The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: philw on October 31, 2009, 06:13:09 PM
-
however I have been hearing about this "New World Order" stuff for a while
here it is under the disguise of friken global climate change!
If you've read anything on the UN's policy's you'll know that public ownership of firearms is one of their main issues to be addressed.
http://www.4bc.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/stuff/cmonckton.mp3
http://www.4bc.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/stuff/monck2.mp3
http://www.4bc.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/stuff/monck3.mp3
this youtube vid below is well worth an hour and a half of your time........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
if I am wrong then that would be a good thing however if not......
(http://anothershittyblogbysomedouche.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tin-foil-hat.jpg)
-
Μολὼν λαβέ (Molōn labe!)
-
Word is it will be here by December. The U.N. has ravaged every nation they have touched, and now they are fixing to pull the rug out from under America, in the final endgame.
-
Word is it will be here by December. The U.N. has ravaged every nation they have touched, and now they are fixing to pull the rug out from under America, in the final endgame.
I wouldn't count on them being able to simply swoop in and take over here. People here are starting to wake up to what is being done to them. The true citizens of this country are mad as hell and, I believe just waiting for the right catalyst. The U.N. trying to seize power might be the spark that ignites the second revolution.
And since when have the blue helmets put up a legitimate fight?
-
Last time I know of was Korea.
-
Last time I know of was Korea.
Have they even upgraded their equipment since then?
-
The "UN" goes now where without us, the French (who do have some soldiers, its their politicians that are the problem), the Brits or the Irish. Beyond that you're dealing with mighty Nigerian or Canadian armies as the Russians and the Chinese are smart enough not to provide large numbers of "peace keepers" and don't have the lift capability even if they wanted to. I really do not wake up in fear of the UN. Hell, we can just make them pay all their NYC parking tickets and bankrupt them. ;D
FQ13
-
I would love to see the U.N. even make the threat of coming across our borders to police the American people. FQ is actually right on this one, without the U.S. military backing, the U.N. has no teeth. Faced with the prospect of going toe to toe with the U.S. military I would bet that the U.N. would back down in a hurry. I don't care how high up the orders come from, I don't know a single soldier that would back the U.N. with an invasion of the U.S. for the purpose of violating our rights. Because that is exactly what this would be. I say bring it on, I think I know which country is going to be left standing, and which politicians will be seeking asylum in totalitarian governments.
-
What if the orders for the UN come from the White House ?
-
What if the orders for the UN come from the White House ?
A safe bet with Comrade Obama in the Oval Orifice.
-
What if the orders for the UN come from the White House ?
Where else would they come from?
-
So, and G_d help us, it would come down to the Supreme Court (like in Honduras) would who have to have the back-bone to request the military enforce the constitution.
-
Guys, if a President wanted to impose martial law AND the military was willing, why would he involve the UN? That would dilute his power. Military dictators are not known for sharing well, particularly if it means their position is dependent on others. Why have to answer to China if you don't have to? If the military was unwilling to play along, the UN won't do you much good. Just a thought.
FQ13
-
So, and G_d help us, it would come down to the Supreme Court (like in Honduras) would who have to have the back-bone to request the military enforce the constitution.
I don't think our military would care if they had permission or not, I believe our military would enforce the constitution, under the belief that our government had been compromised.
-
Guys, if a President wanted to impose martial law AND the military was willing, why would he involve the UN? That would dilute his power. Military dictators are not known for sharing well, particularly if it means their position is dependent on others. Why have to answer to China if you don't have to? If the military was unwilling to play along, the UN won't do you much good. Just a thought.
FQ13
You are forgetting that BHO is just a face in front of the power. He has never made any decisions on his own. He simply asks his handlers what to do. We no longer have a president...We have a puppet.
-
Blue Helmets on American Soil, have long been referred to "targets of opportunity", the UN knows this, they don't have the "balls" to go into Darfur, Somalia, or other less armed and populated "trouble" spots. Let alone a country with an armed population. A really armed percentage of the population.
The troops that make up the UN "forces", their parent gov'ts, would retreat swiftly after "Wolverines" start appearing on their burned up vehicles, and casualties (for them) mount.
