PDA

View Full Version : United States in Name Only



buyer111us
02-01-2009, 02:41 PM
After the media driven election of the Dictator in Chief (Dic) the left assumes that this has united the country. They could not be more mistaken, the election of Obama and the near super majority in both houses has left this country more divided than ever before. This country is so far divided that it will never pull itself back together without drastic action, the glue (constitution)that had been holding this country together, no longer has the meaning it once had. The Liberals have raped the idea's of the founding fathers and tossed them to the curb like so much trash. Unfortunately we on the right have ignored these loony liberals. They have shoved abortion, gay rights, down our throats. They have taken our traditions and stepped on them until it ran red with blood. They have forced fed or tried to program our children into believing in the way they think. They have and still are trying to take away the right of the parents to raise their own children the way they see fit. All this and much more. Why? Why? have we allowed this. At any other time in our history this would be an act of war!!! But we let these people control our thoughts and actions. These changes cannot be changed back anymore, the United States as we once knew is dead, gone and a Far radical Socialist State has replaced it. We were warned by our forefathers that this could happen and happen it has. We will not be listened to by the people in office now, our voices have now been silenced and no one will listen, another avenue has to be taken, I for one know that direction and we will take back once was the America we knew.

AHeneen
02-01-2009, 04:54 PM
A few days ago, I began working on a "Constitution of the Federated States of America" — a constitution for the fictional FSA which is based on more conservative, government-limiting principals. It's more of an ideal, not really something serious...but somedays I wonder "what if we conservative states broke away? How much better would we be?". I'll have to post this here on CU once it's complete, but for now I have to find time to complete it.

djones520
02-01-2009, 05:01 PM
Sorry, I just looked out the window. The world is still standing.

buyer111us
02-01-2009, 06:19 PM
Sorry, I just looked out the window. The world is still standing.

Yes the world is still standing, but the American way of life as our forefathers saw it, is dead, gone, replaced by morally corrupted politician's on both sides. But with a elected government hell bent on throwing conservatives and their ideas to the lions. If it would not create a world out cry, Liberals would soon as see all of us dead and thrown into prison to keep us quiet. While you look out the window and still see the world standing, realize this, it is conservatism and our ideas that the liberals are silencing with success and I agree with the poster above you, maybe the conservative states should break away, why should we be victims of the mass liberal media and its elected Dictator and his followers and we lose our rights and traditions because of it.

sgrooms
02-01-2009, 08:00 PM
A few days ago, I began working on a "Constitution of the Federated States of America" — a constitution for the fictional FSA which is based on more conservative, government-limiting principals. It's more of an ideal, not really something serious...but somedays I wonder "what if we conservative states broke away? How much better would we be?". I'll have to post this here on CU once it's complete, but for now I have to find time to complete it.

I would like to have a copy of that!!

ScottyK
02-01-2009, 08:48 PM
Doesn't the constitution of Texas still allow for them to leave the Union if they want?

I could see the old CSA resurfacing, considering conservatism is strong in the south, and hopefully this time we in Oklahoma will follow suit.

linda22003
02-02-2009, 08:50 AM
yada yada yada the United States as we once knew is dead, gone and a Far radical Socialist State has replaced it. We were warned by our forefathers that this could happen and happen it has. We will not be listened to by the people in office now, our voices have now been silenced and no one will listen, another avenue has to be taken yada yada yada

Have a bad weekend? Wanted the Cardinals to win?

linda22003
02-02-2009, 08:53 AM
A few days ago, I began working on a "Constitution of the Federated States of America" — a constitution for the fictional FSA which is based on more conservative, government-limiting principals. It's more of an ideal, not really something serious...but somedays I wonder "what if we conservative states broke away? How much better would we be?". I'll have to post this here on CU once it's complete, but for now I have to find time to complete it.

Don't publish it until you work out the difference between "principals" and "principles".

linda22003
02-02-2009, 08:54 AM
If it would not create a world out cry, Liberals would soon as see all of us dead and thrown into prison to keep us quiet. While you look out the window and still see the world standing, realize this, it is conservatism and our ideas that the liberals are silencing with success and I agree with the poster above you, maybe the conservative states should break away

And I thought all the Drama Queens were on DU.

Shannon
02-02-2009, 08:59 AM
Don't publish it until you work out the difference between "principals" and "principles".

You are a horrible, horrible person.:p

FeebMaster
02-02-2009, 09:01 AM
Secession talk from Republicans?

Must be a Democrat in the White House.

linda22003
02-02-2009, 09:33 AM
You are a horrible, horrible person.:p

Hey, I just wanted to save him from a product that would look like the Unabomber manifesto. :cool:

Odysseus
02-02-2009, 02:24 PM
Hey, I just wanted to save him from a product that would look like the Unabomber manifesto. :cool:

Didn't Al Gore win an Oscar for the movie version? :p

buyer111us
02-02-2009, 06:05 PM
Have a bad weekend? Wanted the Cardinals to win?

Sorry, Linda Old Girl, I did not pull for either one nor did I watch it. So go fly over some other carcass.

Lars1701a
02-02-2009, 06:11 PM
Sorry, Linda Old Girl, I did not pull for either one nor did I watch it. So go fly over some other carcass.

Dont worry about her its some kind of mental disorder, she has to be a pain in the ass all the time.

buyer111us
02-02-2009, 06:11 PM
And I thought all the Drama Queens were on DU.

Does my opinion on the United Socialist States of America bother you Linda. If some so called conservatives weren't so yellow, we should have violent protest like the left in this country is known for but I am holding out hope that enough conservatives will come to their senses and realize what is going on. Since you are in Northern Virginia were most of the anal cavities hang out, you should fit right in.

Arroyo_Doble
02-02-2009, 06:15 PM
Does my opinion on the United Socialist States of America bother you Linda. If some so called conservatives weren't so yellow, we should have violent protest like the left in this country is known for but I am holding out hope that enough conservatives will come to their senses and realize what is going on. Since you are in Northern Virginia were most of the anal cavities hang out, you should fit right in.

Isn't that where the Pentagon is?

Lars1701a
02-02-2009, 06:19 PM
Secession talk from Republicans?

Must be a Democrat in the White House.

Really no different from the secession talk Liberals engaged in for the last 8 years. Forcing conservatives to live in what they (and you) call Jesus land.

buyer111us
02-02-2009, 06:42 PM
Secession talk from Republicans?

Must be a Democrat in the White House.

I am not really a Republican but I sure the hell would never vote for a Democrat, I might as well vote the socialist or communist party. As far as secession goes, if things go like the Democrats want and they implement laws like income redistribution and just in case everyone forgot this little gem "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Sounds like something right out of the old brown shirt playbook. If something like this was to happen are we just going to lay down and let them do it? What if next week a bill is introduced to repeal the second amendment like many liberals want, happens, what then, is that going to wake up conservatives? Did we forget this little tidbit that was on Obama's website. "He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting". But yet a lot of conservatives will sit back and let this happen, hell the man has already issued orders to close gitmo, funding abortions overseas under the guise of health care, using taxpayer money, gave his first interview to an Arab TV station, told muslims we are not your enemy (and for what its worth Muslims, I am your enemy) wake the F___k up.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s54/Broon_Bytor/Obama/obama_dictators.jpg

buyer111us
02-02-2009, 06:48 PM
Isn't that where the Pentagon is?

Fortunately the Anal Cavities I am referring to are Liberal Democrats.

buyer111us
02-02-2009, 06:50 PM
Really no different from the secession talk Liberals engaged in for the last 8 years. Forcing conservatives to live in what they (and you) call Jesus land.


I really wish they would have left, would have saved us a headache. Liberals and Conservatism cannot peacefully co-exist, something has to give and I am not in a giving mood.

FeebMaster
02-02-2009, 08:15 PM
Really no different from the secession talk Liberals engaged in for the last 8 years. Forcing conservatives to live in what they (and you) call Jesus land.

It's the Republican version of the Democrats crying that they're going to move to Canada/Europe.

I don't believe I've ever used the phrase Jesus land.



I am not really a Republican but I sure the hell would never vote for a Democrat, I might as well vote the socialist or communist party. As far as secession goes, if things go like the Democrats want and they implement laws like income redistribution and just in case everyone forgot this little gem "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Sounds like something right out of the old brown shirt playbook. If something like this was to happen are we just going to lay down and let them do it? What if next week a bill is introduced to repeal the second amendment like many liberals want, happens, what then, is that going to wake up conservatives? Did we forget this little tidbit that was on Obama's website. "He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting". But yet a lot of conservatives will sit back and let this happen, hell the man has already issued orders to close gitmo, funding abortions overseas under the guise of health care, using taxpayer money, gave his first interview to an Arab TV station, told muslims we are not your enemy (and for what its worth Muslims, I am your enemy) wake the F___k up.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s54/Broon_Bytor/Obama/obama_dictators.jpg

Why would they repeal the 2nd Amendment? They don't have to. It's long dead.

We already redistribute wealth. No one is up in arms about it, unless you count crying about it on the internet.

Conservatives will bitch and moan about everything Obama does for the next four years even if their chosen one would have done the same. They'll bring up secession and the need for small government and obeying the Constitution early and often. Then in 2012 they'll vote for whatever pinko the Republicans trot out.

FlaGator
02-02-2009, 08:18 PM
We're really starting to sound like DU now...-

Mythic
02-02-2009, 08:22 PM
Conservatives will bitch and moan about everything Obama does for the next four years even if their chosen one would have done the same.
Conservatives never had a chosen one.

They'll bring up secession and the need for small government and obeying the Constitution early and often.
Who has actually seriously advocated secession? I don't recall any of that...
Well, I kinda think that it would be a good idea to obey the laws of the Constitution. I don't know maybe we should ignore it and promote anarchy..:rolleyes:

Then in 2012 they'll vote for whatever pinko the Republicans trot out
Vote republican? Most likely. Vote for a pinko? Thats what Obama is for.

Where exactly were you going with that?

FeebMaster
02-02-2009, 08:47 PM
We're really starting to sound like DU now...-

Starting?



Conservatives never had a chosen one.

Conservatives didn't vote for McCain?


Who has actually seriously advocated secession? I don't recall any of that...

Seriously? No one. Well, other than me. I'm serious.


Well, I kinda think that it would be a good idea to obey the laws of the Constitution. I don't know maybe we should ignore it and promote anarchy..:rolleyes:

It's already ignored and the result is far from anarchy.


Vote republican? Most likely. Vote for a pinko? Thats what Obama is for.

Where exactly were you going with that?

The only time Republicans aren't blatant commies is when there's a Democrat is in the White House.

Mythic
02-02-2009, 09:32 PM
Conservatives didn't vote for McCain?

Not all did and he was not even close to a chosen one. McCain beat Obama though. You not understanding that conservatives were not as crazy about McCain as you were for Obama just shows that you don't really understand anything about what has been going on...


Seriously? No one. Well, other than me. I'm serious.

You want to secede...?

It's already ignored and the result is far from anarchy.
Another lame "but everyone is doing it" excuse. If it is being ignored that ignorance should be corrected...not ignored.

The only time Republicans aren't blatant commies is when there's a Democrat is in the White House.
Why is that? Because the democrat is the commie, making any hints of communism/socialism in repbublicans appear minute.

FeebMaster
02-02-2009, 09:56 PM
Not all did and he was not even close to a chosen one. McCain beat Obama though. You not understanding that conservatives were not as crazy about McCain as you were for Obama just shows that you don't really understand anything about what has been going on...

I say Republicans are dirty commies and you accuse me of supporting Obama. Are you that clueless?

They voted for him. That some of them allegedly did it grudgingly wouldn't have made a difference in his actions or policies.


You want to secede...?

I fully support the idea of the states going their separate ways.


Another lame "but everyone is doing it" excuse. If it is being ignored that ignorance should be corrected...not ignored.

Who is making excuses? I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.

By all means, try to correct it. It'd just be nice to see all the hand wringing we get during Democratic administrations during Republican administrations as well.


Why is that? Because the democrat is the commie, making any hints of communism/socialism in repbublicans appear minute.

It's hardly minute.

Mythic
02-02-2009, 10:11 PM
I say Republicans are dirty commies and you accuse me of supporting Obama. Are you that clueless?

They voted for him. That some of them allegedly did it grudgingly wouldn't have made a difference in his actions or policies.

That first line didn't even make sense. I have no idea what you are getting at. I don't think you understand how comparrisons work. If you were a conservative and could choose the ok republican McCain or the completely liberal Obama who would you choose? Obviously not Obama but you wont think McCain is some "chosen one". Who said that voting for McCain grudgingly would change his policies?

I fully support the idea of the states going their separate ways.

That is an idiotic idea. I think you should try and figure out why dividing the United States would be a bad thing. I can list hundreds of issues.

Who is making excuses? I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.
You stated that because the constitution is in some aspects being ignored then that means we might as well keep ignoring it. Aka the excuse of "its already happening, so we might as well let it continue to happen". The reality of the situation is that it is being ignored. Your excuse is that because of that reality it should continue to be ignored.

Lets review what communism is, shall we?

Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general
Democrats support welfare and higher tax rates for the rich...

Main points of communism:

Abolition of Private Property.
Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
Confiscation of Property Rights.
Central Bank.
Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
Government Control of Labor.
Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
Government Control of Education.

The democratic party is for a progressive Income Tax. Democrats want bigger government that controls more of people's lives.

Seems like communism is a bit closer to the democratic party.

FeebMaster
02-02-2009, 10:22 PM
That first line didn't even make sense. I have no idea what you are getting at. I don't think you understand how comparrisons work. If you were a conservative and could choose the ok republican McCain or the completely liberal Obama who would you choose? Obviously not Obama but you wont think McCain is some "chosen one". Who said that voting for McCain grudgingly would change his policies?


Not all did and he was not even close to a chosen one. McCain beat Obama though. You not understanding that conservatives were not as crazy about McCain as you were for Obama just shows that you don't really understand anything about what has been going on...


That is an idiotic idea. I think you should try and figure out why dividing the United States would be a bad thing. I can list hundreds of issues.

I'm sure you can.


You stated that because the constitution is in some aspects being ignored then that means we might as well keep ignoring it. Aka the excuse of "its already happening, so we might as well let it continue to happen". The reality of the situation is that it is being ignored. Your excuse is that because of that reality it should continue to be ignored.

Not even close.


Lets review what communism is, shall we?

Democrats support welfare and higher tax rates for the rich...

Main points of communism:

The democratic party is for a progressive Income Tax. Democrats want bigger government that controls more of people's lives.

Seems like communism is a bit closer to the democratic party.

The Republicans don't support a progressive income tax? The Republicans want smaller government that doesn't control more of people's lives?

Wow, you've convinced me. Sign me up.

Mythic
02-02-2009, 10:36 PM
I'm sure you can.

If I took the time to do it, I could find at least one hundred negatives. All I would have to do for half of them would be to look back at the Civil War.

Not even close.
Nice explanation. You have great 3-4 word answers to my points. I am very impressed.[/sarcasm]

The Republicans don't support a progressive income tax? The Republicans want smaller government that doesn't control more of people's lives?
You sound surprised to actually be told the truth.

Odysseus
02-03-2009, 10:17 AM
Does my opinion on the United Socialist States of America bother you Linda. If some so called conservatives weren't so yellow, we should have violent protest like the left in this country is known for but I am holding out hope that enough conservatives will come to their senses and realize what is going on. Since you are in Northern Virginia were most of the anal cavities hang out, you should fit right in.

Regardless of the merits (or obvious lack of them) of this administration, as Americans, we have an obligation to accept the rule of law and the results of the election. We can and will oppose the administration on policy and conduct when it is in the wrong, but violent protests are the halmark of losers who cannot accept that reality doesn't follow their wishes. Don't like the election results? You've got four years to work on the next one, but sedition is not on the table.

linda22003
02-03-2009, 10:25 AM
Careful, Odysseus, you'll be joining me in the anal cavity - you make too much sense!

Odysseus
02-03-2009, 10:32 AM
Careful, Odysseus, you'll be joining me in the anal cavity - you make too much sense!

That's either a really kinky proposition or an expression of solidarity. :D

linda22003
02-03-2009, 10:40 AM
It's too early in the day to be the former, so you should assume the latter. ;)

buyer111us
02-03-2009, 01:42 PM
Regardless of the merits (or obvious lack of them) of this administration, as Americans, we have an obligation to accept the rule of law and the results of the election. We can and will oppose the administration on policy and conduct when it is in the wrong, but violent protests are the halmark of losers who cannot accept that reality doesn't follow their wishes. Don't like the election results? You've got four years to work on the next one, but sedition is not on the table.


Don't get me wrong Odysseus, If I am not mistaken you have to follow the orders of any leader that is in office whether that leader be a Socialist or Dictator. Just remember this nation was founded by violent action and if things continue to go down hill as they are, situations will get out of control and you may just have to shoot your fellow Americans. I salute you for your service but you have to follow orders, regardless of what type of government evolves in this country. I am not talking sedition and I am talking about going back to what our forefathers envisioned, which now is going down the tubes even quicker.

Ree
02-03-2009, 02:53 PM
We're really starting to sound like DU now...-
No shit....what's up with all the n00bs and the "sky is fallin"?:rolleyes:

Goldwater
02-03-2009, 03:20 PM
We're really starting to sound like DU now...-

Told you. ;)

There is no difference between morals in the left and right, as shown by the McCain forum where people actively called for Obama to be killed because he was a muslim, there are just as many crazies on this side. They only come out when their party is out of power though.

buyer111us
02-03-2009, 03:43 PM
No shit....what's up with all the n00bs and the "sky is fallin"?:rolleyes:


See this is what I am talking about, name one conservative today that has the guts to stand up to Liberals and their idea's (Please no Radio or TV Talking Heads). Even on this venue, it seems the people here are more Liberal than conservative. Did any of you go to DC or any other City to counter demonstrate against these Moon bats about Iraq? I did, I was detained in New York for hurling food coloring water balloons at these Moon Bats, my point is it was symbolic that some of us are not going to just lay down and let you run roughshod over us. Right now conservatives are doing it again, hiding their collective heads in the sand. I mean what's up? Are you happy the way things are? Just as long as I have my little space the heck with everyone else? Or maybe everyone is just going to let Fox news handle it. The sky isn't falling Ree, it landed on your head during the Clinton Administration.

I hope I am wrong but maybe this site is really not about conservative issues but some sort of online social club, I don't know if these statistics are true but if they are it does open my eyes a little as to what side is winning the battle right now.

135,962 user registrations and 42,836,044 posts since January 2001=DU
Forum members: 975 and total Post 110,036=CU

Is 975 the total number of members on this site?

buyer111us
02-03-2009, 03:51 PM
Told you. ;)

There is no difference between morals in the left and right, as shown by the McCain forum where people actively called for Obama to be killed because he was a muslim, there are just as many crazies on this side. They only come out when their party is out of power though.

No Goldwater I am not crazy, I don't want Obama Killed, none of that. I want conservatives to stand up and be heard instead of whimpering in the corner. If conservatives were at least more vocal, conservatives would be taken a little more seriously, but no, as long as we let entertainers like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage speak and conservatives hang on their every word, like a baby on a nipple, we will never be taken seriously.

Molon Labe
02-03-2009, 03:56 PM
Regardless of the merits (or obvious lack of them) of this administration, as Americans, we have an obligation to accept the rule of law and the results of the election. We can and will oppose the administration on policy and conduct when it is in the wrong, but violent protests are the halmark of losers who cannot accept that reality doesn't follow their wishes. Don't like the election results? You've got four years to work on the next one, but sedition is not on the table.

So you say.....

The New Hamphire legislature seems to think differently....


http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

linda22003
02-03-2009, 04:35 PM
I was detained in New York for hurling food coloring water balloons at these Moon Bats

Now, that's meaningful political activity. :rolleyes:

Ree
02-03-2009, 05:47 PM
See this is what I am talking about, name one conservative today that has the guts to stand up to Liberals and their idea's (Please no Radio or TV Talking Heads). Even on this venue, it seems the people here are more Liberal than conservative. Did any of you go to DC or any other City to counter demonstrate against these Moon bats about Iraq? I did, I was detained in New York for hurling food coloring water balloons at these Moon Bats, my point is it was symbolic that some of us are not going to just lay down and let you run roughshod over us. Right now conservatives are doing it again, hiding their collective heads in the sand. I mean what's up? Are you happy the way things are? Just as long as I have my little space the heck with everyone else? Or maybe everyone is just going to let Fox news handle it. The sky isn't falling Ree, it landed on your head during the Clinton Administration.

I hope I am wrong but maybe this site is really not about conservative issues but some sort of online social club, I don't know if these statistics are true but if they are it does open my eyes a little as to what side is winning the battle right now.

135,962 user registrations and 42,836,044 posts since January 2001=DU
Forum members: 975 and total Post 110,036=CU

Is 975 the total number of members on this site?
We don't count our dead as members...

Odysseus
02-03-2009, 06:51 PM
So you say.....
The New Hamphire legislature seems to think differently....
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
FT Sumpter, here we come... :rolleyes:


Don't get me wrong Odysseus, If I am not mistaken you have to follow the orders of any leader that is in office whether that leader be a Socialist or Dictator. Just remember this nation was founded by violent action and if things continue to go down hill as they are, situations will get out of control and you may just have to shoot your fellow Americans. I salute you for your service but you have to follow orders, regardless of what type of government evolves in this country. I am not talking sedition and I am talking about going back to what our forefathers envisioned, which now is going down the tubes even quicker.
No, I have to follow the lawful orders of the legally elected President of the United States, regardless of party affiliation. I don't just "follow orders." That's the Nuremburg defense, and that didn't fly then or now. Soldiers are required to have a conscience, and we are bound to the Constitution. So long as the POTUS was legally elected and his orders remain lawful, we are bound by our oaths, and anyone who seeks to overthrow the legally constituted government of the United States through violence is going to have to go through me first, regardless of who is in the White House. Patriotism doesn't mean following the laws and saluting the flag only when your side is in power, it's being willing to tough out the hard times as America goes through the pendulum swings of political parties. That's what's wrong with the moonbats. We've been here before, in 1992, most recently, and things will turn around as people remember why they voted out Democrats in the first place.

BTW, hurling water balloons constitutes assault, even against idiots. Conservatives value law and order. If you want to rant, rave and throw tantrums (among other things), you're better off at DU. They love that sort of thing there.

Now, that's meaningful political activity. :rolleyes:
No kidding. This guy's not going to last too long around here.

Molon Labe
02-03-2009, 06:59 PM
FT Sumpter, here we come... :rolleyes:


Nah! don't get too optimistic.

I just found it interesting that they put in writing that they would deem it basically unpeaceful if the Fed enacted any of the listed breeches of liberties......and to remind some that....how did Bush once put it, and Obama recently?

....That nothing is ever "off the table". ;)

Odysseus
02-03-2009, 08:52 PM
Nah! don't get too optimistic.

I just found it interesting that they put in writing that they would deem it basically unpeaceful if the Fed enacted any of the listed breeches of liberties......and to remind some that....how did Bush once put it, and Obama recently?

....That nothing is ever "off the table". ;)

I'd take it a lot more seriously if New Hampshire hadn't gone for Obama. Just seems like posturing to me.

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 06:17 AM
FT Sumpter, here we come... :rolleyes:


No, I have to follow the lawful orders of the legally elected President of the United States, regardless of party affiliation. I don't just "follow orders." That's the Nuremburg defense, and that didn't fly then or now. Soldiers are required to have a conscience, and we are bound to the Constitution. So long as the POTUS was legally elected and his orders remain lawful, we are bound by our oaths, and anyone who seeks to overthrow the legally constituted government of the United States through violence is going to have to go through me first, regardless of who is in the White House. Patriotism doesn't mean following the laws and saluting the flag only when your side is in power, it's being willing to tough out the hard times as America goes through the pendulum swings of political parties. That's what's wrong with the moonbats. We've been here before, in 1992, most recently, and things will turn around as people remember why they voted out Democrats in the first place.


BTW, hurling water balloons constitutes assault, even against idiots. Conservatives value law and order. If you want to rant, rave and throw tantrums (among other things), you're better off at DU. They love that sort of thing there.


No kidding. This guy's not going to last too long around here.

Have you forgotten recent history? It was the Liberals who had a part in ending the Vietnam War with their protest, and your quote about regardless of who is in power, does that include a socialist or a communist, both of which are counter to the constitution and our way of life? Which you be so quick to follow the lawful orders of a communist if elected? I believe in States rights and I say bravo to New Hampshire for that resolution. You seem like you will support anyone who is elected to the Presidency, by your quote of regardless of which political party was in power and if a communist was to be elected president, I would be more than happy to go through you first.

I said I was detained not arrested, in fact the two NY Policeman who detained us said "Look guys we hate these SOB's as much as you, if your going to throw water balloons at them, at least wait until we aren't around". The fact is you will sit back and wait four years and try and get someone elected, while during that time laws are being passed that push the liberal agenda further. Try not to be a sheep once and awhile


No Kidding, in fact your membership numbers speak for themselves, you people are not conservatives, you are more left of center than anything and thanks to the two members who sent me a pm, confirming that most of the real conservatives left this site and this site is run mostly by British and Australian Moderators, sorry but Australian and British Conservatism is much different than American Conservatism in my opinion. You guys sound like a bunch of Tories. One last thing Odysseus the TOS on this site states its a free speech zone, I read the TOS before signing up and I haven't broken any rules.

BTW, I see nothing in the Oath that said "Lawful Orders" "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 07:04 AM
No Kidding, in fact your membership numbers speak for themselves, you people are not conservatives, you are more left of center than anything and thanks to the two members who sent me a pm, confirming that most of the real conservatives left this site and this site is run mostly by British and Australian Moderators

WTF????? :eek:

I won't ask who told you that....I really don't want to know. But man, are you way off base...:rolleyes:


I was detained in New York for hurling food coloring water balloons at these Moon Bats, my point is it was symbolic that some of us are not going to just lay down and let you run roughshod over us.

It's called assault, and you'd be arrested for it anywhere. Next time, try to find a less provocative idea?


Which you be so quick to follow the lawful orders of a communist if elected?

The President is the Commander in Chief, so the answer to that is YES.


sorry but Australian and British Conservatism is much different than American Conservatism in my opinion.

Oh, I don't know, i tend to move with my US colleagues in most things.


You guys sound like a bunch of Tories. One last thing Odysseus the TOS on this site states its a free speech zone, I read the TOS before signing up and I haven't broken any rules.

Where's it say that?

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 07:11 AM
both of which are counter to the constitution and our way of life?

I have a copy of the Constitution in front of me. Show me where it says that.


BTW, I see nothing in the Oath that said "Lawful Orders" "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Which sort of reinforces the idiocy of this comment


You seem like you will support anyone who is elected to the Presidency

Okay, I am now going to ask the question that comes to mind.

Before you open your yap and question the service of a COMMISSIONED OFFICER of the US Military and question the veracity of his Oath...Where'd YOU serve?

linda22003
02-04-2009, 08:20 AM
Before you open your yap and question the service of a COMMISSIONED OFFICER of the US Military and question the veracity of his Oath...Where'd YOU serve?

Didn't you read his post? He specifically stated he was in the New York Water Balloon Corps.

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 08:28 AM
I have a copy of the Constitution in front of me. Show me where it says that.



Which sort of reinforces the idiocy of this comment



Okay, I am now going to ask the question that comes to mind.

Before you open your yap and question the service of a COMMISSIONED OFFICER of the US Military and question the veracity of his Oath...Where'd YOU serve?

I replied to your questions, but had second thoughts on why I should answer you and deleted them.

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 08:32 AM
Didn't you read his post? He specifically stated he was in the New York Water Balloon Corps.

Is insults all you have, Linda?

linda22003
02-04-2009, 08:35 AM
No, but I don't tend to talk substantively to those who yell for secession and government resistance from behind the safety of their keyboards. ;)

RobJohnson
02-04-2009, 08:46 AM
I hope I am wrong but maybe this site is really not about conservative issues but some sort of online social club, I don't know if these statistics are true but if they are it does open my eyes a little as to what side is winning the battle right now.



You figured us out.......now fucking go away. :D

RobJohnson
02-04-2009, 08:48 AM
I said I was detained not arrested, in fact the two NY Policeman who detained us said "Look guys we hate these SOB's as much as you, if your going to throw water balloons at them, at least wait until we aren't around". The fact is you will sit back and wait four years and try and get someone elected, while during that time laws are being passed that push the liberal agenda further. Try not to be a sheep once and awhile




Was this right after the cops jumped out the bushes?

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 09:12 AM
I replied to your questions, but had second thoughts on why I should answer you and deleted them.

Actually, you didn't. And you still haven't. Which comes as no surprise.

I know your Constitution well, have read it and studied it over the years..and nowhere in it do I see what you claim. So again...show me exactly what part of the Constitution supports your argument?

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 09:22 AM
A Lawful Order is an order given to you by someone appointed over you by higher authority which you are legally bound to obey and that does not require you to break the law to obey.

A Direct Order can only be given by a commissioned officer, who has received their commission from the President of the United States. A direct order must also not be in conflict with established law (i.e., it must not require you to break the law).

Any order which would require you to break the law is an unlawful order and you are duty bound not only to disobey the order, but to report it to competent authority as soon as possible.

By that definition, a President, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, regardless of his political affiliation, by the direct authority of the Constitution, may at will issue what orders he or she may deem fit, and by virtue of their oath, such lawful orders issued to a commissioned officer by those placed in authority above him in the lawful chain of command.


I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.That, as they say, is that.


"The essential attributes of a lawful order include: (1) issuance by competent authority -- a person authorized by applicable law to give such an order; (2)communication of words that express a specific mandate to do or not do a specific act; and (3)relationship of the mandate to a military duty. [T]he accused may challenge an order on thegrounds that it would require the recipient to perform an illegal act or that it conflicts with that person‘s statutory or constitutional rights.“ United States v. Deisher, 61 M.J. 313, 317(2005)"I am surprised you didn't have this precedent already.

Applicable law in this case would be an officer or other person, placed in command authority under the chain of command as defined by the UCMJ

You ARE aware that another name for POTUS is NCA? (National Command Authority?) That by the definition of the US Constitution, he is first in the chain of command? (http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/pubs/GuideBook/DoD.htm#Department%20of%20Defense)

But....you seem quite unprepared to debate, relying instead on panic merchanting and bombast to make your point.

Cite facts and we are listening...carry on as you are, and all you are doing is embarrassing yourself.

Phillygirl
02-04-2009, 09:28 AM
Have you forgotten recent history? It was the Liberals who had a part in ending the Vietnam War with their protest, and your quote about regardless of who is in power, does that include a socialist or a communist, both of which are counter to the constitution and our way of life? Which you be so quick to follow the lawful orders of a communist if elected? I believe in States rights and I say bravo to New Hampshire for that resolution. You seem like you will support anyone who is elected to the Presidency, by your quote of regardless of which political party was in power and if a communist was to be elected president, I would be more than happy to go through you first.

I said I was detained not arrested, in fact the two NY Policeman who detained us said "Look guys we hate these SOB's as much as you, if your going to throw water balloons at them, at least wait until we aren't around". The fact is you will sit back and wait four years and try and get someone elected, while during that time laws are being passed that push the liberal agenda further. Try not to be a sheep once and awhile


No Kidding, in fact your membership numbers speak for themselves, you people are not conservatives, you are more left of center than anything and thanks to the two members who sent me a pm, confirming that most of the real conservatives left this site and this site is run mostly by British and Australian Moderators, sorry but Australian and British Conservatism is much different than American Conservatism in my opinion. You guys sound like a bunch of Tories. One last thing Odysseus the TOS on this site states its a free speech zone, I read the TOS before signing up and I haven't broken any rules.

BTW, I see nothing in the Oath that said "Lawful Orders" "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Ahh, you got your invite to the Cave. How nice for you, and for us.

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 09:56 AM
No, but I don't tend to talk substantively to those who yell for secession and government resistance from behind the safety of their keyboards. ;)

Linda you are the classic example of what the left calls a "Chicken Hawk." Now go back to your Starbucks coffee and proclaim your brilliance.

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 10:00 AM
Linda you are the classic example of what the left calls a "Chicken Hawk." Now go back to your Starbucks coffee and proclaim your brilliance.No she isn't, she has you pegged dead centre, and I am waiting for you to read my post on lawful orders. Would you care to comment on the legal case I quoted , in that context?

Summary: Regardless of political affiliation, the President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, as defined by the US Constitution, may, at will, issue any orders he or she may choose, to those under command, said subordinates being legally required by said Constitution to obey those lawful orders, as defined by the chain of command and the UCMJ.

Whatever orders the President may issue are legally binding, hence lawful.

Incidentally, the President's political affiliation is irrelevant as far as the Constitution is concerned, as is his or her religion, or skin colour.

Yes or no.

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 10:14 AM
Actually, you didn't. And you still haven't. Which comes as no surprise.

I know your Constitution well, have read it and studied it over the years..and nowhere in it do I see what you claim. So again...show me exactly what part of the Constitution supports your argument?


Sonnabend, I make it a point not to argue the constitution with a foreign national, if you are so enamored by our constitution, you can apply for American Citizenship, that way your opinion about my country will be worth something.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
Thomas Jefferson

George Washington's Warning: No Foreign Entanglements

Phillygirl
02-04-2009, 10:18 AM
Sonnabend, I make it a point not to argue the constitution with a foreign national, if you are so enamored by our constitution, you can apply for American Citizenship, that way your opinion about my country will be worth something.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
Thomas Jefferson

George Washington's Warning: No Foreign Entanglements

Why won't you argue with a foreign national? Is it beneath you?

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 10:18 AM
Sonnabend, I make it a point not to argue the constitution with a foreign national, if you are so enamored by our constitution, you can apply for American Citizenship, that way your opinion about my country will be worth something.Actually, my informed opinion and the legal citation above from your own courts says it all.

All you have to do is admit it.


Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/378777b%7EChimpanzee-with-its-Fingers-in-its-Ears-Posters.jpg

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 10:23 AM
No she isn't, she has you pegged dead centre, and I am waiting for you to read my post on lawful orders. Would you care to comment on the legal case I quoted , in that context?

Summary: Regardless of political affiliation, the President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, as defined by the US Constitution, may, at will, issue any orders he or she may choose, to those under command, said subordinates being legally required by said Constitution to obey those lawful orders, as defined by the chain of command and the UCMJ.

Whatever orders the President may issue are legally binding, hence lawful.

Incidentally, the President's political affiliation is irrelevant as far as the Constitution is concerned, as is his or her religion, or skin colour.

Yes or no.

Please don't quote the UCMJ when it doesn't apply to me. Sonnabend, if you think a communist being seated in the White House is not cause enough for my country to go full blown rebellion, you know nothing about the American people. By your argument if Hitler was president we would have to follow him.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 10:23 AM
Where I am from is irrelevant. The fact I am right is what's got you backpedalling so fast you're leaving skidmarks on the lawn.

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 10:25 AM
Why won't you argue with a foreign national? Is it beneath you?


I will argue with a foreign national on most subjects, but the constitution is off limits, you are not a citizen so don't tell me what my constitution is supposed to mean, that equals to foreign influence which our founding fathers hated.

linda22003
02-04-2009, 10:27 AM
if you think a communist being seated in the White House is not cause enough for my country to go full blown rebellion

What are your plans for the full blown rebellion? Serious question. What would you be willing to do - and will you actually do it?

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 10:27 AM
Where I am from is irrelevant. The fact I am right is what's got you backpedalling so fast you're leaving skidmarks on the lawn.

Yes it is relevant.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 10:29 AM
What are your plans for the full blown rebellion? Serious question. What would you be willing to do - and will you actually do it?

If a communist was to be seated as the Leader of my country? You are asking what I would do? Please use your imagination. We didn't fight communism around the world for nothing, man.

linda22003
02-04-2009, 10:30 AM
Yes it is relevant.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

The link is to Citizenship and Immigration Services. Do you think Sonnabend is an illegal virtual alien? Are his pixels sneaking into an American website? :)

Molon Labe
02-04-2009, 10:30 AM
Please don't quote the UCMJ when it doesn't apply to me. Sonnabend, if you think a communist being seated in the White House is not cause enough for my country to go full blown rebellion, you know nothing about the American people. By your argument if Hitler was president we would have to follow him.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

And some probably would too. Can you guess which ones?

Darnit' You've invoked Godwin's law! Now you've done it.

linda22003
02-04-2009, 10:31 AM
If a communist was to be seated as the Leader of my country? You are asking what I would do? Please use your imagination. We didn't fight communism around the world for nothing, man.

I have to use my imagination, because your posts just say cliches like "violent protest" and "take back our country". Yes, I'm asking what you would do. And I think it's in your imagination, frankly.

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 10:32 AM
This is for my fellow Americans only.

Are some of you telling me that if a communist was seated as President, you would accept it? Knowing what you know about Communism, individual Freedoms, Capitalism, everything these people wanted to destroy, you would accept it.

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 10:33 AM
Please don't quote the UCMJ when it doesn't apply to me
The UCMJ directly applies to the chain of command, and hence to the issue at hand which was your original question on the issue of "lawful orders"..said point I have since proven conclusively in the favour of the President.

The UCMJ is specific in purpose when dealing with the legality of orders, or in the inherent authority of the chain of command. If you have not studied it, I suggest you do.


Sonnabend, if you think a communist being seated in the White House is not cause enough for my country to go full blown rebellion, you know nothing about the American peopleWell then ,allow me to move from the UCMJ and address your comment on rebellion more directly.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2383

§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

and

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2384

§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

and

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2385

§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Tsk tsk...


By your argument if Hitler was president we would have to follow himSeeing as he's been dead for at least seventy years, no. Barack Obama is the duly, democratically elected President.

As he is commander in chief, by virtue of the US Constitution, he has legal authority to issue lawful orders to all and any military personnel under his command.

Which brings us back to where we started.

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 10:38 AM
This is for my fellow Americans only.You making a speech?


Are some of you telling me that if a communist was seated as President, you would accept it? Knowing what you know about Communism, individual Freedoms, Capitalism, everything these people wanted to destroy, you would accept it.If he or she was democratically elected,, he or she is the President.


I will argue with a foreign national on most subjects, but the constitution is off limits, you are not a citizen so don't tell me what my constitution is supposed to mean, that equals to foreign influence which our founding fathers hated.Weren't you the one telling us a while back that CU is a "free speech zone"?

Wassamatta...free speech but some things are "off limits"?

Wow...you sure you're an American? Isn't that an abridgement of the First Amendment?

Tsk tsk....:D

P.S My family are cops and judges, constitutional law and criminal law are interests of mine....just dont ask me what I think of the DMCA.

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 10:40 AM
Sonnabend all I am going to say to you, is this, stay in your own country and worry about whats going on there, OK. Like we should be doing according to our founding Fathers.


http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 10:42 AM
Sonnabend all I am going to say to you, is this, stay in your own country and worry about whats going on there, OK. Like we should be doing according to our founding Father

Make me :D:D

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 10:44 AM
You making a speech?

If he or she was democratically elected,, he or she is the President.

Weren't you the one telling us a while back that CU is a "free speech zone"?

Wassamatta...free speech but some things are "off limits"?

Wow...you sure you're an American? Isn't that an abridgement of the First Amendment?

Tsk tsk....:D

P.S My family are cops and judges, constitutional law and criminal law are interests of mine....just dont ask me what I think of the DMCA.

I really don't care if your mum was Prime Minister. Talk to the hand.

http://justlearningman.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/talk-to-the-hand.jpg

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 10:46 AM
I really don't care if your mum was Prime Minister. Talk to the hand.

Love to.

Waiting for you to actually address the points I made..all I see so far is the fanciest tap dancing since Bojangles.

Incidentally...if, as you state, CU is a "free speech zone"...who are you to tell others what they can or cannot say?

Hm?

linda22003
02-04-2009, 10:48 AM
Sonnabend all I am going to say to you, is this, stay in your own country and worry about whats going on there, OK. Like we should be doing according to our founding Fathers.


Okay. We've established that you have a high level of youthful, undirected testosterone, because you talk big about "violent protest" and "taking back our country" without any specific plan, just verbiage.

You are xenophobic about the nationality of typed words on a screen.

You infer that the new president is a communist, and want to know what we're going to "do" about it, when there is no evidence that he was not legitimately elected (no matter how we happen to feel about that).

What's your problem, kid? :p

PS: How long has your family been in this country? The MOST recent immigrants in my country arrived in 1727. I probably shouldn't be talking to anyone whose forebears were not here when the Founding Fathers were.

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 10:49 AM
Sonnabend all I am going to say to you, is this, stay in your own country and worry about whats going on there, OK. Like we should be doing according to our founding Fathers.

Sounds a lot like someone else we know....:D

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 10:53 AM
Okay. We've established that you have a high level of youthful, undirected testosterone, because you talk big about "violent protest" and "taking back our country" without any specific plan, just verbiage.

You are xenophobic about the nationality of typed words on a screen.

You infer that the new president is a communist, and want to know what we're going to "do" about it, when there is no evidence that he was not legitimately elected (no matter how we happen to feel about that).

What's your problem, kid? :p

PS: How long has your family been in this country? The MOST recent immigrants in my country arrived in 1727. I probably shouldn't be talking to anyone whose forebears were not here when the Founding Fathers were.

Linda, do you have a comprehension problem? I said if a communist was in the Whitehouse, I did not say Barack Hussien Obama or infer he was a communist.

linda22003
02-04-2009, 10:58 AM
Linda, do you have a comprehension problem? I said if a communist was in the Whitehouse, I did not say Barack Hussien Obama or infer he was a communist.

My mistake, then. I was under the impression (especially from posts #1 and #16) that you were unhappy with the results of the election and thought things had gone too far to the left.

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 10:59 AM
Linda, do you have a comprehension problem? I said if a communist was in the Whitehouse, I did not say Barack Hussien Obama or infer he was a communist.

1. That's PRESIDENT Obama to you.

2. That avatar says a lot about you, yes I know it, yes I have seen it before.

You are fooling no one.

