It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[koshergrl]

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

We are NOT an oligarchy, the SCOTUS does NOT act as a ruling body. They function as a court for maritime disputes, intra-state disputes, disputes between people and states..and aside from that they are an APPELLATE court only. They were not formed nor do they exist to "interpret" the constitution. Read the fucking constitution, slave. Article III

 

[Syriusly]

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Only three percent of the population was needed to kick of the Revolutionary War.

To kick it off, yes, but at that point everyone else had to start making choices, and patriot support increased rapidly.

Total fucking bullshit. You really think that the sane citizens of this nation are going to follow a bunch of fruitloops like you? We had a good example of your kind of thinking just this year here in Oregon. And you fellows insanity was completely rejected.

They really do. They think that they're going to start killing cops and soliders in the name of the revolution......and their neighbors watching them ambush and murder law enforcement officers are going to run into their homes, grab their guns, and join them.

The reality would be more like this: the very cops that our would be revolutionaries were trying to kill at sunrise would be the very people that the same wannabes would be begging for protection by sunset. Protection from who? Why protection from the rest of us. The very well armed and organized majority that wouldn't put up with the cop and soldier killing ways of the wanna-bes. And would be making culling them for most of the day and into the night.

Thankfully the militia masterbators are protected by one overriding fact: they aren't wiling to bleed. And in a war you've got to do exactly that. When pressed its always an excuse why its someone else's responsibility to actual fight and die for their revolution. They cosplay, they crack one off the the latest issue of Gunz n' Ammo, they make vague threats anonymously and online.

But when their own 'militia' puts out the 'call' to start the revolution? No one shows up.

So what you are saying is there is never ever a reason to actively resist government, ever.

So you plan on being a good little lemming if, god forbid a tyrannical US government takes hold?

Let me know when one does- the OP wants a revolution against our Constitutionally elected government.

 

[Syriusly]

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

We are NOT an oligarchy, the SCOTUS does NOT act as a ruling body. They function as a court for maritime disputes, intra-state disputes, disputes between people and states..and aside from that they are an APPELLATE court only. They were not formed nor do they exist to "interpret" the constitution. Read the fucking constitution, slave. Article III

Read the fucking constitution yourself you mindless fascist.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

[bodecea]

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

We are NOT an oligarchy, the SCOTUS does NOT act as a ruling body. They function as a court for maritime disputes, intra-state disputes, disputes between people and states..and aside from that they are an APPELLATE court only. They were not formed nor do they exist to "interpret" the constitution. Read the fucking constitution, slave. Article III

Allie, your ignorance of how our federal government works is astounding. You must really be a poster in another country where they did not teach US Government. The SCOTUS is 1/3rd of our federal government and their JOB is to INTERPRET the laws PASSED by the Legislative Branch and ENFORCED by the Executive Branch. If a law does not pass Constitutional muster (and keep in mind, such review must come before the court thru some party filing a law suit), it is declared UnConstitutional and is struck down.

Welcome to the United States....that's how things work here.

 

[martybegan]

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

 

[martybegan]

So what you are saying is there is never ever a reason to actively resist government, ever.

So you plan on being a good little lemming if, god forbid a tyrannical US government takes hold?

You got that out of his post? Where? Where in his post did he say that there is never any reason to resist government ever? Point out exactly which line in the post you responded to gave you that idea.

All the talk about the futility of it leads me to thing that Skylar would go marching into the camps with a smile on her face.

So there was nothing. You made it up out of whole cloth. Already knew that, thanks.

I'm deducing it from what was written, not making it up. Way to avoid the actual question though.

And yet nobody but you got that out of what Syrius said.

Of course there is always a possibility for a reason to resist government...there just isn't one now.

That is in your opinion.

 

[martybegan]

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Only three percent of the population was needed to kick of the Revolutionary War.

To kick it off, yes, but at that point everyone else had to start making choices, and patriot support increased rapidly.

Total fucking bullshit. You really think that the sane citizens of this nation are going to follow a bunch of fruitloops like you? We had a good example of your kind of thinking just this year here in Oregon. And you fellows insanity was completely rejected.

Oregon wasn't the coming of the revolution, it was a local dispute blown up into a national story due to the federal nature of the place taken over, and the guys relation to a previous incident of armed confrontation.

If the number of people with grievances increases, and these people feel that normal channels will not work to resolve said grievances, what do you think will happen?