The UN will do what it does best, NOTHING!.
If BHO imposes Martial Law, it would be like Honduras, one way plane ticket to France. Unless we adhere to our Founding Fathers day, line them up in the town square, and.... :o
-
What if . . . .
A purely hypothetical scenario -
The order comes down through bho's handlers to mobilize the US military to take over a city or region due to rampant terrorist activities (read, "Tea Parties" with open carry), or pehaps more likely a covert statist-authored violent attack pretending to be a "Tea Party" protest to precipitate such a move. The intent to send a number of messages to the US military and the American people.
A cadre of specifically trained (indoctrinated?) and vetted military troops follow the orders - recognizing that their bread is well buttered where they are, and promotions will be forthcoming to those who participate. A few officers and troops remember their oath to the Constitution and not to bho resist and are quickly made examples of with courts martial quickly handing down hard time at Leavenworth or more likely shipped to Gitmo. The ranks of the selected and vetted are then augmented, with additional boots, plus armor and Predator drones over the area.
With all of the experience and ongoing training in urban warfare, taking over and securing central Ohio, the Atlanta area, or perhaps even DC/NoVA/MD would be a piece of cake. Shut down consumer use of the internet to prevent it from "being used by the terrorists", combined with targeted arrests across the country showing a national "conspiracy" to trumpet the effectiveness of the move - regretted so it may be by the Feds to have to do such a thing. Establish martial law in the targeted area, restrictions of travel, curfews, weapons confiscation "to keep the assault weapons out of the hands of the terrorists". Maybe followed up with another attack, this time killing some military personnel just to show "it's real". Maybe solicit some help from foreign powers via the UN to "help".
I think most of us would see through this move, albeit with limited information to work with. But what happens to the rest of the military? Suck it up and go along, perhaps even be motivated by a sufficiently violent "terrorist" attack on home soil? Especially with some personnel killed? Or do enough resist and refuse to participate, risking the same Gitmo time as the "examples" noted above? Especially if they are already deployed to the site of the "attack" - will they really disobey orders? How do they get home? How do they protect their families when in the brig facing desertion in the face of the enemy charges?
Would such a bold move by bho and his minions really galvanize things in the military or civilian people, especially in the absence of any substantive information?
Implausible? Remember, these leftist statists we are at war with are liars, charlatans, and not above abusing the very laws they swore to uphold. Remember Emanuel's "Never let the opportunity to use a crisis to your own ends go by" comment? Such a planted attack would go to great lengths to get the sheeple behind bho and against Patriots.
-
Entirely plausible Path. I have said many times that I believe the administration is trying to incite some kind of violent action so that they can grant themselves emergency powers. I certainly wouldn't put it past the current power structure to execute something like this on their own to justify completely shredding the Constitution.
-
I have a question for FQ, What rock have you had your head under for the past year ?
BO ALREADY answers to Red China, where do you think the stimulus money came from ? that coc#suc@er mortgaged the oil we aren't allowed to drill.
-
Path, it would lead to a "Free America Zone" and an Occupied Global State Zone. America would be the lone holdout, except for Antarctica, Greenland, and sections of the Siberian and Australian Outback.
Long and violent, that I hope never happens. But a wise man said "If there is war, let it be in my lifetime so my children can have peace".
The Gov. will have to make the first move. But the military, ALL have military families, and MOST of them are not BHO supporters, guess which side most of the troops will adhere to?
Rally round the family, With A pocket full of shells......
"Rage Against The Machine"...
(seems fitting)..
-
I've never been good at waiting. I'd just as soon see it start as soon as possible so we can get it done and begin rebuilding.
-
I've never been good at waiting. I'd just as soon see it start as soon as possible so we can get it done and begin rebuilding.
Agreed. As much as I would like to see a peaceful transition back to our founding principles. I fear that we are too far gone. The one comforting thought that I have is this: When all hell breaks loose, it will be the self sufficient people, the people that make this country run, that will survive. Darwin will take care of the leaches that have dragged this country down for the past 60 years. Then, we should be able to get back to common sense laws, and get back to being a self supporting nation again.