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 11:06 AM
Y'know, I'm starting to think our little pal is a Liberal Democrat.

He sure as hell doesnt like admitting when he's wrong.

Molon Labe
02-04-2009, 11:07 AM
This is for my fellow Americans only.

Are some of you telling me that if a communist was seated as President, you would accept it? Knowing what you know about Communism, individual Freedoms, Capitalism, everything these people wanted to destroy, you would accept it.

What are you talking about.....Many of us sat around (including me)for 8 years while a RINO "Republican" implemented every piece of statist quasi socialist legislation true conservatives fought against for 50 years. Now we have a Communist in the white house. What the hell is the difference except the "D"?

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 11:09 AM
Well thanks everyone for the lively discussion, but this site isn't really for conservatives (American in particular) so I have requested that my account be closed. But if you like I did find a site that is more towards American Conservatism so if you want to join me there, here is the link.

Have a good one!

buyer111us
02-04-2009, 11:10 AM
What are you talking about.....Many of us sat around (including me)for 8 years while a RINO "Republican" implemented every piece of statist quasi socialist legislation true conservatives fought against for 50 years. Now we have a Communist in the white house. What the hell is the difference except the "D"?


Before I go, I will answer you. You are 100% correct.

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 11:11 AM
Well thanks everyone for the lively discussion, but this site isn't really for conservatives (American in particular) so I have requested that my account be closed.

I guess it isnt for people like you...who especially cant admit when they are wrong.

Dont let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya


But if you like I did find a site that is more towards American Conservatism so if you want to join me there, here is the link.

I dont think so, Tim.

AlmostThere
02-04-2009, 11:35 AM
Regardless of the merits (or obvious lack of them) of this administration, as Americans, we have an obligation to accept the rule of law and the results of the election. We can and will oppose the administration on policy and conduct when it is in the wrong, but violent protests are the halmark of losers who cannot accept that reality doesn't follow their wishes. Don't like the election results? You've got four years to work on the next one, but sedition is not on the table.
Sir, you obviously have far greater restraints on your speech and actions than a civilian. I'm sure you realized that going in. Regardless, maybe it's just a matter of semantics but I don't believe legally there is the crime of sedition any longer. Several SCOTUS cases in the 20th century have all but made any sedition laws unconstitutional.

With that said, would you argue that no change can be sought or fought for outside the ballot box and any attempts to exact said change is seditious or treasonous? Throughout our history there are numerous times when men and women have recognized the need and right to stand-up to the government and say "No more, this is our line in the sand.". And perhaps history is too forgiving, but the men and women who have stood and fought are recognized as heroic for the most part.

To say a man only has free speech on election day is no free speech at all.

I think the OP has made several valid points. In very recent memory, Conservatives have decried the attempts by Hugo Chavez to nationalize industries in Venezuela. But turn on the news and see the exact same thing happening here. Did you think you'd see in your lifetime, the American government owning major financial institutions and dictating how much their employees can earn? I didn't and I'd wager I'm older than you.

If anyone thinks I belong to the tinfoil hat club, keep this post handy for future reference when it's revealed what incalculable damage this stimulus package does to our economy and society in general.

AlmostThere
02-04-2009, 11:58 AM
What are you talking about.....Many of us sat around (including me)for 8 years while a RINO "Republican" implemented every piece of statist quasi socialist legislation true conservatives fought against for 50 years. Now we have a Communist in the white house. What the hell is the difference except the "D"?

There are so many things I thought were wrong with Bush's 8 years, that I've lost count. But do you really think the only difference between then and now is a "R" or "D"?

I'm not an authority on economics nor have I ever claimed to be. I'm just a very interested observer.

What effect do you think the New Deal has had on America since it was implemented? IMHO, it radically changed the face of America for the 60+ years that followed. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see this "D" enacting changes that will dwarf the New Deal in comparison. Bush the "R" can never be accused of making changes on that scale.

linda22003
02-04-2009, 12:07 PM
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see this "D" enacting changes that will dwarf the New Deal in comparison. Bush the "R" can never be accused of making changes on that scale.

Bush the R simply didn't have time. Remember, he and Hank Paulson gave Congress the original three page TARP proposal and basically said, "Give us hundreds of billions and don't ask any questions".

Molon Labe
02-04-2009, 01:17 PM
There are so many things I thought were wrong with Bush's 8 years, that I've lost count. But do you really think the only difference between then and now is a "R" or "D"?

I'm not an authority on economics nor have I ever claimed to be. I'm just a very interested observer.

What effect do you think the New Deal has had on America since it was implemented? IMHO, it radically changed the face of America for the 60+ years that followed. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see this "D" enacting changes that will dwarf the New Deal in comparison. Bush the "R" can never be accused of making changes on that scale.


Tell me what the difference is in someone who borrows and spends and someone who taxes and spends?
Either way it's reckless to me.

To me it's not significant enough to distinguish between most of the people that label themselves as one party or the other. Oh they argue over little details...like where the military will go, and who will get government goodies....but no one really argues the merits of not getting goodies at all.
Very simply, today's modern, so called, Republican demonstrates fiscal restraint by only growing the federal government by a few percentages less than the Democrat counterpart. No one even seriously considers that the government on any level (education, social, defense, entitlements) should be smaller and should completely get out of the way in areas like Education etc.
So to me it really isn't so much a question of Democrats against Republican's. It's more about Collectivism vs. Individualism. The socialist statists against a purer form of capitalism.

The founders of this country would crap at nearly 1/3 of most people's paycheck going to pay for government.

AlmostThere
02-04-2009, 02:05 PM
Tell me what the difference is in someone who borrows and spends and someone who taxes and spends?
Either way it's reckless to me.

To me it's not significant enough to distinguish between most of the people that label themselves as one party or the other. Oh they argue over little details...like where the military will go, and who will get government goodies....but no one really argues the merits of not getting goodies at all.
Very simply, today's modern, so called, Republican demonstrates fiscal restraint by only growing the federal government by a few percentages less than the Democrat counterpart. No one even seriously considers that the government on any level (education, social, defense, entitlements) should be smaller and should completely get out of the way in areas like Education etc.
So to me it really isn't so much a question of Democrats against Republican's. It's more about Collectivism vs. Individualism. The socialist statists against a purer form of capitalism.

The founders of this country would crap at nearly 1/3 of most people's paycheck going to pay for government.
I appreciate what Bush did in protecting this nation. Finally someone saying we are going to be proactive rather than reactive. I approved of his choices to the SCOTUS. Those were the pros. Everything else was pretty much the cons. That man gave spendthrifts a bad name.

President Reagan seems to be the only man in my lifetime who understood what was at the root of the problem and what was the solution to the problem. All these people claiming to be Reagan Republicans while ignoring his view on government's role in our lives. What a joke!

With that said I believe Pelosi's House, Reid's Senate and Obama pose a far greater threat than Bush. At least there was the possibility that a conservative voice could make a difference then. A conservative voice means absolutely nothing today. That to me is a huge difference.

Margret Thatcher had the right take on socialism; "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money".

AlmostThere
02-04-2009, 02:14 PM
Bush the R simply didn't have time. Remember, he and Hank Paulson gave Congress the original three page TARP proposal and basically said, "Give us hundreds of billions and don't ask any questions".
I remember Republican and Democratic politicians stepping up to the mike after meeting with Paulson and Bernanke and saying the situation is extremely grave. I don't think Bush ever had a dollar he didn't want to spend, but I don't blame him for TARP. Congress controls the purse strings. They are the ones who are responsible for what's spent and how it's spent.

Molon Labe
02-04-2009, 03:30 PM
I appreciate what Bush did in protecting this nation. Finally someone saying we are going to be proactive rather than reactive. I approved of his choices to the SCOTUS. Those were the pros. Everything else was pretty much the cons. That man gave spendthrifts a bad name.

President Reagan seems to be the only man in my lifetime who understood what was at the root of the problem and what was the solution to the problem. All these people claiming to be Reagan Republicans while ignoring his view on government's role in our lives. What a joke!

With that said I believe Pelosi's House, Reid's Senate and Obama pose a far greater threat than Bush. At least there was the possibility that a conservative voice could make a difference then. A conservative voice means absolutely nothing today. That to me is a huge difference.

Margret Thatcher had the right take on socialism; "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money".

I did too at one time...but I realized that intentions don't mean jack squat if the process is flawed. Ultimately, I think Bush is just a very ignorant man who listened to the wrong people and didn't have enough sense to think for himself.
I can't claim moral superiority....Hell, I voted for the man twice. But what I can do is recognize someone who isn't true to conservatism. If being a Republican today means endless intervention in every podunk nation that's in our supposed "national interest" and accepting trillion dollar spending sprees that put my unborn great grandchildren on the hook for it, then I'll pass.

Republican's need to get a clue.....I've met more people recently in the Constitution and Libertarian parties that know what conservatism and right wing ideology is about than I ever met when I went to Young Republican meetings in College or at my local Republican meetings. That bothers me because I realize as things stand today, that no major third party has much chance...which means true conservatism doesn't have much of a shot judging by who we keep accepting as candidates.

Reagan was a great President. He helped bring down the Communists. For that I am eternally greatful.
And he was a conservative in that he talked the talk and started the needed cuts in domestic spending....but he didn't go far enough. I'm a bit more critical of him today because he essentially gave the green light to those spendthrifts you despise today. I believe Margaret Thatcher's quote is equally applicable to Bush. He ran out of other peoples money in his first term when he started the foreign borrowing.
Essentially, conservatism is about civil liberty and a small government. I won't quote this for fact, but I'm willing to bet that the size of our federal government is larger and costs more to maintain than any collectivist, socialist, statist nightmare of a government you can think of in history.

AlmostThere
02-04-2009, 04:05 PM
Reagan was a great President. He helped bring down the Communists. For that I am eternally greatful.
And he was a conservative in that he talked the talk and started the needed cuts in domestic spending....but he didn't go far enough. I'm a bit more critical of him today because he essentially gave the green light to those spendthrifts you despise today.

Imagine what Reagan could have accomplished with a Republican House and/or Senate. He was fought every step of the way and had to go over Congress' head to the American people to get anywhere.

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 04:06 PM
With that said I believe Pelosi's House, Reid's Senate and Obama pose a far greater threat than Bush.