No, this isn't true at all. This isn't a local dispute, it's a national dispute and it's been going on for a hundred years. Normal channels do NOT work, because the parties involved are a minority, and located far away from where the majority lives.

California, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon...they have all been fighting this nonsense, and losing. Because the system is corrupt, because our legislators and our law enforcement do NOT uphold the constitution, and because people stupidly believe that the government in all it's forms..the EPA, the BLM, the USFS, has good intentions.

There are no good intentions here. The government is by its nature tyrannical. Our constitution is supposed to control it in this country, but since NOBODY is adhering to the constitution and in fact our citizenry is no longer even properly educated in their role in a CONSTITUTIONAL republic (because the feds educate them) and people are sick of it. Harney county went from being one of the most prosperous and wealthy counties in the STATE to being I think the second from the bottom just in the last 50 years..and because of NOTHING except governmental manipulation.

While I agree that the issue of federal land and its use (or prevention of use) is a national issue, the issue with the Bundy's isn't to me the case to figure it out.

 

[bendog]

Good luck with the revolution folks, but the chances of motivating Americans off their sofas are slimmer than Bernie getting his plans through the House.

 

[martybegan]

No shit, really? I never would have figured it out, just like it is only your opinion that the court was right in all of these cases as opposed to 2 out of 3.

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

 

[martybegan]

I said it would be almost impossible in my State.

And in the 50s, it looked almost impossible to legalize homosexuality...but we did it....in the 60s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay adoption...but we did it...in the 70s it looked almost impossible to have legalized gay marriage...but we did it.

It's called determination, presistence and effort over the long term.

All except for the last one you did the right way. And I don't recall gay marriage being an issue until the 90's.

Odd...we did all the same way, thru the courts....why would 2 successes thru the court be "the right way" and one success thru the courts NOT "be the right way?....and gay marriage wasn't an issue until the 90s because we were smart enough and persistent enough to go one small step at a time.

Because criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults is wrong, .

Yet- the GOP still supports criminalizing a sex act between two consenting adults.

Only the courts have made it clear that consensual sexual content is not something that Conservatives can outlaw according to the Constitution.

Don't believe me?

Louisiana GOP defeated attempts to reverse its unconstitutional anti-sodomy laws- because of Christian Conservatives.

Louisiana House votes 27-67 to keep unconstitutional anti-sodomy law on the books

A House Committee passed the legislation onto the body's floor by a vote of 9-6 last week. But one of the state's most powerful lobbying groups, the conservative Christian Louisiana Family Forum, opposes striking the sodomy ban.
The group sent out a letter to every legislator urging them to vote against the proposal, claiming that teenagers would be less protected from sexual predators if they went through with the repeal. They also said the bill would put the public health at risk.
"Louisiana's anti-sodomy statute is consistent with the values of Louisiana residents who consider this behavior to be dangerous, unhealthy and immoral," stated the letter to lawmakers from the Louisiana Family Forum.
During a floor discussion of the bill, the legislation's sponsor, Rep. Patricia Haynes Smith, pushed back on the Family Forum's assertions. The bill only seeks to repeal a statute that is already unconstitutional, she said.
"I never thought it would pass, but I thought it would do better," said Smith. "Some of the folks who voted to get it out of committee voted against it on the floor."

Those individual representatives do, not the "GOP". Do you want me to start reviewing all the crazy crap some Democrats come up with and apply it to the entire party?

 

[koshergrl]

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

Only three percent of the population was needed to kick of the Revolutionary War.

To kick it off, yes, but at that point everyone else had to start making choices, and patriot support increased rapidly.

Total fucking bullshit. You really think that the sane citizens of this nation are going to follow a bunch of fruitloops like you? We had a good example of your kind of thinking just this year here in Oregon. And you fellows insanity was completely rejected.

Oregon wasn't the coming of the revolution, it was a local dispute blown up into a national story due to the federal nature of the place taken over, and the guys relation to a previous incident of armed confrontation.

If the number of people with grievances increases, and these people feel that normal channels will not work to resolve said grievances, what do you think will happen?

No, this isn't true at all. This isn't a local dispute, it's a national dispute and it's been going on for a hundred years. Normal channels do NOT work, because the parties involved are a minority, and located far away from where the majority lives.

California, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon...they have all been fighting this nonsense, and losing. Because the system is corrupt, because our legislators and our law enforcement do NOT uphold the constitution, and because people stupidly believe that the government in all it's forms..the EPA, the BLM, the USFS, has good intentions.