-
Agreed. As much as I would like to see a peaceful transition back to our founding principles. I fear that we are too far gone. The one comforting thought that I have is this: When all hell breaks loose, it will be the self sufficient people, the people that make this country run, that will survive. Darwin will take care of the leaches that have dragged this country down for the past 60 years. Then, we should be able to get back to common sense laws, and get back to being a self supporting nation again.
Guys, chill! We have a revolution every two years and its a lot easier to win an election than a war, particularly when you are the "terrorist insurgents". If you can't organize the political support required to vote the right guys into office, what in Gods name makes you think you're going to fare any better at drumming up the support to make a revolution work? Put down the guns, start licking envelopes and making yard signs.
FQ13
-
Oh yes FQ, You are absolutely correct. Especially when we look at how well that has worked out over the last 60 years.
I refer you to the opinions in I expressed in a previous thread
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=9499.0
-
Guys, chill! We have a revolution every two years and its a lot easier to win an election than a war, particularly when you are the "terrorist insurgents". If you can't organize the political support required to vote the right guys into office, what in Gods name makes you think you're going to fare any better at drumming up the support to make a revolution work? Put down the guns, start licking envelopes and making yard signs.
FQ13
Here's a yard sign for you....
-
Guys, chill! We have a revolution every two years and its a lot easier to win an election than a war, particularly when you are the "terrorist insurgents". If you can't organize the political support required to vote the right guys into office, what in Gods name makes you think you're going to fare any better at drumming up the support to make a revolution work? Put down the guns, start licking envelopes and making yard signs.
FQ13
And what makes you think that "voting the right guys into office" is so flippin' easy to do. Just look at the voter fraud in ACORN. I would like to know when the last time was that we had a truly FAIR and HONEST election. I am starting to believe that my vote really doesn't count anymore. (but I still vote) How can it, when three dead people vote against me. I'm sorry FQ, but while I haven't lost faith in the system that we have, I have NO faith, or trust in the people running the system. They have garnered too much power, and too much money. They have shown us time and time again that they will do anything that it takes to keep that power. Lie, cheat, and steal. They don't even try to hide it anymore. When a government get to that point, the people of the nation must take the power back. Unfortunately, the only realistic way to do it is by force.
I don't want to go to war against my own country, but we are supposed to be a nation governed by the people. When was the last time that you felt represented? When was the last time that you felt like your voice, and your vote counted? Do you want to leave the corruption and the debt, and a weak nation for your children?
-
I say again, no revolution has ever, or will ever, worked without popular support. The fact that Che Guevara wound up dead in a Bolivian ditch should speak to that. You can't win an election, you won't win a revolution. It might be cathartic, but all its going to do is wind up with you dead, you're cause reviled and you're enemies stronger unless you have popular support. If you're serious about this I would reccomend Antonio Gramsci's "The Prison Notebooks". Its a book that is the equivilent of a gun. It accurately describes how political power works, how its gained, how its lost. The down side is that the title is accurate and it was basically written on toilet paper and thrown over the wall while the author was a guest of Mussolini. Its very hard to read without a it of guidance as to what sections to read first (I am grateful to a prof who told us to start in middle, then the end, then the beggining). The thing is though he talks aout hegemony, the combination of coercion and consent that makes the state powerful. Revolution means that you have to erode the consent first before you can even begin to attack the coersive apparatus and have it do anything other than waste ammo and get you killed. You can't do this, stay home. The war of ideas is paramount as you MUST prepare the ground before you fight if you want to stand a snowball's chance. Again a great and well respected book, and one of the most dangerous ever written. I highly reccomend it.