He is no threat....:confused:

Ree
02-04-2009, 04:09 PM
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."


~~~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005 ~~~~~

Molon Labe
02-04-2009, 04:15 PM
He is no threat....:confused:

:rolleyes:

You didn't have to live under him if I'm not mistaken.

Sonnabend
02-04-2009, 04:17 PM
You didn't have to live under him if I'm not mistaken.

I just dont get the current context. Please clarify?

Molon Labe
02-04-2009, 04:35 PM
I just dont get the current context. Please clarify?

As succinctly as I can.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O7S689XUBk

Odysseus
02-04-2009, 04:44 PM
Sir, you obviously have far greater restraints on your speech and actions than a civilian. I'm sure you realized that going in. Regardless, maybe it's just a matter of semantics but I don't believe legally there is the crime of sedition any longer. Several SCOTUS cases in the 20th century have all but made any sedition laws unconstitutional.

With that said, would you argue that no change can be sought or fought for outside the ballot box and any attempts to exact said change is seditious or treasonous? Throughout our history there are numerous times when men and women have recognized the need and right to stand-up to the government and say "No more, this is our line in the sand.". And perhaps history is too forgiving, but the men and women who have stood and fought are recognized as heroic for the most part.

To say a man only has free speech on election day is no free speech at all.
No one is objecting to free speech, but when Americans advocate violence in response to government policies, then we have crossed a line. So long as the Constitutional order exists, we are bound as citizens to support it. That doesn't mean that we support flawed or destructive policies, but we have tools at our disposal under our laws. We can petition congress (those angry e-mails killed the illegal alien amnesty, and the response to the stimulus bill and the bailout ballet are beginning to worry those members who want to keep their seats next year), we can publicize the excesses of government, we can file lawsuits and we can publicly protest, so long as we do it peacefully. What we cannot do is resort to violence, not if we want to consider ourselves Americans under a lawfully elected government, no matter how foolish. Remember, we've been here before. Woodrow Wilson imposed a wartime socialism on the US that wrecked the economy, but Warren Harding reversed almost all of Wilson's policies and brought about an economic recovery that lasted until Wilson's former flunky, Herbert Hoover, imposed tariffs and tax hikes to try to fix a recession that became the Great Depression, but even that wouldn't have been as bad as it was had Hoover not been followed by FDR, who managed to take a bad, but improving economy, and tank it. Obama has four years to do as much damage as he can. Two years into it, there will be a midterm election, and we can take back the house and senate. If we can't, if this is truly what the American people want from their government, then that is the choice of the majority, and while I will mourn what we've lost, I will always resist the temptation to respond with the kind of mindless street theater that the left usually mounts. We may lose our republic, but the very nature of a republic demands an involved and informed electorate. If we can't convince the majority that a republican government is better than a corrupt demagoguic oligarchy of permanent media and government classes, then it will be lost, and it can't be restored at gunpoint.


I think the OP has made several valid points. In very recent memory, Conservatives have decried the attempts by Hugo Chavez to nationalize industries in Venezuela. But turn on the news and see the exact same thing happening here. Did you think you'd see in your lifetime, the American government owning major financial institutions and dictating how much their employees can earn? I didn't and I'd wager I'm older than you.

If anyone thinks I belong to the tinfoil hat club, keep this post handy for future reference when it's revealed what incalculable damage this stimulus package does to our economy and society in general.
Chavez has violated his nation's constitution in order to retain power. His crime is not just that he is expropriating property and destroying Venezuela's economy, it's that he is using his power to suppress legitimate opposition which would rally people against his policies. Every nation is going to have fools or thieves in its government from time to time, but if the political systems remain in place to oust them, then there is going to be a political solution. What Chavez, like Allende and Mosadegh before him has done is use the democratic process to destroy democracy, to change the political system from a means of governing in service to its people to a means of controlling them to serve the government. I consider Obama's policy plans to be extremely destructive, but the means to remove them legally remains in place, and so long as he and his cronies in the congress can be voted out of office, the Constitution endures.

Molon Labe
02-04-2009, 04:53 PM
No one is objecting to free speech, but when Americans advocate violence in response to government policies, then we have crossed a line. So long as the Constitutional order exists, we are bound as citizens to support it. That doesn't mean that we support flawed or destructive policies, but we have tools at our disposal under our laws.

I'll agree inasmuch as the best methods for change tend to be non violent protests..... Based on the scenario you lay out above.
Revolutions are messy and don't tend to achieve the goals. Ours is an exception.

Odysseus
02-04-2009, 05:50 PM
I'll agree inasmuch as the best methods for change tend to be non violent protests..... Based on the scenario you lay out above.
Revolutions are messy and don't tend to achieve the goals. Ours is an exception.

Ours wasn't so much a revolution as a civil war among citizens of the crown, whose goal was to force Britain to recognize the status quo that had been in effect for years, namely that the colonies were self-governing and would not submit to a regime that denied us our rights. The founders sought to preserve the order that they had established in the new world, not remake the order in the old one. Every other revolution has sought to remake a nation in its own image, usually with tragic results.

AlmostThere
02-05-2009, 01:31 PM
He is no threat....:confused:

My intent was to argue that the left tried to paint Bush as a threat to America's freedoms and our constitution. I believe the triumvirate of Pelosi, Reid and Obama pose a far greater threat than Bush ever was.

Molon Labe
02-05-2009, 02:02 PM
My intent was to argue that the left tried to paint Bush as a threat to America's freedoms and our constitution. I believe the triumvirate of Pelosi, Reid and Obama pose a far greater threat than Bush ever was.

They are ALL equally threatening to liberty to me. Any constitutional breech is a threat.

Odysseus
02-05-2009, 02:54 PM
They are ALL equally threatening to liberty to me. Any constitutional breech is a threat.

I keep asking for this, and no one ever answers, so I'll try again. Exactly what civil liberties did Bush curtail? If you are going to mention the Patriot Act, cite specific passages that impinged on civil liberties, don't just say that it let the government subpeona library records (which, BTW, was part of how they caught the Unabomber, as it was always legal to subpeona library records) or any other leftist talking points. Be specific and quote the source document.

AlmostThere
02-05-2009, 03:46 PM
No one is objecting to free speech, but when Americans advocate violence in response to government policies, then we have crossed a line. So long as the Constitutional order exists, we are bound as citizens to support it. That doesn't mean that we support flawed or destructive policies, but we have tools at our disposal under our laws. We can petition congress (those angry e-mails killed the illegal alien amnesty, and the response to the stimulus bill and the bailout ballet are beginning to worry those members who want to keep their seats next year), we can publicize the excesses of government, we can file lawsuits and we can publicly protest, so long as we do it peacefully. What we cannot do is resort to violence, not if we want to consider ourselves Americans under a lawfully elected government, no matter how foolish.

There, sir, is the rub. What is violence? When does civil disobedience cross the threshold and become revolt? Mrs. Parks was lawfully ordered to give up her seat but refused. She was arrested and taken to jail. Segregation was the law of the land from 1896 until 1954. As I'm sure you are aware, members of Congress didn't wake up one morning and say, "Why don't we give women the vote." In the pursuit of civil rights and Women's suffrage, people broke laws, were arrested and put in jail. Even so, changes in those two arenas took decades to accomplish. I would argue that without the attention these "lawbreakers" brought, change would have taken far longer.

When I see an American burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag, I get very angry. I see it as the ultimate disrespect a citizen can show to our country and to the men and women who've fought to protect it. To me this attack on our flag is beyond violent, beyond repugnant. I'm actually at a loss to explain clearly the anger this generates within me. But in it's wisdom, the SCOTUS has ruled that this violent, repugnant act is protected under the First Amendment.

I did a search on Youtube for videos of flag burning. I lost count of how many there are. In one , in Oregon, a solider is burned in effigy and then the flag is set ablaze from the soldier. All the while the crowd wishes death upon our soldiers in Iraq.

Again, I ask sir, what is violence?

Molon Labe
02-05-2009, 04:37 PM
I keep asking for this, and no one ever answers, so I'll try again. Exactly what civil liberties did Bush curtail? If you are going to mention the Patriot Act, cite specific passages that impinged on civil liberties, don't just say that it let the government subpeona library records (which, BTW, was part of how they caught the Unabomber, as it was always legal to subpeona library records) or any other leftist talking points. Be specific and quote the source document.

I didn't say it was just GW Bush but rather the mentality that has crept in to both major parties. He sure has played a key role.

And.....You mean actually use facts....like you.


Their coverage of Abu Ghraib and Haditha makes Al Jazeera look like FOXNews

So you want evidence with limitations, and then you stipulate as to what evidence is "acceptable"..."liberal talking points" ..... yada yada? *yawn*

You don't really want a discussion...do you?
This is just another way of saying you're not open to even considering the possibility that an assault on any set of liberties is an assault on all and that it's not all "liberals" wou think this way.

Do you know how many legilators actually admit they never read the Patriot act before they passed it?

Advice. Rather than parusing the internet blogosphere for unbiased news.....why not try reading a good book about the subject...then get back to me. I'll recommend several.

**************************
A Nation of Sheep & Constitutional Caos by Judge A. Napolitano
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=343

The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice by Paul Craig Roberts, and Lawrence Stratton
*******************************

Oh, before I forget...... I helped filter out the "bias" you seem to find lurking in anything contrary to your world view by using Conservative pundits own books on the subject. Roberts, Napolitano, and Milton Friedman (who wrote a review) are all impeccable.

I won't hold my breath that this will suffice, or that you'll even read them, but rather, find them full of the typical platitudes such as "reprobate" or "biased" or whatever negation you can come up with about the subject. Be careful checking them out at your local library though....

BTW: I don't give a rat's ass about the Unabomber or any other justification you have for saving us from whatever little goony someones dreamed up this year. The federal government has no business knowing what someone reads. Those are the drawbacks of living in a free society. Get a clue. :)

Odysseus
02-05-2009, 05:31 PM
I didn't say it was just GW Bush but rather the mentality that has crept in to both major parties. He sure has played a key role.

And.....You mean actually use facts....like you.
Yeah, like me. Or as best you can.


So you want evidence with limitations, and then you stipulate as to what evidence is "acceptable"..."liberal talking points" ..... yada yada? *yawn*

You don't really want a discussion...do you?
This is just another way of saying you're not open to even considering the possibility that an assault on any set of liberties is an assault on all and that it's not all "liberals" wou think this way.

Do you know how many legilators actually admit they never read the Patriot act before they passed it?

Advice. Rather than parusing the internet blogosphere for unbiased news.....why not try reading a good book about the subject...then get back to me. I'll recommend several.

**************************
A Nation of Sheep & Constitutional Caos by Judge A. Napolitano
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=343

The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice by Paul Craig Roberts, and Lawrence Stratton
*******************************

Oh, before I forget...... I helped filter out the "bias" you seem to find lurking in anything contrary to your world view by using Conservative pundits own books on the subject. Roberts, Napolitano, and Milton Friedman (who wrote a review) are all impeccable.

I won't hold my breath that this will suffice, or that you'll even read them, but rather, find them full of the typical platitudes such as "reprobate" or "biased" or whatever negation you can come up with about the subject. Be careful checking them out at your local library though....

