Questions for Partisans

[Gdjjr]

Preface with a statement- or a few-

I think it obvious this Country was founded by establishing a set of rules for the federal gov't to abide by.
Correct?

It's been said the Constitution is the Supreme Law. Correct?

Besides the 1st and 2nd amendment being loosely adhered to what has ANY Party done to protect Liberty?

The 4th amendment has been eviscerated- states are just becoming aware of the 10th amendment and partially implementing it in a few cases- few being key.

We have militarized police forces everywhere. How does the Supreme Law assert that power?

There is a long list of grievances the above are just a few-

I remember hearing clip of Bush jr saying "it's just a goddamn piece of paper"- Ms Nancy says it's a "living document" which I can't grasp for an inert piece of goddamn paper- Bush Sr said we're heading to a New World Order- Republicans and Democrats have bastardized the English language-

So, knowing neither side believes the Constitution is to "limit" their authority, why does one group hold favor over another?

What exactly do y'all expect to achieve? It's obvious rule writers don't believe in following the rules already in place so what convinces you they'll follow another rule?

 

[Circe]

It's obvious rule writers don't believe in following the rules already in place so what convinces you they'll follow another rule?

This line reminds me of the Dems trying to overthrow a legitimate, normal American election in which we voted for someone else: and then hoping we'll vote for them in the next election. Something very illogical there.

 

[Circe]

We have militarized police forces everywhere. How does the Supreme Law assert that power?

Doesn't. We should stop that, IMO.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

For me, it is simply a matter of personal balance. Where will I get more that is agreeable to me?

Currently, the Republicans in general agree with me on matters of foreign and domestic policy. There are of course matters with which I disagree, and where they fall short of constitutional compliance.

The Democrats in general disagree with me on matters of foreign and domestic policy. There are of course matters with which I agree. That they have as a party adopted political philosophies diametrically opposed to the Constitution sets them apart to my thinking as a national adversary, with whom compromise is ill-advised.

Trump's four predecessors gave us twenty-eight years of globalist assimilation, equally shared between Republican and Democrat. It will take awhile - and wise leadership choices - to detach.

A vigorous re-assertion of the 10th Amendment would go far in curtailing the federal government's authority back to constitutional limits, but it would be a long haul and very messy.

As to the rest, people will have to be willing to get their hands dirty, or the slide off the cracker will continue.

 

[gipper]

I’m not a partisan since I hate both parties. Both are essential the same. Owned and controlled by corporate interests and billionaires.

The Constitution is said to be the law of the land. Since the government violates it every day, we can conclude the government is a criminal enterprise. It’s time to imprison it.

 

[candycorn]

Preface with a statement- or a few-

I think it obvious this Country was founded by establishing a set of rules for the federal gov't to abide by.
Correct?

It's been said the Constitution is the Supreme Law. Correct?

Besides the 1st and 2nd amendment being loosely adhered to what has ANY Party done to protect Liberty?

The 4th amendment has been eviscerated- states are just becoming aware of the 10th amendment and partially implementing it in a few cases- few being key.

We have militarized police forces everywhere. How does the Supreme Law assert that power?

There is a long list of grievances the above are just a few-

I remember hearing clip of Bush jr saying "it's just a goddamn piece of paper"- Ms Nancy says it's a "living document" which I can't grasp for an inert piece of goddamn paper- Bush Sr said we're heading to a New World Order- Republicans and Democrats have bastardized the English language-

So, knowing neither side believes the Constitution is to "limit" their authority, why does one group hold favor over another?

What exactly do y'all expect to achieve? It's obvious rule writers don't believe in following the rules already in place so what convinces you they'll follow another rule?

If I want to achieve anything in terms of the political arena it is to get everyone to realize that voice needs to be added to the Constitution where it is currently silent. We see this with impeachment but we see this everywhere. There is nothing in the document that even guarantees majority rules in passing bills. There is nothing in the document that ensures the number of justices. There is no right to privacy guaranteed. And especially spell out the consequences for violations.

With a divided nation unable get out of its own way, we need something built in to periodically update the Constitution. Every four score and seven years has a nice ring to it. Have a national referendum on what new measures to adopt and have state legislatures vote to enact or not. If 2/3 pass it, the amendment is adopted.

 

[occupied]

The authoritarian elements of our society are all there because someone rich and important has something to protect. Usually it's profit. It's not that complicated.

 

[22lcidw]

Preface with a statement- or a few-

I think it obvious this Country was founded by establishing a set of rules for the federal gov't to abide by.
Correct?