FQ13
-
I say again, no revolution has ever, or will ever, worked without popular support. The fact that Che Guevara wound up dead in a Bolivian ditch should speak to that. You can't win an election, you won't win a revolution. It might be cathartic, but all its going to do is wind up with you dead, you're cause reviled and you're enemies stronger unless you have popular support. If you're serious about this I would reccomend Antonio Gramsci's "The Prison Notebooks". Its a book that is the equivilent of a gun. It accurately describes how political power works, how its gained, how its lost. The down side is that the title is accurate and it was basically written on toilet paper and thrown over the wall while the author was a guest of Mussolini. Its very hard to read without a it of guidance as to what sections to read first (I am grateful to a prof who told us to start in middle, then the end, then the beggining). The thing is though he talks aout hegemony, the combination of coercion and consent that makes the state powerful. Revolution means that you have to erode the consent first before you can even begin to attack the coersive apparatus and have it do anything other than waste ammo and get you killed. You can't do this, stay home. The war of ideas is paramount as you MUST prepare the ground before you fight if you want to stand a snowball's chance. Again a great and well respected book, and one of the most dangerous ever written. I highly reccomend it.
FQ13
FQ, for some one who teaches history you seem to overlook some pretty significant portions of it. The best example that comes to mind is our own first revolution, Patriot forces in the field never exceeded more than 3%, and at the time of Yorktown there were actually more colonials serving in British units such as Tarlton's Legion than were serving in the Continental Army.
Much is made of Ernesto Lynch, (his father was an American Naval attache in the Argentine Embassy) but the harsh truth is that he was a miserable failure as a revolutionary, he should have stuck to fixing teeth. His Bolivian adventure, like his previous ventures in Africa and the Dominican Republic, was an abject failure not because of a lack of popular support, but because of his own incompetence and the fact that his East German girlfriend Tanya was a Soviet plant and they tipped the Bolivians to his location.
-
"Bullets change governments far surer than do votes." Ian Holms from "Lord of War"
-
Tom, its true that ony about 3% fought. That's a little low, but sufficient, look at the numbers our military as a percentage of population. The thing is, that they had the active, or even just passive support of a large portion of our population. Mother's who would sendtheir sons to war, or provide supplies and food to our troops. Folks who would pay their tax money to the Colonials rather than the Brits, and a lot more folks who were prepared to accept them when they won, rather than rising in revolt against the "usurpers" and demanding that the Crown come back and fix the problem. Hell, even those who pulled a Sergeant Schultz were a vital part of the strugle. None of that can be accomplished by force of arms. If it could, the Brits would have won. I say again, you have to prepare the ground before you act or you will lose and lose hard. Again I reccomend Gramsci. You like to read and like history. I took a Ph.D level class that spent 6 weeks on that book. I consider it time and money well spent. I have taught it at least once a year every time I could get away with it. Consider it the AK of books, and PM me when you get a copy, because the table of contents is misleading and if you read it front to back it will make no sense. There is order to the thing, but the publisher wasn't smart enough to figure it out.
FQ13
-
FQ, one of the things you continue to miss is the fact that true revolutions are exactly that - revolutions. They overthrow the old ideas as well as the old way of doing things. Like when Washington was offered the US "Kingship" and refused.
I'm leaning more to Tom's way of thinking - bho has played his hand, the scumbags in kongress have come out of the woodwork, and the direction of what they are trying to do is plain and clear. The sheeple don't get it - yet, assuming they ever will. I now some who continue to buy into all of the liberal, statist "so-called "green" crap just because that's what the MSM tells them to do.
Consider this - perhaps Jefferson's famous quote about the Tree of Liberty needing to be watered periodically was intended specifically for the gentle soul fence-sitters like you to remind you that nothing of value ever comes easy. bho and his minions have destroyed this country's future, your future, as well as that of my granddaughter. What are you prepared to do about it?
Answer that one question before you post anything else here - you have dodged it in the past. And hopefully your answer won't be some nonsensical Mr. Rodgers / Rodney King lukewarm "can't we all just get along?" answer like "vote 'em out. The system is broken - intentionally - so what's left?
-
FQ, It's thinking like yours that got us to this point in the first place. I am all for reading books, but at some point they should inspire you to do something worth writing a book about. Sitting on the fence and trying to make peace with everyone is what our government has been doing since Vietnam. We have the most powerful military that the planet has ever known, and yet, we can't win a war. Not because we are inferior, but because we lack the political will to do what has to be done to win.
Wars are won through strength of will, more than through strength of arms. The group of "terrorists" as you call us, has the will. Because they have a stake in this country. They are the ones who make the country great, and the ones who really do have something worth fighting for.