In other words, no, you can't support your arguments. Got it. Just the same old talking points that the left uses, but with a citation to a book whose author may or may not have read the act, either. Unlike the congress members who didn't read the act, I did read it. It's almost entirely devoted to applying existing law to counter terror operations and allowing law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information, something that was prohibited, not by law, but by executive order, but only after the 1970s when liberal Democrats sought to gut the nation's self defense capabilities. It has no, I repeat, no infringements on civil rights or civil liberties. Hell, they couldn't even stop the NY Times from publishing classified information, and you're complaining about lost freedoms? Name one! Oh, I forgot, you can't. You can only link to book reviews. Got it.


BTW: I don't give a rat's ass about the Unabomber or any other justification you have for saving us from whatever little goony someones dreamed up this year. The federal government has no business knowing what someone reads. Those are the drawbacks of living in a free society. Get a clue. :)

It's not about the federal government knowing what you read because they don't like the looks of you, it's about them getting a warrant, based on probable cause, to see if someone that they've had under surveillance because of terrorist ties or connections to states that export terrorists, has been researching something that could cause mass deaths, like how to fly (but not land) jet aircraft, or how to weaponize anthrax, or the blueprints of a federal building with special attention to the structural supports, or security standards at nuclear plants. In other words, observing likely terrorists through the legal means available, sharing information between agencies and preventing acts of terrorism before they happen. You do agree that one of the basic functions of government is to provide for the common defense, don't you? How do you think that we've managed to prevent repeats of 9/11 for the last seven years, with guitars and a chorus of Kumbaya? While you're pontificating about fictional restrictions on your freedom (I notice that it hasn't inhibited your criticism of the government), very real bad guys have been trying to replicate the success of their 19 brethren, and it's only through serious vigilance that they've been kept from doing it. I'd offer to talk it over with you over a couple of steaks and drinks, but my restaurant of choice, Windows on the World, just happened to be in the World Trade Center, about a half mile above where the hole is. Sometimes, I really wonder if you're an ACLU troll.

Molon Labe
02-05-2009, 06:30 PM
In other words, no, you can't support your arguments. Got it. Just the same old talking points that the left uses, but with a citation to a book whose author may or may not have read the act, either. Unlike the congress members who didn't read the act, I did read it. It's almost entirely devoted to applying existing law to counter terror operations and allowing law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share information, something that was prohibited, not by law, but by executive order, but only after the 1970s when liberal Democrats sought to gut the nation's self defense capabilities. It has no, I repeat, no infringements on civil rights or civil liberties. Hell, they couldn't even stop the NY Times from publishing classified information, and you're complaining about lost freedoms? Name one! Oh, I forgot, you can't. You can only link to book reviews. Got it.

No No...you're doing it all wrong....You're supposed to read the books BEFORE you spout the platitudes and label these two conservatives liberals.

You have to read the books first and not get confused because somebody put a link to a review that is only there to whet the appetite.

Then your allowed to start spouting your own talking points about how you haven't been effected, don't know anyone effected, have nothing to hide, and how only liberals threaten civil liberties.

But I really hoped you'd tell me how the authors are both mistaken that the government didn't really do those things they alledge through court documents, Federal reports and so on, that judge Napolitano has cited. Please don't make me research all the sources so carefully laid out in the books. It's really easier and more rewarding if you do so yourself by reading it.

I'm sorry I don't have the time or a quick easy button link to some blog for you to do this at the computer. It may require some effort to go to the library and check them out.

Odysseus
02-05-2009, 08:05 PM
No No...you're doing it all wrong....You're supposed to read the books BEFORE you spout the platitudes and label these two conservatives liberals.

You have to read the books first and not get confused because somebody put a link to a review that is only there to whet the appetite.

Then your allowed to start spouting your own talking points about how you haven't been effected, don't know anyone effected, have nothing to hide, and how only liberals threaten civil liberties.

But I really hoped you'd tell me how the authors are both mistaken that the government didn't really do those things they alledge through court documents, Federal reports and so on, that judge Napolitano has cited. Please don't make me research all the sources so carefully laid out in the books. It's really easier and more rewarding if you do so yourself by reading it.

I'm sorry I don't have the time or a quick easy button link to some blog for you to do this at the computer. It may require some effort to go to the library and check them out.

Well, just from the blurb for Judge Napolitano's book on the website, he attributes actions that the Bush administration and the Patriot Act had nothing to do with (like the NYPD's random bag searches at subways, or the Kelo Decision), then lumps it all together into a diatribe about lost rights and what sheep we have become, but blaming Bush for that is disingenuous and intellectually lazy. Janet Reno didn't need the Patriot Act to kidnap Elian Gonzales in a midnight raid, or barbecue the Branch Davidians. The Clinton IRS audited conservatives and his FBI handed over 900 files on the opposition to his chief dirt digger without the benefit of a war on terror. What he didn't do, from 1992 through 2000, was use any of the national security aparatus for its legal function, which was to track and eliminate threats to the security of the nation. Bush, OTOH, focused on protecting Americans from the people who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11, and for that, he is roundly condemned by people who ought to know better, but for some reason, don't. Like you.

Goldwater
02-05-2009, 08:06 PM
Andrew Napolitano is one of the few people who'd be great on the supreme court, he actually looks at the constitution when making judgements as opposed to having his own version of it in his head.

Molon Labe
02-06-2009, 11:09 AM
Well, just from the blurb for Judge Napolitano's book on the website, he attributes actions that the Bush administration and the Patriot Act had nothing to do with (like the NYPD's random bag searches at subways, or the Kelo Decision), then lumps it all together into a diatribe about lost rights and what sheep we have become, but blaming Bush for that is disingenuous and intellectually lazy. Janet Reno didn't need the Patriot Act to kidnap Elian Gonzales in a midnight raid, or barbecue the Branch Davidians. The Clinton IRS audited conservatives and his FBI handed over 900 files on the opposition to his chief dirt digger without the benefit of a war on terror. What he didn't do, from 1992 through 2000, was use any of the national security aparatus for its legal function, which was to track and eliminate threats to the security of the nation. Bush, OTOH, focused on protecting Americans from the people who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11, and for that, he is roundly condemned by people who ought to know better, but for some reason, don't. Like you.


You're absolutely right about Clinton. What I think you miss is that it's not a Democrat Republican thing. Clinton set a VERY dangerous precedent and violated many citizen's rights. Der Schliekmeister was a huge threat to civil liberties...Gonazales, Waco, and Ruby Ridge are all mentioned in the books. He chronicles very well how much liberals have been at fault as well.....so don't to suggest he's being "intellectually lazy" and only blaming Bushy is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Once again...I don't care - not one IOTA - about what you believe is a "fix" to the terror problem. Do you know that about a year ago we passed the 1 million mark on the terrorist watch list in this country? Do you know what that looks like when we say there are 1 million terrorists in this country, AFTER Bush implemented controls to "protect us". Sheesh!
You don't pass restrictions on liberty, else the terrorists have already won....that's their goal.....to increase fear and make us change our lifestyles, by having over overly protective politicians start restricting people from taking baby powder on airplanes.
There's plenty of evidence as to how many foot soldiers in the CIA and FBI IGNORED vital nuggets of info for decades and months before leading up to 9-11. So don't start preaching that the Patriot Act fixed human nature or solved anything. The ability to share information didn't require the complete act as written. That's utter crap. The more time that passes the more stupid and ridiculous the defense of this is looking.
The default position in this country is supposed to be liberty. Anything less than that where the government decides to "protect" me from the "ghosties" is not. So we better make sure it is as limited as possible. In no way did the Patriot act make me safer.

Intellectually lazy? Ho Ho...that was rich, but, I doubt it. Napolitano is one of the best legal minds in the country and an impeccable constitutional legal expert. He get's it on so many levels. He's doing quite well right now picking apart the Obama administrations bull....and he's got far more credibility than you or I do since he seems to be able to distinguish what's wrong regardless of political party blood loyalty. It might do you well to be a bit more critical of your own family...if possible. Blood thicker than water types tend to be the "Sheep" he's talking about.

AlmostThere
02-06-2009, 02:21 PM
You don't pass restrictions on liberty, else the terrorists have already won....that's their goal.....to increase fear and make us change our lifestyles, by having over overly protective politicians start restricting people from taking baby powder on airplanes.


I grew up in New Orleans. I guess it was around 1965 when my brother and I use to ride our bikes to one particular drug store on Sunday morning. We'd go just to check out the comics they'd gotten in the night before. They had the BEST selection. It was 53 blocks each way to that store. I wouldn't make that trip today even if I was carrying. As a matter of fact, these days I wouldn't go through New Orleans much less stop there if I wasn't carrying.

Point being, everyone of us has people in our own backyard who we allow to instill fear in us and who we alter our lifestyles to avoid. If we want to get angry about people cramping our style or restricting our ability to travel when and where we want, I'd suggest we look at the major inner cities in America. The terrorism that exists in every major inner city stares us in the face everyday and yet we don't stop it. That is what we should be pissed about. And we should be thankful that at least we try to stop the external threat while we rot from the inside out.

Molon Labe
02-06-2009, 03:29 PM
I grew up in New Orleans. I guess it was around 1965 when my brother and I use to ride our bikes to one particular drug store on Sunday morning. We'd go just to check out the comics they'd gotten in the night before. They had the BEST selection. It was 53 blocks each way to that store. I wouldn't make that trip today even if I was carrying. As a matter of fact, these days I wouldn't go through New Orleans much less stop there if I wasn't carrying.

Point being, everyone of us has people in our own backyard who we allow to instill fear in us and who we alter our lifestyles to avoid. If we want to get angry about people cramping our style or restricting our ability to travel when and where we want, I'd suggest we look at the major inner cities in America. The terrorism that exists in every major inner city stares us in the face everyday and yet we don't stop it. That is what we should be pissed about. And we should be thankful that at least we try to stop the external threat while we rot from the inside out.

I agree. But I hope you're not suggesting that doing something external is OK, if your not taking care of the inside.
I mean.... I really don't understand why more aren't concerned with the ways most nations are brought down, that is, from within with social and political rot.
It seems to me that the old cliche's ring true.
You know. Tyranny will come in the guise of a foreign enemy etc. Some people have bought the alternate view hook line and sinker as you can see.
It's a a bit more evident to me that the millions in foreign aid to our enemies abroad, plus more aid to podunk irrelevant nations like Israel, S.Korea, and Georgia, and uncontrolled federal spending in ALL areas foreign and domestic are more threatening to our way of life than 19 guys with box cutters.
It would seem to me one could understand the concept Napolitano made about how Martin Niemoeller's poem "First they came" isn't a fairy tale. But of course enemies coming from within is just crazy talk for some.....isn't it?

Odysseus
02-06-2009, 06:23 PM
Once again...I don't care - not one IOTA - about what you believe is a "fix" to the terror problem. Do you know that about a year ago we passed the 1 million mark on the terrorist watch list in this country? Do you know what that looks like when we say there are 1 million terrorists in this country, AFTER Bush implemented controls to "protect us". Sheesh!
One million people in the US works out to about 0.33% of the population, or about 1 in 300. You don't think that 1 person out of every 300 might bear some scrutiny because of affiliations with foreign governments or terrorist agencies?


You don't pass restrictions on liberty, else the terrorists have already won....that's their goal.....to increase fear and make us change our lifestyles, by having over overly protective politicians start restricting people from taking baby powder on airplanes.