It's been said the Constitution is the Supreme Law. Correct?

Besides the 1st and 2nd amendment being loosely adhered to what has ANY Party done to protect Liberty?

The 4th amendment has been eviscerated- states are just becoming aware of the 10th amendment and partially implementing it in a few cases- few being key.

We have militarized police forces everywhere. How does the Supreme Law assert that power?

There is a long list of grievances the above are just a few-

I remember hearing clip of Bush jr saying "it's just a goddamn piece of paper"- Ms Nancy says it's a "living document" which I can't grasp for an inert piece of goddamn paper- Bush Sr said we're heading to a New World Order- Republicans and Democrats have bastardized the English language-

So, knowing neither side believes the Constitution is to "limit" their authority, why does one group hold favor over another?

What exactly do y'all expect to achieve? It's obvious rule writers don't believe in following the rules already in place so what convinces you they'll follow another rule?

We have institutionalized the political class as a members only fraternity. Look at D.C. All of the people married to each other in elected/non elected/ media/judicial/lobbyists/etc. The power of all of them combined is incredible. The power elite slowly accept others into their castle. The Clinton's, the Obama's are two of the latest national power families. We actually have power families running everyone for high political office. And no one else is allowed. Val Demings is a Representative from Orlando/Orange County, Fl. Her husband is Mayor of Orange County, Fl. There is nothing special about them. They were cops, commissioners and now they are a power couple in flux. Power fam;ilies rule areas of our nation. The Landreiux family of Louisiana, the Barber family of Mississippi, the family of Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Fredo's family in New York, the Kennedy's in Massachusetts, there are a few in California with Feinstein, the Browns and Pelosi's family with a lot of clout. And there are more with even local families. In a way we left England and have our own Dukes and Duchesses and other royalty people who you have to get a blessing from to get something. Repub voters have gotten rid of many Repub politicians or they retired and we still get the same type elected or forced on us. Progs do not have to worry as they are the same. That is until this last election where they actually moved further left.

 

[kyzr]

Question: how about a convention of states to fix the fiscal mess in DC?
Progress Map: States that have passed the Convention of States Article V application - COSAction
Our resolution calls for an Article V Convention of States to make proposals that “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.” Once two-thirds (34) of the states pass our resolution, the convention will be called.

I support the Convention of States Project; a national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Preface with a statement- or a few-

I think it obvious this Country was founded by establishing a set of rules for the federal gov't to abide by.
Correct?

It's been said the Constitution is the Supreme Law. Correct?

Besides the 1st and 2nd amendment being loosely adhered to what has ANY Party done to protect Liberty?

The 4th amendment has been eviscerated- states are just becoming aware of the 10th amendment and partially implementing it in a few cases- few being key.

We have militarized police forces everywhere. How does the Supreme Law assert that power?

There is a long list of grievances the above are just a few-

I remember hearing clip of Bush jr saying "it's just a goddamn piece of paper"- Ms Nancy says it's a "living document" which I can't grasp for an inert piece of goddamn paper- Bush Sr said we're heading to a New World Order- Republicans and Democrats have bastardized the English language-

So, knowing neither side believes the Constitution is to "limit" their authority, why does one group hold favor over another?

What exactly do y'all expect to achieve? It's obvious rule writers don't believe in following the rules already in place so what convinces you they'll follow another rule?

If I want to achieve anything in terms of the political arena it is to get everyone to realize that voice needs to be added to the Constitution where it is currently silent. We see this with impeachment but we see this everywhere. There is nothing in the document that even guarantees majority rules in passing bills. There is nothing in the document that ensures the number of justices. There is no right to privacy guaranteed. And especially spell out the consequences for violations.

With a divided nation unable get out of its own way, we need something built in to periodically update the Constitution. Every four score and seven years has a nice ring to it. Have a national referendum on what new measures to adopt and have state legislatures vote to enact or not. If 2/3 pass it, the amendment is adopted.

You are free to do that at any time.

 

[candycorn]

Preface with a statement- or a few-

I think it obvious this Country was founded by establishing a set of rules for the federal gov't to abide by.
Correct?

It's been said the Constitution is the Supreme Law. Correct?

Besides the 1st and 2nd amendment being loosely adhered to what has ANY Party done to protect Liberty?

The 4th amendment has been eviscerated- states are just becoming aware of the 10th amendment and partially implementing it in a few cases- few being key.

We have militarized police forces everywhere. How does the Supreme Law assert that power?

