Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    1st. Hayak is the SH*T! I read Road to Serfdom a bunch in Iraq.

    And I can kinda identify with Anarchists, or I should say Minarchists because I'm an extremely limited-government Libertarian but I do believe we need SOME level of law and order. The Founders envisioned the Federal Government to be sort of a "night watchman" and I think that's all they should be doing.

    I'm excited to hear they want to strenghthen States Rights, but I hadn't heard of them trying to recall Officers in the case of Martial Law. That wouldn't fly in my book. States have a National Guard force for a reason; the moment you start putting Active Duty Military troops on the streets of this country, Thomas Jefferson's vision is truly lost. :(
    Bush Moves Toward Martial Law

    In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

    Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."snip
    http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,769
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    I'm excited to hear they want to strenghthen States Rights, but I hadn't heard of them trying to recall Officers in the case of Martial Law. That wouldn't fly in my book. States have a National Guard force for a reason; the moment you start putting Active Duty Military troops on the streets of this country, Thomas Jefferson's vision is truly lost. :(
    I'm not suggesting it would fly or that I would even be willing to do it myself...but Lee and Jackson both did this for allegiance to Virginia. If nothing else...it's and interesting set of circumstances that have set the states off to go ahead with these bold measures.

    Hayak is the Shit.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member Rebel Yell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    5,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    I'm not suggesting it would fly or that I would even be willing to do it myself...but Lee and Jackson both did this for allegiance to Virginia. If nothing else...it's and interesting set of circumstances that have set the states off to go ahead with these bold measures.

    Hayak is the Shit.

    I LOVE my country, but I'm a Georgian first, a Southerner second, and an American third. Sorry.
    I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member EricMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    Spot on.

    Only a military coup d’état could rebel against the U.S. Government and realistically win. Not for nothing, but if it came to a point where armed insurrectionists from the militia movement gathered in the thousands and tried to overthrow the government the U.S. Military would slaughter them. They wouldn't stand a chance. And nobody wants massive death and destruction (except maybe the kooks and anarchists) just to chance what you don't like about the government.
    You do, beyond a doubt, know far more than me about the U.S. military. So I'd love to hear your opinion on whether or not you think that the military would actually take up arms against large conservative movements, on behalf of Barack Obama. Aren't the majority of U.S. soldiers conservative republicans, and aren't the vast majority of them from southern states -- perhaps more than any from Texas? Isn't it realistic to believe that a considerable amount of the U.S. soldiers would actually side with Texas, should it decide to secede sometime in the future? I'm having a very hard time imagining them invading Texas, spilling the blood of Texan patriots.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong. :)
    "If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal swimmer Michael Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in a pool and he sank, you wouldn't call it a 'failure of swimming'. So, when markets have been weighted down by inept and excessive regulation, why call this a 'failure of capitalism'?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member AlmostThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A Great Red State
    Posts
    1,920
    I'm of the feeling that Obama and friends will try to surrender America's sovereignty to U.N. control. If that is the objective and they are successful, then American 'insurrectionists' will be fighting U.N. forces not fellow Americans. Of course the U.N. forces will be former American troops. But the distinction will be that they're wearing that stupid blue helmet without an American flag on their sleeve.

    People are angry and scared about the financial mess were in but I don't think that would lead to active revolt. But a wholesale give away of our sovereignty to the U.N. might be the straw. A good example is the U.N. effort right now to quash freedom of speech. I believe the day an American is arrested for exercising a right guaranteed under the Constitution, could be the opening volley.
    Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member EricMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by AlmostThere View Post
    I'm of the feeling that Obama and friends will try to surrender America's sovereignty to U.N. control.
    They're certainly working on it.

    Excerpt:
    The Senate is gearing up to ratify a Nixon-era U.N. treaty meant to create universal laws to govern the seas -- a treaty critics say will create a massive U.N. bureaucracy that could even claim powers over American waterways.

    LOST -- the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty -- regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to what lies beneath: the seabed's oil and mineral wealth that companies hope to explore and exploit in coming years.

    But critics say the treaty, which declares the sea and its bounty the "universal heritage of mankind," would redistribute American profits and have a reach extending into rivers and streams all the way up the mighty Mississippi.
    "If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal swimmer Michael Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in a pool and he sank, you wouldn't call it a 'failure of swimming'. So, when markets have been weighted down by inept and excessive regulation, why call this a 'failure of capitalism'?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member marinejcksn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Penn State
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by EricMartin View Post
    You do, beyond a doubt, know far more than me about the U.S. military. So I'd love to hear your opinion on whether or not you think that the military would actually take up arms against large conservative movements, on behalf of Barack Obama. Aren't the majority of U.S. soldiers conservative republicans, and aren't the vast majority of them from southern states -- perhaps more than any from Texas? Isn't it realistic to believe that a considerable amount of the U.S. soldiers would actually side with Texas, should it decide to secede sometime in the future? I'm having a very hard time imagining them invading Texas, spilling the blood of Texan patriots.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong. :)
    Personally, I don't think that if it came to it most of us in the Military would be willing to turn arms against our fellow Americans. At least I know I wouldn't. But it would depend on the nature of the situation; if it came to a point where militias got so out of hand that the military had to be brought in to settle things down and if the militia pointed guns at US troops we'd have the right to defend ourselves. I don't know if things like hometown loyalty would come in to play, but I have to imagine they would to a point and some US servicemen would be more loyal to their state rather than Government.

    It's a situation I pray never happens and I doubt ever would.
    "Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards." -PJ O'Roarke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,550
    Quote Originally Posted by marinejcksn View Post
    Personally, I don't think that if it came to it most of us in the Military would be willing to turn arms against our fellow Americans. At least I know I wouldn't. But it would depend on the nature of the situation; if it came to a point where militias got so out of hand that the military had to be brought in to settle things down and if the militia pointed guns at US troops we'd have the right to defend ourselves. I don't know if things like hometown loyalty would come in to play, but I have to imagine they would to a point and some US servicemen would be more loyal to their state rather than Government.

    It's a situation I pray never happens and I doubt ever would.

    It would be wrong to put the military in such a position, and I hope that Chuck and the armies of conservatives who want to rebel consider this prior to taking any action beyond holding rallies and voting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member Chuck58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Posts
    990
    I've said ever since Carter that this country was heading for another Civil War. I began to doubt that when Reagan was elected. I voted for Bush both times. He didn't impress me his last term and the suspicion began to return.

    Now, I honestly wonder if this character sitting in the Oval Office isn't the final straw.
    The poster formerly known as chuck58 on the old board.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    I agree with Marinejcksn but the natives are getting restless. Excessive taxation, loss of rights, confiscation of guns, turning over sovereignty to the UN, re-distribution of wealth, etc. will cause the silent majority that are so apathetic now to take action.

    Looks like Obama and the liberal Democraps are hell bent on doing those things. Just hoping that freight train can be stopped now or by the latest in 2010.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •