeland, not just let others stand up for them while they cower in a corner. Some would even say it’s immoral to expect others to bear the responsibility for their safety, as this is a personal duty that comes with life on this planet, and at the very least, they would like to help out if they can.

There are 300 million Americans and less than 3 million in the military - they can’t be expected to be everywhere at once. Supporting the troops should be more than lip service if you claim to value their sacrifice.

If you’re truly earnest about your question concerning how the U.S. could become tyrannical, watch the video linked in this post and see if it changes your view by the end of it. Perhaps you will still think it impossible, but it never hurts to subject our views to rigorous challenges to make sure we truly believe what we think we do.

 

[dudmuck]

First, it helps to start off with the actual definition of the word, so that people who may be unfamiliar with it will know what it is and what it means.........................................

the definition of demagogue

demagogue

or demagog
[dem-uh-gog, -gawg]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
verb (used with object), demagogued, demagoguing.
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
verb (used without object), demagogued, demagoguing.
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.



Okay, there it is................we all know what the definition of a demagogue is.

Have you people noticed that there are a lot of posters on here who instead of using facts and actual things happening, they instead prefer to offer up opinion, emotional language and insults?

Me? I prefer to discuss things with people who use facts, logic and reason instead of emotion, rhetoric and opinion. Even if you disagree with me, if you use facts and reason, you have a much better chance of convincing me that your side is right. And, I might even learn something new in the process and will be grateful to you for the instruction.

But you will never convince me of anything if you only use insults and opinion instead of fact.

Interestingly enough, it appears that more conservatives are demagogues than their liberal counterparts, because they appear to be more prejudiced.

Demagoguery="progressivism"

Youre projecting...

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Really? You do know we have a military to prevent that, right? When was the last time America was invaded by a foreign power? If I remember correctly, it was back in the early 1800's.

And, how exactly do you see the US becoming a tyrannical domestic power? How would that happen?

Let them take the guns, and you'll find out

You didn't answer my question. In what kind of scenario do you see the US government becoming a tyrannical power? How would something like that occur in your estimation?

I feel as though our government would like to have much more power, the ability to create a sort of dictatorship. If you look back in history, you see how these things happened, and history tends to repeat itself.

Also, it's not hard to see that we are in a soft dictatorship already. The government already pretty much has total control over your life. All the laws they pass, all the taxes they levy against us. Do you really believe you have freedom?

Look no further that the federal reserve act to understand that we are almost at that point, the only deterrence we have are 330 million guns. Remove them and the rest if your liberties will fall.

And yes, before you say it, that does sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is a lot of merit to the argument.

See, these are the conversations with people who disagree with me politically that I like. I get to hear concrete reasons why you think the way you do.

You said you feel like the government would like to have more power. Yeah, I can understand that, but the only problem is, they currently don't. I'm asking you by what path would it be possible for the US government to become a totalitarian dictatorship? Because, with the current form of government we have, I don't think something like that is possible.

Now, if you allow Trump to continue to do things that are definitely outside of the lines he's supposed to be in (emoluments clause), he may try to take even more power, and that is where Congress is supposed to stop him.

I mean, Congress already forced Trump to do something he didn't want to do when they made him enforce the sanctions they voted on several months ago. That is why I think that our government turning into a dictatorship is pretty far fetched.

You may be right, but how far would it be between gun bans, and Marshall law? Again, this is in the conspiracy slope, but, really, we are pretty much already there. Our constitution says that government can craft laws, well, what that really has turned in to is that, government crafts laws that strangle the freedoms of its citizens.

Most of what I'm talking about is the monetary system. We are in a form of indentured servitude due to the fact that government can take from it's citizens that which they exchange for manual labor. The government then turns and uses those funds for things which are against the will if the people.

You work to make money, but the government gets to tell you how much of that money you can keep, or conversely, they can tell you how much your time and labor are worth.

As far as Trump goes, I agree, he has issues, but I'm not aligned with any particular party. If they find credible evidence of criminal behavior, then I think he needs to go, but for the sake of our country, we hope that his replacement will put the people first, the way it should be.

I want leaders who value the constitution, and who are willing to make the decisions to make the country prosper. They way it is now, is not what I imagine how it was supposed to be.

You say you want leaders who value the Constitution, which expressly states that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...” Once you concede this unfounded, invalid assertion, you have essentially given away the store. You have accepted the inequality of human rights that says one man (or group) may tax, but another cannot. That one may make law, but the other cannot.

This is the root of all the evils you are highlighting in your posts. You rail against the weeds, but cut them at the soil instead of pulling them out at the root. You clearly understand self-ownership to some degree, but have not taken it to its logical conclusion. You are a person who values freedom, so take your hand off the cork, and let it pop, my friend!