There are no good intentions here. The government is by its nature tyrannical. Our constitution is supposed to control it in this country, but since NOBODY is adhering to the constitution and in fact our citizenry is no longer even properly educated in their role in a CONSTITUTIONAL republic (because the feds educate them) and people are sick of it. Harney county went from being one of the most prosperous and wealthy counties in the STATE to being I think the second from the bottom just in the last 50 years..and because of NOTHING except governmental manipulation.

While I agree that the issue of federal land and its use (or prevention of use) is a national issue, the issue with the Bundy's isn't to me the case to figure it out.

It's one of many. Remember, the Bundys aren't from OREGON. They came to Oregon to support people who are going through the same thing they went through. The face that you get from the media is not the real picture. I busted the Oregonian repeatedly printing outright lies and leaving out HUGE parts of the story. I knew the media was in the tank, but it wasn't until I saw how badly they stifled and misrepresented the news out of Burns that I realized how bad it is. The media goes to the government to get their information. Period. And the government tells them what they will and won't print. Period.

 

[martybegan]

Only three percent of the population was needed to kick of the Revolutionary War.

To kick it off, yes, but at that point everyone else had to start making choices, and patriot support increased rapidly.

Total fucking bullshit. You really think that the sane citizens of this nation are going to follow a bunch of fruitloops like you? We had a good example of your kind of thinking just this year here in Oregon. And you fellows insanity was completely rejected.

They really do. They think that they're going to start killing cops and soliders in the name of the revolution......and their neighbors watching them ambush and murder law enforcement officers are going to run into their homes, grab their guns, and join them.

The reality would be more like this: the very cops that our would be revolutionaries were trying to kill at sunrise would be the very people that the same wannabes would be begging for protection by sunset. Protection from who? Why protection from the rest of us. The very well armed and organized majority that wouldn't put up with the cop and soldier killing ways of the wanna-bes. And would be making culling them for most of the day and into the night.

Thankfully the militia masterbators are protected by one overriding fact: they aren't wiling to bleed. And in a war you've got to do exactly that. When pressed its always an excuse why its someone else's responsibility to actual fight and die for their revolution. They cosplay, they crack one off the the latest issue of Gunz n' Ammo, they make vague threats anonymously and online.

But when their own 'militia' puts out the 'call' to start the revolution? No one shows up.

So what you are saying is there is never ever a reason to actively resist government, ever.

So you plan on being a good little lemming if, god forbid a tyrannical US government takes hold?

Let me know when one does- the OP wants a revolution against our Constitutionally elected government.

The discussion was about starting to consider it, much like many people did back in revolutionary periods.

 

[bodecea]

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

 

[martybegan]

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Again, all of this could be avoided by the legislatures re-writing the laws at the State level, that would make them equal.

Your side keeps going on about no right being absolute, not everything is equal.

 

[bodecea]

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

I don't like Citizens United, but there is Constitutional interpretation backing it up....until such time as someone can convince the Supreme Court otherwise...or....a Constitutional Amendment is passed overriding it. That's how it's done.....that's how it was done with Plessey. That's how it was done with the Supreme Court decision in Pollack v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co.

 

[bodecea]

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

To kick it off, yes, but at that point everyone else had to start making choices, and patriot support increased rapidly.

Total fucking bullshit. You really think that the sane citizens of this nation are going to follow a bunch of fruitloops like you? We had a good example of your kind of thinking just this year here in Oregon. And you fellows insanity was completely rejected.

Oregon wasn't the coming of the revolution, it was a local dispute blown up into a national story due to the federal nature of the place taken over, and the guys relation to a previous incident of armed confrontation.

If the number of people with grievances increases, and these people feel that normal channels will not work to resolve said grievances, what do you think will happen?

No, this isn't true at all. This isn't a local dispute, it's a national dispute and it's been going on for a hundred years. Normal channels do NOT work, because the parties involved are a minority, and located far away from where the majority lives.

California, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon...they have all been fighting this nonsense, and losing. Because the system is corrupt, because our legislators and our law enforcement do NOT uphold the constitution, and because people stupidly believe that the government in all it's forms..the EPA, the BLM, the USFS, has good intentions.

There are no good intentions here. The government is by its nature tyrannical. Our constitution is supposed to control it in this country, but since NOBODY is adhering to the constitution and in fact our citizenry is no longer even properly educated in their role in a CONSTITUTIONAL republic (because the feds educate them) and people are sick of it. Harney county went from being one of the most prosperous and wealthy counties in the STATE to being I think the second from the bottom just in the last 50 years..and because of NOTHING except governmental manipulation.

While I agree that the issue of federal land and its use (or prevention of use) is a national issue, the issue with the Bundy's isn't to me the case to figure it out.

It's one of many. Remember, the Bundys aren't from OREGON. They came to Oregon to support people who are going through the same thing they went through. The face that you get from the media is not the real picture. I busted the Oregonian repeatedly printing outright lies and leaving out HUGE parts of the story. I knew the media was in the tank, but it wasn't until I saw how badly they stifled and misrepresented the news out of Burns that I realized how bad it is. The media goes to the government to get their information. Period. And the government tells them what they will and won't print. Period.

The Bundys were media whores....stupid media whores. Arrested media whores now.

 

[bodecea]

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Again, all of this could be avoided by the legislatures re-writing the laws at the State level, that would make them equal.

Your side keeps going on about no right being absolute, not everything is equal.

Ok, why would it not be...under the law? Keep in mind, those lawyers arguing against gay marriage were not able to present any compelling argument to the Supreme Court...or almost all lower courts that they were not equal under the eyes of the law. Do you have some compelling reason they didn't have?

 

[koshergrl]

The difference, and it's a big one, between my opinion and yours is my opinion is backed by federal court decisions.....based on the Constitution and its Amendments. My opinion stands on the solid rock of the US Constitution. Yours.........doesn't.

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

The scotus is NOT the ultimate authority of anything. They are the top of the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is only one of the three equal branches of government.

And when they act unconstitutionally they answer to the PEOPLE, who in this country, are the ultimate authority (under God).

The feds, through our schools, have been teaching a nasty mishmash of lies for decades in the public schools, about the role of government and how things work in this country. As the feds are illegally granting themselves ever increasing power, they are teaching children that the government is good, the government loves them, and they must always obey officials and not question them.

 

[Seawytch]

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

Have you ever read a Supreme Court decision? It's a bit more than "neener neener"....they are always based on Constitutional law, Amendment law, precedent and STATES AS SUCH. But...let's see your Constitutional basis for your opinion on the issue of gay marriage.

Its based on opinions of opinions, nothing more or less. All you are doing is throwing more appeals to authority on top of each other. you are not justifying anything.

My basis is that the document is mute on the issue of marriage, especially when it comes to the sex of people in the marriage, and as such the issue is left to the State legislatures to decide. The only time the constitution comes into play is with full faith and credit.

The Constitution may be mute on marriage but it is NOT mute on equality under the law. Now...this could have gone one of two ways....get rid of all marriage laws everywhere in the U.S.....or include gay citizens under such laws.

That assumes gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage, and that is another point of discussion.

Not for most it isn't. Sure, it's a discussion for bigots...but those same kind of bigots don't think interracial marriages are equal to non interracial marriages. Bigots are a small minority.

 

[bodecea]

Appeal to authority, nothing more or less. People who agreed with Plessey V Fergueson and the Dred Scott case used the same logic you do, i.e. "my betters say it's so, I agree with it, so it must be right!!!""

Its weak intellectually, and weak as a debate tactic.

Not appeal to authority at all...in fact, quite the opposite. Laws (authority) were struck down....not added. Your authority was found to be unConstitutional.

The SC is just a higher level of authority, and is almost like your "woobie" when it comes to debate. You run back to it, saying "well my betters agree with me, so that ends all argument, neener neener".

Again, not debating.

The Supreme Court is not 'just a higher level of authority'- the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.

If we the people disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court- then we can change the Constitution to reflect our opinion- as we did with the 13th Amendment.

Being the ultimate authority doesn't mean you are right, or do you think that Citizens United was the right decision? What about Plessey? Was that right as well?

The scotus is NOT the ultimate authority of anything. They are the top of the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is only one of the three equal branches of government.

And when they act unconstitutionally they answer to the PEOPLE, who in this country, are the ultimate authority (under God).

The feds, through our schools, have been teaching a nasty mishmash of lies for decades in the public schools, about the role of government and how things work in this country. As the feds are illegally granting themselves ever increasing power, they are teaching children that the government is good, the government loves them, and they must always obey officials and not question them.

Nope. Your god, my goddess, anyone's gods don't enter into it.