There is a long list of grievances the above are just a few-

I remember hearing clip of Bush jr saying "it's just a goddamn piece of paper"- Ms Nancy says it's a "living document" which I can't grasp for an inert piece of goddamn paper- Bush Sr said we're heading to a New World Order- Republicans and Democrats have bastardized the English language-

So, knowing neither side believes the Constitution is to "limit" their authority, why does one group hold favor over another?

What exactly do y'all expect to achieve? It's obvious rule writers don't believe in following the rules already in place so what convinces you they'll follow another rule?

If I want to achieve anything in terms of the political arena it is to get everyone to realize that voice needs to be added to the Constitution where it is currently silent. We see this with impeachment but we see this everywhere. There is nothing in the document that even guarantees majority rules in passing bills. There is nothing in the document that ensures the number of justices. There is no right to privacy guaranteed. And especially spell out the consequences for violations.

With a divided nation unable get out of its own way, we need something built in to periodically update the Constitution. Every four score and seven years has a nice ring to it. Have a national referendum on what new measures to adopt and have state legislatures vote to enact or not. If 2/3 pass it, the amendment is adopted.

You are free to do that at any time.

Yes but it is not realistic.

Regularly scheduled national referendums as an incubator for necessary amendments is a much better remedy.

 

[Gdjjr]

There are some good thoughts here- so, why is no one pursuing them? Or, are you?

Do any of you realize what you're up against? One poster got it pretty close to correct with ruling families and the incest in family of DC- they write the rules and they favor theirs.

Let me say it succinctly: They all subscribe to borrow to spend. How does that favor the common man?

The "Repo" Fiasco; the Fed's Cash Injections Send Stocks Soaring

From the comments on that article;

On the other hand, no private person or institution would be allowed to create $29 trillion of counterfeit money either.


So what’s going on? Is the Fed part of the US government, or an organization subordinate to the US government, or what?


By the way, for anyone who finds sums such as $29 trillion hard to come to grips with… it’s a little north of $87,000 for every US man, woman and child.


Seems to me that a citizen ought to know when someone issues $87,000 of debt in his name.

BOTH sides approve.

The reason I ask these type questions is: knowledge isn't biased in its origin and can manifest itself in ways unimaginable.Summary to that: you never know what might cause the spark.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Preface with a statement- or a few-

I think it obvious this Country was founded by establishing a set of rules for the federal gov't to abide by.
Correct?

It's been said the Constitution is the Supreme Law. Correct?

Besides the 1st and 2nd amendment being loosely adhered to what has ANY Party done to protect Liberty?

The 4th amendment has been eviscerated- states are just becoming aware of the 10th amendment and partially implementing it in a few cases- few being key.

We have militarized police forces everywhere. How does the Supreme Law assert that power?

There is a long list of grievances the above are just a few-

I remember hearing clip of Bush jr saying "it's just a goddamn piece of paper"- Ms Nancy says it's a "living document" which I can't grasp for an inert piece of goddamn paper- Bush Sr said we're heading to a New World Order- Republicans and Democrats have bastardized the English language-

So, knowing neither side believes the Constitution is to "limit" their authority, why does one group hold favor over another?

What exactly do y'all expect to achieve? It's obvious rule writers don't believe in following the rules already in place so what convinces you they'll follow another rule?

If I want to achieve anything in terms of the political arena it is to get everyone to realize that voice needs to be added to the Constitution where it is currently silent. We see this with impeachment but we see this everywhere. There is nothing in the document that even guarantees majority rules in passing bills. There is nothing in the document that ensures the number of justices. There is no right to privacy guaranteed. And especially spell out the consequences for violations.

With a divided nation unable get out of its own way, we need something built in to periodically update the Constitution. Every four score and seven years has a nice ring to it. Have a national referendum on what new measures to adopt and have state legislatures vote to enact or not. If 2/3 pass it, the amendment is adopted.

You can have that anytime Candy. "convention of the states"

 

[Correll]

Preface with a statement- or a few-

I think it obvious this Country was founded by establishing a set of rules for the federal gov't to abide by.
Correct?

It's been said the Constitution is the Supreme Law. Correct?

Besides the 1st and 2nd amendment being loosely adhered to what has ANY Party done to protect Liberty?

The 4th amendment has been eviscerated- states are just becoming aware of the 10th amendment and partially implementing it in a few cases- few being key.

We have militarized police forces everywhere. How does the Supreme Law assert that power?