To paraphrase the Buddha:
“There are only two mistakes one can make on the road to truth; not starting, and not going all the way.”

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let them take the guns, and you'll find out

You didn't answer my question. In what kind of scenario do you see the US government becoming a tyrannical power? How would something like that occur in your estimation?

I feel as though our government would like to have much more power, the ability to create a sort of dictatorship. If you look back in history, you see how these things happened, and history tends to repeat itself.

Also, it's not hard to see that we are in a soft dictatorship already. The government already pretty much has total control over your life. All the laws they pass, all the taxes they levy against us. Do you really believe you have freedom?

Look no further that the federal reserve act to understand that we are almost at that point, the only deterrence we have are 330 million guns. Remove them and the rest if your liberties will fall.

And yes, before you say it, that does sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is a lot of merit to the argument.

See, these are the conversations with people who disagree with me politically that I like. I get to hear concrete reasons why you think the way you do.

You said you feel like the government would like to have more power. Yeah, I can understand that, but the only problem is, they currently don't. I'm asking you by what path would it be possible for the US government to become a totalitarian dictatorship? Because, with the current form of government we have, I don't think something like that is possible.

Now, if you allow Trump to continue to do things that are definitely outside of the lines he's supposed to be in (emoluments clause), he may try to take even more power, and that is where Congress is supposed to stop him.

I mean, Congress already forced Trump to do something he didn't want to do when they made him enforce the sanctions they voted on several months ago. That is why I think that our government turning into a dictatorship is pretty far fetched.

You may be right, but how far would it be between gun bans, and Marshall law? Again, this is in the conspiracy slope, but, really, we are pretty much already there. Our constitution says that government can craft laws, well, what that really has turned in to is that, government crafts laws that strangle the freedoms of its citizens.

Most of what I'm talking about is the monetary system. We are in a form of indentured servitude due to the fact that government can take from it's citizens that which they exchange for manual labor. The government then turns and uses those funds for things which are against the will if the people.

You work to make money, but the government gets to tell you how much of that money you can keep, or conversely, they can tell you how much your time and labor are worth.

As far as Trump goes, I agree, he has issues, but I'm not aligned with any particular party. If they find credible evidence of criminal behavior, then I think he needs to go, but for the sake of our country, we hope that his replacement will put the people first, the way it should be.

I want leaders who value the constitution, and who are willing to make the decisions to make the country prosper. They way it is now, is not what I imagine how it was supposed to be.

Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald Attacks Parkland Survivor Kyle Kashuv, Blames a 'Mistake'

See, that is the problem right there. I'm not advocating for the banning of all guns, I'm asking for there to be a limit as to how many rounds you can throw downrange before reloading. When the AR-15 first came out, it only fired 5 rounds before needing to be reloaded. AR-15's like that I am fine with. Same with revolvers and bolt action rifles. I want to make it hard for mass shootings to take place. And, if you have to carry a whole bunch of ammo in a whole bunch of magazines, you are limited in how many people you can kill before someone stops you. Yes, you can reload a magazine in around 3 seconds, or 1.5 if you were trained like I was, but those 3 seconds might just be the thing needed to stop a gunman.

Besides, outside of a war zone, can you really give me a good reason why you need to squeeze off 30 rounds in 30 seconds?

No, I can't give you a reason why anyone would need that kind of firepower. Unfortunately, we live in an age where those types of weapons are readily available.

In a perfect world one wouldn't need one, but this isn't a perfect world. Setting aside the discussion about government tyranny, there's also the point that, you can't regulate criminal behavior.

Had those types of weapons never been made, we wouldn't need to talk about these things, but, they are out there, and they are fairly easily obtained. I know that the right talks a lot about how criminals will find a way to do harm, but they have a point. The law abiding citizen, the person who would never hurt anyone, is not your problem. They will follow the rules, and be safe, and use their firearms for protection.

The criminal, however, does not care about the laws. They are going to find ways to get the weapons they want. Bans on high capacity magazines will not change that fact.

If a shooter enters a building with a high capacity weapon, and the only defense is a law abiding person with a 5 shot weapon, unless that person can take out the shooter with those 5 shots, it gives the shooter the upper hand.

Now, I can agree that, if weapons manufacturers stop producing those types of magazines, over time, they will work their way out of the system, but how many years will that take?

Then there is always new technology, such as 3d printing, that could render any such action negligible.

You may not be advocating a ban on all weapons, but that is just a start. Once they have the high capacity magazine banned, what happens next? They start going after another firearm, or firearm feature.

It is true that, bans on these items would stop people who steal weapons, or take them from friends or family, and it would also stop those who have them and then have a psychotic breakdown and go on a shooting spree. Yes, a ban would have an impact on those things, but for the truly intent criminal, they will find their way into possessing this type of weaponry.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let them take the guns, and you'll find out

You didn't answer my question. In what kind of scenario do you see the US government becoming a tyrannical power? How would something like that occur in your estimation?

I feel as though our government would like to have much more power, the ability to create a sort of dictatorship. If you look back in history, you see how these things happened, and history tends to repeat itself.

Also, it's not hard to see that we are in a soft dictatorship already. The government already pretty much has total control over your life. All the laws they pass, all the taxes they levy against us. Do you really believe you have freedom?

Look no further that the federal reserve act to understand that we are almost at that point, the only deterrence we have are 330 million guns. Remove them and the rest if your liberties will fall.

And yes, before you say it, that does sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is a lot of merit to the argument.

See, these are the conversations with people who disagree with me politically that I like. I get to hear concrete reasons why you think the way you do.

You said you feel like the government would like to have more power. Yeah, I can understand that, but the only problem is, they currently don't. I'm asking you by what path would it be possible for the US government to become a totalitarian dictatorship? Because, with the current form of government we have, I don't think something like that is possible.

Now, if you allow Trump to continue to do things that are definitely outside of the lines he's supposed to be in (emoluments clause), he may try to take even more power, and that is where Congress is supposed to stop him.

I mean, Congress already forced Trump to do something he didn't want to do when they made him enforce the sanctions they voted on several months ago. That is why I think that our government turning into a dictatorship is pretty far fetched.

You may be right, but how far would it be between gun bans, and Marshall law? Again, this is in the conspiracy slope, but, really, we are pretty much already there. Our constitution says that government can craft laws, well, what that really has turned in to is that, government crafts laws that strangle the freedoms of its citizens.

Most of what I'm talking about is the monetary system. We are in a form of indentured servitude due to the fact that government can take from it's citizens that which they exchange for manual labor. The government then turns and uses those funds for things which are against the will if the people.

You work to make money, but the government gets to tell you how much of that money you can keep, or conversely, they can tell you how much your time and labor are worth.

As far as Trump goes, I agree, he has issues, but I'm not aligned with any particular party. If they find credible evidence of criminal behavior, then I think he needs to go, but for the sake of our country, we hope that his replacement will put the people first, the way it should be.

I want leaders who value the constitution, and who are willing to make the decisions to make the country prosper. They way it is now, is not what I imagine how it was supposed to be.

You say you want leaders who value the Constitution, which expressly states that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...” Once you concede this unfounded, invalid assertion, you have essentially given away the store. You have accepted the inequality of human rights that says one man (or group) may tax, but another cannot. That one may make law, but the other cannot.

This is the root of all the evils you are highlighting in your posts. You rail against the weeds, but cut them at the soil instead of pulling them out at the root. You clearly understand self-ownership to some degree, but have not taken it to its logical conclusion. You are a person who values freedom, so take your hand off the cork, and let it pop, my friend!

To paraphrase the Buddha:
“There are only two mistakes one can make on the road to truth; not starting, and not going all the way.”

As I understand it, taxation was never supposed to be on people's incomes, only on certain goods and services. I could be wrong here, but I thought I read somewhere that, that is the case.

In that, i still hold to the constitution, because it delegates how and where taxation is to be levied, and our government has taken it way beyond that.

 

[MaryAnne11]

First, it helps to start off with the actual definition of the word, so that people who may be unfamiliar with it will know what it is and what it means.........................................

the definition of demagogue

demagogue

or demagog
[dem-uh-gog, -gawg]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
verb (used with object), demagogued, demagoguing.
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
verb (used without object), demagogued, demagoguing.
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.



Okay, there it is................we all know what the definition of a demagogue is.

Have you people noticed that there are a lot of posters on here who instead of using facts and actual things happening, they instead prefer to offer up opinion, emotional language and insults?

Me? I prefer to discuss things with people who use facts, logic and reason instead of emotion, rhetoric and opinion. Even if you disagree with me, if you use facts and reason, you have a much better chance of convincing me that your side is right. And, I might even learn something new in the process and will be grateful to you for the instruction.

But you will never convince me of anything if you only use insults and opinion instead of fact.

Interestingly enough, it appears that more conservatives are demagogues than their liberal counterparts, because they appear to be more prejudiced.

That is how demagogues gain power. By bullying,hateful,angry rhetoric.

You find those that follow them have the same traits.

But honestly they are trying to cover their insecurities by bullying. They are really cowards trying to cover.

