Post a New Topic
How You Can Destroy Your Country with Democracy!
Original post made
by Stacey, Amberwood/Wood Meadows,
on Apr 7, 2010
I was looking forward to the latest from American Thinker, but there's been a lull so I thought I'd offer my own copy/paste from a Subgenius. ;) It is a long read, but every patriotic American needs to be made aware of what is happening in this country! Shhhh, don't let the oligarchy see this. Someone might post the author's phone number.
Like this comment
Posted by Rae
a resident of Mohr Park
on Apr 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm
"jimf01" said, "you wouldn't go so far as to express that the main body of the Tea Party, who as PMom said, you would find are a fine bunch of folks, could be people who would never ever do such things such as disrespecting a Congressman in the horrible ways that they are accused of"
LOL!! You're kidding, right? Is this the same "fine bunch of folks" whose postings have to occasionally be removed due to "offensive language" on this forum?
"jimf01" said, "there are extremists in any crowd, you would acknowledge that as well, would you?"
Of course! And a crowd, fired up by rhetoric designed to incite "action", will bring out the worst in some people - especially when they can hide in the anonymity of a crowd, or on a phone, or in the dark of night, or even on a forum. However, we can each only be responsible for our own actions, which is why, although I *will* exercise my right to free speech by expressing my opinions, I choose not to respond in kind to those of you who choose name-calling as your form of communication.
"jimf01" said, "2A supporters and Tea Partiers support our individual right and YOUR individual right to free speech and to keep and bear arms." "Showing up at a public rally wearing a gun or holding a pro 2A rally, if done in a lawful manner, is something I absolutely support, but you prolly coulda guessed that."
You're right . . . not a surprise! It's more than obvious looking at the attendees and the signs being carried at Tea Party Nation rallies that those "fine bunch of folks" absolutely support anyone's right to own and carry, for example, an assault weapon a gun with the singular purpose of killing as many people in the shortest amount of time as possible. However, even conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia noted that there should be limits. In the majority opinion in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Web Link
"jimf01" said, "The ATF assaulted the Koresh compound in Waco on April 19th."
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that was the reason McVey chose April 19th for his assault. In fact, it's a real eye opener to read some of his views. Web Link Funny how much of the rhetoric he used and the opinions he expressed are exactly like those expressed by the "fine bunch of folks" from the Tea Party Nation faithful at their rallies and on this forum.
Food for thought . . . McVey would have fit right in at a Tea Party rally. When you flirt with violence by using gun terms and inflammatory rhetoric, or publish phone numbers and addresses of target individuals as a call to "action", knowing that there is a radical fringe who believe in violence, you bear some responsibility for the ensuing violence.
That said, getting back to what started this particular discussion, (ie your commentary on the Democratic Congressional members "parading through a group of protesters on the day of the health care vote, attempting to provoke an ugly incident"), the bottom line is that the Democratic Congressional members had just as much of a right to be on the street, with their lawful expression of free speech, as did the Tea Party Nation faithful.
Frankly, if all it takes to "provoke an ugly incident" is for a group of *elected* representatives to walk through a "fine bunch of folks" who happen to be in opposition to their views, you might want to rethink how "fine" that "bunch of folks" really are.
'nuff said, by me any way, on this particular subject.
Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 13, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Stacey is a registered user.
As applicable today as it was when it was written...
"Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.
It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.
And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."
- Alexander Hamilton