There is a long list of grievances the above are just a few-

I remember hearing clip of Bush jr saying "it's just a goddamn piece of paper"- Ms Nancy says it's a "living document" which I can't grasp for an inert piece of goddamn paper- Bush Sr said we're heading to a New World Order- Republicans and Democrats have bastardized the English language-

So, knowing neither side believes the Constitution is to "limit" their authority, why does one group hold favor over another?

What exactly do y'all expect to achieve? It's obvious rule writers don't believe in following the rules already in place so what convinces you they'll follow another rule?

The Political Class has indeed, pretty much completely failed to uphold their responsibilities or role, in both parties.


BUT, one party is actively hostile to me, to a great extent, and increasingly seems to hate me, with a fiery passion, getting literally excited at the prospect of doing me harm.


While the other, is only interested in advancing their own interests, badly and stupidly, and only hurts me, when they think it benefits them in the short term, not in an end to itself.

 

[Gdjjr]

Interesting blog I just read

The Worthlessness of Hatred

I have been writing for many years, and have had many thousands of responses to my work. Most of those responses were positive, as is normally the rule, but of course, there are always those that are critical or questioning, which I not only readily accept but also embrace. But sometimes, I get hate-filled or obnoxious emails. With my last article posted, this was more evident than normal.

This was not due to what one might expect, but regardless, while somewhat disturbing, these were humorous in a sick sort of way. Nothing really bothers me, and certainly does not scare me in any way, as that is not my personality. Foul language, name-calling, and threats are a waste of time and intellect, and rarely do I respond to such worthless nonsense, but sometimes it is difficult not to answer these hateful and uninformed lowlife responses, especially when they are so flamboyant in nature. One exchange today was unique, but I cannot (will not) post his comments here, as they are extremely offensive.

This response was from a National Socialist, and of course racist, (in the real sense of the word) who apparently still wants one race, his of course, and the elimination of all others. Hitler is his hero, and anyone who is Jewish is not fit to live. Of course, he hates every other culture as well as he gladly pointed out. Amazing stuff, but this coward on a computer went beyond the pale. This attitude is in the minority, but it is still evident, as I get these kinds of responses on a fairly regular basis, but not so nasty as this one.

My point here is not to go into detail about the rantings of any brainless human filled with hate such as is the case with this responder. My point is to expose the idiocy and harm of hate in general. Our entire society is filled with hate today; not just those like the grey matter deficient idiot that I heard from, but at every level of society. Black against white, gay against straight, left against right, trans against everybody, women against men, and on and on. This pattern is destructive of any peace, and leads to a complete breakdown of society.

This is exactly what is desired by the ruling class of elites, as the more division amongst the general population, the easier they are to control. At this point, it seems impossible not to have a total societal breakdown due to the rampant hatred that exists in this country. When this happens, the tyranny evident today will seem mild in comparison with what is to come. Is that what most Americans actually want, or are they too ignorant to see that they are digging their own grave?

Hatred is worthless!

Note the last paragraph. it would seem the hate stirred is by design-

 

[Gdjjr]

Let me ask this question: Politicians ALL, to a one, promise to serve and achieve whatever thing it is they're selling- yet, the minute they're situated in office everything changes- why? It doesn't matter what Party they subscribe to they change.
Well, there are exceptions to the rule as is the way all rules work- AOC is one- and no, I don't agree with her beliefs so don't
go down that road- but, she ain't skeered of Nancy- not yet anyway- Trump is a perfect example- he was going to bring the troops home. That was a biggie. He wants to make America Great Again- uh-huh- for whom? How? Letting the plebes keep a bit more of what they labored for?
By what moral authority to politicians presume confiscation of wealth by non-producers of wealth is legitimate?

I thought about this a few minutes ago- China's economy is going to collapse- no one in, no one out- basically shut down/shutoff from the rest of the world- and I even saw a headline saying their gold was worrisome- I saw another headline that students were in the streets looking for food-
I don't think the US is above making this worse than it is- or even starting it- there is too much evidence of past nefarious tactics to not give it some thought- if China's economy collapses all the goods manufactured there will have to come from somewhere else in the interim- could this Make America Great Again by some metric? Will the Tariffs be lifted? I saw another headline there were a tremendous amount of farm bankruptcies in 2019- click bait? Possibly. But, still- it's pretty well known the corporate farms can get more subsidy- really? Subsidy? For what and who subsidizes it? Hell tax payers subsidize the MIC and it makes war- as in dead American young people- our most precious resource-

So, have any democrat voters weighed in on this topic?

I think the examples I've cited pretty much prove rules don't work- so, why do we have so many they can't be counted and used arbitrarily to make people who cause no harm criminals?