Then they end up losing it all.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You didn't answer my question. In what kind of scenario do you see the US government becoming a tyrannical power? How would something like that occur in your estimation?

I feel as though our government would like to have much more power, the ability to create a sort of dictatorship. If you look back in history, you see how these things happened, and history tends to repeat itself.

Also, it's not hard to see that we are in a soft dictatorship already. The government already pretty much has total control over your life. All the laws they pass, all the taxes they levy against us. Do you really believe you have freedom?

Look no further that the federal reserve act to understand that we are almost at that point, the only deterrence we have are 330 million guns. Remove them and the rest if your liberties will fall.

And yes, before you say it, that does sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is a lot of merit to the argument.

See, these are the conversations with people who disagree with me politically that I like. I get to hear concrete reasons why you think the way you do.

You said you feel like the government would like to have more power. Yeah, I can understand that, but the only problem is, they currently don't. I'm asking you by what path would it be possible for the US government to become a totalitarian dictatorship? Because, with the current form of government we have, I don't think something like that is possible.

Now, if you allow Trump to continue to do things that are definitely outside of the lines he's supposed to be in (emoluments clause), he may try to take even more power, and that is where Congress is supposed to stop him.

I mean, Congress already forced Trump to do something he didn't want to do when they made him enforce the sanctions they voted on several months ago. That is why I think that our government turning into a dictatorship is pretty far fetched.

You may be right, but how far would it be between gun bans, and Marshall law? Again, this is in the conspiracy slope, but, really, we are pretty much already there. Our constitution says that government can craft laws, well, what that really has turned in to is that, government crafts laws that strangle the freedoms of its citizens.

Most of what I'm talking about is the monetary system. We are in a form of indentured servitude due to the fact that government can take from it's citizens that which they exchange for manual labor. The government then turns and uses those funds for things which are against the will if the people.

You work to make money, but the government gets to tell you how much of that money you can keep, or conversely, they can tell you how much your time and labor are worth.

As far as Trump goes, I agree, he has issues, but I'm not aligned with any particular party. If they find credible evidence of criminal behavior, then I think he needs to go, but for the sake of our country, we hope that his replacement will put the people first, the way it should be.

I want leaders who value the constitution, and who are willing to make the decisions to make the country prosper. They way it is now, is not what I imagine how it was supposed to be.

You say you want leaders who value the Constitution, which expressly states that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...” Once you concede this unfounded, invalid assertion, you have essentially given away the store. You have accepted the inequality of human rights that says one man (or group) may tax, but another cannot. That one may make law, but the other cannot.

This is the root of all the evils you are highlighting in your posts. You rail against the weeds, but cut them at the soil instead of pulling them out at the root. You clearly understand self-ownership to some degree, but have not taken it to its logical conclusion. You are a person who values freedom, so take your hand off the cork, and let it pop, my friend!

To paraphrase the Buddha:
“There are only two mistakes one can make on the road to truth; not starting, and not going all the way.”

As I understand it, taxation was never supposed to be on people's incomes, only on certain goods and services. I could be wrong here, but I thought I read somewhere that, that is the case.

In that, i still hold to the constitution, because it delegates how and where taxation is to be levied, and our government has taken it way beyond that.

But how do you address the inequality of rights? If you do so by claiming that there is no inequality because lawmakers are simply acting as delegates on behalf of the people, then you must explain how delegates can have rights that the people they represent do not.

You and I do not have the natural right or legal authority to personally tax our neighbors, so how can we validly delegate this right to someone else? That would be like me delegating the right to tax you to my cousin, even though I do not have that right in the first place.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I feel as though our government would like to have much more power, the ability to create a sort of dictatorship. If you look back in history, you see how these things happened, and history tends to repeat itself.

Also, it's not hard to see that we are in a soft dictatorship already. The government already pretty much has total control over your life. All the laws they pass, all the taxes they levy against us. Do you really believe you have freedom?

Look no further that the federal reserve act to understand that we are almost at that point, the only deterrence we have are 330 million guns. Remove them and the rest if your liberties will fall.

And yes, before you say it, that does sound like a conspiracy theory, but there is a lot of merit to the argument.

See, these are the conversations with people who disagree with me politically that I like. I get to hear concrete reasons why you think the way you do.

You said you feel like the government would like to have more power. Yeah, I can understand that, but the only problem is, they currently don't. I'm asking you by what path would it be possible for the US government to become a totalitarian dictatorship? Because, with the current form of government we have, I don't think something like that is possible.

Now, if you allow Trump to continue to do things that are definitely outside of the lines he's supposed to be in (emoluments clause), he may try to take even more power, and that is where Congress is supposed to stop him.