You really have no idea of what the terrorists want, do you? They don't care if we restrict our own liberties, unless it's to introduce Sharia law to the US. The could care less about baby powder on aircraft, except to the extent that it interferes with their smuggling of explosives. The terrorists don't want to change our lifestyles, unless it's to turn us into good Moslems. That's what you don't get. They want us converted or dead. Nothing else interests them. Increased vigilance and minor inconveniences don't mean that they're winning, they mean that we are, because they aren't getting what they really want, which is a repeat of 9/11 on US soil.


There's plenty of evidence as to how many foot soldiers in the CIA and FBI IGNORED vital nuggets of info for decades and months before leading up to 9-11. So don't start preaching that the Patriot Act fixed human nature or solved anything. The ability to share information didn't require the complete act as written. That's utter crap. The more time that passes the more stupid and ridiculous the defense of this is looking.
And yet, when I ask you to quote one passage from the act that you find objectionable, you repeatedly change the subject. Why is that?

The default position in this country is supposed to be liberty. Anything less than that where the government decides to "protect" me from the "ghosties" is not. So we better make sure it is as limited as possible. In no way did the Patriot act make me safer.

Intellectually lazy? Ho Ho...that was rich, but, I doubt it. Napolitano is one of the best legal minds in the country and an impeccable constitutional legal expert. He get's it on so many levels. He's doing quite well right now picking apart the Obama administrations bull....and he's got far more credibility than you or I do since he seems to be able to distinguish what's wrong regardless of political party blood loyalty. It might do you well to be a bit more critical of your own family...if possible. Blood thicker than water types tend to be the "Sheep" he's talking about. [/QUOTE]
I didn't say that Napolitano was intellectually lazy. He doesn't blame Bush for Kelo or the NYPD's inspection of bags going into the subways, but you do. Now, think real hard... Who do you think that I was referring to?

Oh, and I suspect that the sheep that he's talking about come from an essay about society and its defenders. The essay was written by LTC Dave Grossman, USA (Ret), and he divided society into three groups, sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. The sheep are the ones who don't believe that the wolves are a threat and resent the constant nosing around of the sheepdogs, whose job is to protect the sheep from the wolves. The wolves are the bad guys. Now, do I sound like a sheep, or a sheepdog, and more importantly, do you sound like a sheep or not? Here's the essay. You might find it instructive, but I'll highlight a few passages just to raise the odds.

Continued...

Odysseus
02-06-2009, 06:25 PM
Continued...


On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
by LTC Dave Grossman, USA (Ret)

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident."
This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million. Thus there is a paradox, and
we must grasp both ends of the situation: we may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police Officers, Soldiers, and other Warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators. "Then
there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial. "Then there are Sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed. One career police officer wrote to me about this after attending one of my Bulletproof Mind Training Sessions: I want to say thank you for finally shedding some light on why it is that I can do what I do. I always knew why I did it. I love my folks, even the bad ones, and had a talent that I could return to my community. I just couldn't put my finger on why I could wade through the chaos, the gore, the sadness, if given a chance try to make it all better, and walk right out the other side. Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and Sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial. The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest
little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young Sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old Sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones. Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The Sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those
planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into Warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

Continued...

Odysseus
02-06-2009, 06:26 PM
Continued...


There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent
crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself. However, when there were cues given by potential victims that indicated they would not go easily, the cons said that they would walk
away. If the cons sensed that the target was a "counter-predator," that is, a sheepdog, they would leave him alone unless there was no other choice but to engage. One police officer told me that he rode a commuter train to work each day. One day, as was his usual, he was standing in the crowded car, dressed in blue jeans, T-shirt and jacket, holding onto a pole and reading a paperback. At one of the stops, two street toughs boarded, shouting and cursing and doing every obnoxious thing possible to intimidate the other riders. The officer continued to read his book, though he kept a watchful eye on the two punks as they strolled along the aisle making comments to female passengers, and banging shoulders with men as they passed. As they approached the officer, he lowered his novel and made eye contact with them.
"You got a problem, man?" one of the IQ-challenged punks asked. "You think you're tough, or somethin'?" the other asked, obviously offended that this one was not shirking away from them. "As a matter of fact, I am tough," the officer said, calmly and with a steady gaze. The two looked at him for a long moment, and then without saying a word, turned and moved back down the aisle to continue their taunting of the other passengers, the sheep. Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed
to be wolves or Sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become Sheepdogs. Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers -- athletes, business people and parents. From sheep to Sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground. "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?" There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. Edmund Burke. Here is the point I would like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if
there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the Sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door. For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until
the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones. I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?" Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would
call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have an idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?" It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth. Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: ...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling. Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa." This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from shepherd and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.





I agree. But I hope you're not suggesting that doing something external is OK, if your not taking care of the inside.
I mean.... I really don't understand why more aren't concerned with the ways most nations are brought down, that is, from within with social and political rot.
It seems to me that the old cliche's ring true.
You know. Tyranny will come in the guise of a foreign enemy etc. Some people have bought the alternate view hook line and sinker as you can see.
It's a a bit more evident to me that the millions in foreign aid to our enemies abroad, plus more aid to podunk irrelevant nations like Israel, S.Korea, and Georgia, and uncontrolled federal spending in ALL areas foreign and domestic are more threatening to our way of life than 19 guys with box cutters.
It would seem to me one could understand the concept Napolitano made about how Martin Niemoeller's poem "First they came" isn't a fairy tale. But of course enemies coming from within is just crazy talk for some.....isn't it?
You know what I hear when you dismiss terrorists as "19 guys with box cutters?" I hear you saying "Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...." Good little sheep. Keep focusing on your navel while the sheepdogs stand watch.

Molon Labe
02-09-2009, 04:09 PM
You know what I hear when you dismiss terrorists as "19 guys with box cutters?" I hear you saying "Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...." Good little sheep. Keep focusing on your navel while the sheepdogs stand watch.

Not sure how you came up with that conclusion. Can't say I ever needed the Shepherd or Sheepdog. Usually I fill those roles....;)


I once new someone with delusions of grandeur similar believing that they are the only one's capable of protecting everyone their way. In this case your way being the ONLY way.

LTC and you need to do more introspection of "know thyself" and less finger waging at people who've been there....done that.

Or maybe just a good reading of this.....which pretty much discounts everything you suggest in 4 easy steps.



He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious - Sun Tzu

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting - Sun Tzu

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win - Sun Tzu

There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare - Sun Tzu

You'll believe as you wish to believe.

Odysseus
02-09-2009, 07:54 PM
Not sure how you came up with that conclusion. Can't say I ever needed the Shepherd or Sheepdog. Usually I fill those roles....;)


I once new someone with delusions of grandeur similar believing that they are the only one's capable of protecting everyone their way. In this case your way being the ONLY way.

LTC and you need to do more introspection of "know thyself" and less finger waging at people who've been there....done that.

Or maybe just a good reading of this.....which pretty much discounts everything you suggest in 4 easy steps.

You'll believe as you wish to believe.

Sun Tzu also discusses chariot warfare and besieging walled cities. You might want to view him as a parable and apply his logic to the context of GWOT, rather than simply quoting him out of context. Observe:


Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

Preventing attacks in the US by hardening targets balks the enemy's plans. Tracking his finances and movements prevents the junction of his forces. This is better than having to attack terrorists in the field, but since they are not armies in the conventional sense, that's not a choice, either.


Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.

That sounds a lot like the campaign in Iraq prior to the insurgency. But Sun Tzu addresses the movements of large forces, and assumes an autocracy that can wage war without the concerns of domestic dissent. He doesn't address insurgency, or the media that makes public opinion in the US the primary weapon of our enemies, does he? For example, he writes that:


Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us.

But, in a nation of 300 million, where terrorists prey on civilian targets, we do have to prepare against possible attacks, because those attacks prove incredibly disruptive. The months after 9/11, when all aviation was grounded, our economy was also grounded. Imagine what a recurrence would do. Meanwhile, our adversaries have to stretch their resources to engage us anywhere, but they get the most bang for the buck by attacking us in CONUS, where our lazy, irresponsible media can transform a pinprick into a sucking wound. That is a concept of battle that is completely alien to Sun Tzu, but Niccolo Machiavelli, who served republics, rather than empires, would have understood completely.


Though the enemy be stronger in numbers, we may prevent him from fighting. Scheme so as to discover his plans and the likelihood of their success.

Rouse him, and learn the principle of his activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself, so as to find out his vulnerable spots.

In other words, tap his phones, intercept his cell calls, trace his financial transactions and follow him around to see who aids him, and who he contacts. Roll up his networks and move on to the next threat. Do not let the ACLU dictate the scope of your activities. We're not fighting massed armies, we're fighting clandestine networks of sleepers and small units that conduct operations against soft targets. Speaking of which, Chapter XIII, The Use of Spies, has some quotes which you should look at:


If a secret piece of news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe, he must be put to death together with the man to whom the secret was told.
That pretty much covers leakers at the CIA, State Dept. and the NY Times.


The enemy's spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become converted spies and available for our service.
Of course, with sleeper cells, that doesn't always work. The 9/11 highjackers were comfortably housed, as are the Gitmo detainees. That hasn't turned them. When all else fails, waterboarding works.

It's good to quote Sun Tzu, but it's better to understand his underlying principles so that you don't simply try to apply his lessons by rote in areas where they are not relevent.

Oh, and once you stop being a sheepdog, you're back to being a sheep. If you're more concerned with abstract potential losses of liberties that aren't threatened by the government than you are with the terrorists who seek to expand their religious/political distopia beyond their failed homelands, then you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. GW Bush isn't the problem, Wahabbi terrorists and their enablers are.

Spâtha
02-09-2009, 09:47 PM
Fascinating discussion gentlemen.
My post is simply for notification...But, I do believe it sad the OP decided to leave. I thought his premise was an interesting attempt at an examination of the present American psyche.
Thank you...