I mean, Congress already forced Trump to do something he didn't want to do when they made him enforce the sanctions they voted on several months ago. That is why I think that our government turning into a dictatorship is pretty far fetched.

You may be right, but how far would it be between gun bans, and Marshall law? Again, this is in the conspiracy slope, but, really, we are pretty much already there. Our constitution says that government can craft laws, well, what that really has turned in to is that, government crafts laws that strangle the freedoms of its citizens.

Most of what I'm talking about is the monetary system. We are in a form of indentured servitude due to the fact that government can take from it's citizens that which they exchange for manual labor. The government then turns and uses those funds for things which are against the will if the people.

You work to make money, but the government gets to tell you how much of that money you can keep, or conversely, they can tell you how much your time and labor are worth.

As far as Trump goes, I agree, he has issues, but I'm not aligned with any particular party. If they find credible evidence of criminal behavior, then I think he needs to go, but for the sake of our country, we hope that his replacement will put the people first, the way it should be.

I want leaders who value the constitution, and who are willing to make the decisions to make the country prosper. They way it is now, is not what I imagine how it was supposed to be.

You say you want leaders who value the Constitution, which expressly states that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...” Once you concede this unfounded, invalid assertion, you have essentially given away the store. You have accepted the inequality of human rights that says one man (or group) may tax, but another cannot. That one may make law, but the other cannot.

This is the root of all the evils you are highlighting in your posts. You rail against the weeds, but cut them at the soil instead of pulling them out at the root. You clearly understand self-ownership to some degree, but have not taken it to its logical conclusion. You are a person who values freedom, so take your hand off the cork, and let it pop, my friend!

To paraphrase the Buddha:
“There are only two mistakes one can make on the road to truth; not starting, and not going all the way.”

As I understand it, taxation was never supposed to be on people's incomes, only on certain goods and services. I could be wrong here, but I thought I read somewhere that, that is the case.

In that, i still hold to the constitution, because it delegates how and where taxation is to be levied, and our government has taken it way beyond that.

But how do you address the inequality of rights? If you do so by claiming that there is no inequality because lawmakers are simply acting as delegates on behalf of the people, then you must explain how delegates can have rights that the people they represent do not.

You and I do not have the natural right or legal authority to personally tax our neighbors, so how can we validly delegate this right to someone else? That would be like me delegating the right to tax you to my cousin, even though I do not have that right in the first place.

Again, the tax system was never supposed to be ran like it is. The people decided to set up a representative government, and give them power from "consent of the governed". In that, government was created, as well as our constitution, which allowed for an amendment process. One of those amendments was to lay and collect taxes.

Inherently, the people, by extension, allowed the government to write laws, and among those laws is taxation. Individually, a person has no power to tax another, as the scenario you laid out suggests, but collectively, through the esablishment of said government, the people gave the government the right of taxation as a whole.

I don't agree with where the taxation of this country has gone, it's far away from the original intent, but, if the population as a whole agreed to allow governance from a body of people, then I guess that is how they also gave the government the right to tax it's people.

The problem is, it is also written that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots, and that we as citizens must throw off treasonous government. Unfortunately, over time, government has gone from serving the people, to the people serving government. They have been allowed to gain so much power, that people now believe that the government are now our rulers. That is not the case, but so many laws have been created that if you resist the government, they will come after you.

Also, people now associate the government as being "The Country", which also is another mistake. The Country is the land, it's people, and the values and ideals with which it was founded, and written into our historical documents.

 

[SeaGal]

3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

...Interestingly enough, it appears that more conservatives are demagogues than their liberal counterparts, because they appear to be more prejudiced.

Yep, that's demagoguery sure enough!

 

[ABikerSailor]

3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

...Interestingly enough, it appears that more conservatives are demagogues than their liberal counterparts, because they appear to be more prejudiced.

Yep, that's demagoguery sure enough!

I didn't say they are, I said that it appears. Read some of the stuff by Uncensored 2008 or MudWhistle sometime.

Both are far right and use a lot of emotional rhetoric in their posts.

 

[ThisIsMe]

3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

...Interestingly enough, it appears that more conservatives are demagogues than their liberal counterparts, because they appear to be more prejudiced.

Yep, that's demagoguery sure enough!

I didn't say they are, I said that it appears. Read some of the stuff by Uncensored 2008 or MudWhistle sometime.

Both are far right and use a lot of emotional rhetoric in their posts.

I don't believe that the use of emotional language is exclusive to one party or another. They both use it regularly to make a point. I just feel as if the left use it more, not in reference to this forum, but in general.