-
[
Consider this - perhaps Jefferson's famous quote about the Tree of Liberty needing to be watered periodically was intended specifically for the gentle soul fence-sitters like you to remind you that nothing of value ever comes easy. bho and his minions have destroyed this country's future, your future, as well as that of my granddaughter. What are you prepared to do about it?
Answer that one question before you post anything else here - you have dodged it in the past. And hopefully your answer won't be some nonsensical Mr. Rodgers / Rodney King lukewarm "can't we all just get along?" answer like "vote 'em out. The system is broken - intentionally - so what's left?
[/quote]
Path
If you find me to be either a "gentle soul" or a fence sitter, you obviously have not been reading my posts. I am neither. What I am is a hard eyed realist. Ideolgy and moral outrage are nice. Pragmatism gets things done. When it comes to fixing the system I am on board. Hell, I've spent 20 years of my life researching and teaching how broken it is. This does not change the fact that having an armed temper tantrum won't fix it. Revolutions fail far more often than they succeed. The common denominator? Lack of either active or passive support of the populace. If you can't persuade someone to mail in an absentee ballot from the comfort of their own home, what in the world makes you think you're going to get them to throw a molotov cocktail at well armed troops? Or not dime you out to a government they view as legitimate? Returning to Gramsci (who was a Marxist, but a damn smart one, the reason he was put in prison), he had well earned and undisguised scorn for children like Emma Goldman and Leon Trotsky who thought all you had to do to win a revolution was to storm the castle. They didn'y understand th fact thst a strong government relies on consent more than coercion. The fact is, if you could snap your fingers and kill every cop, soldier and Congressman tommorow, it wouldn't change a thing. The system would rebuild itself overnight. The only way to prevent that happening is to delegitimate it in the eyes of the people through fighting a war of ideas. Then, and only then will violence work. Otherwise you're wasting lives and ammo. Impatience and and frustration are poor substitutes for sound strategy. Its not about you and nothing worthwhile ever happened overnight. First you win the heats and minds, then you kick ass if it is still nesessary. Getting the order wrong will accomplish nothing.
FQ13
-
[
Consider this - perhaps Jefferson's famous quote about the Tree of Liberty needing to be watered periodically was intended specifically for the gentle soul fence-sitters like you to remind you that nothing of value ever comes easy. bho and his minions have destroyed this country's future, your future, as well as that of my granddaughter. What are you prepared to do about it?
Answer that one question before you post anything else here - you have dodged it in the past. And hopefully your answer won't be some nonsensical Mr. Rodgers / Rodney King lukewarm "can't we all just get along?" answer like "vote 'em out. The system is broken - intentionally - so what's left?
Path
If you find me to be either a "gentle soul" or a fence sitter, you obviously have not been reading my posts. I am neither. What I am is a hard eyed realist. Ideolgy and moral outrage are nice. Pragmatism gets things done. When it comes to fixing the system I am on board. Hell, I've spent 20 years of my life researching and teaching how broken it is. This does not change the fact that having an armed temper tantrum won't fix it. Revolutions fail far more often than they succeed. The common denominator? Lack of either active or passive support of the populace. If you can't persuade someone to mail in an absentee ballot from the comfort of their own home, what in the world makes you think you're going to get them to throw a molotov cocktail at well armed troops? Or not dime you out to a government they view as legitimate? Returning to Gramsci (who was a Marxist, but a damn smart one, the reason he was put in prison), he had well earned and undisguised scorn for children like Emma Goldman and Leon Trotsky who tho though all you had to do to win a revolution was to storm the castle. The fact is, if you could snap your fingers and kill every cop, soldier and Congressman tommorow, it wouldn't change a thing. The system would rebuild itself overnight. The only way to prevent that happening is to delegitimate it in the eyes of the people through fighting a war of ideas. Then, and only then will violence work. Otherwise you're wasting lives and ammo.
FQ13
HUH?
-
HUH?
Comment of the day award!
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/604777/2/istockphoto_604777_miniature_trophy_blank.jpg)
-
HUH?
And that is your problem in one word JC. ;D
If you don't create a climate favorable to revolution you will lose. That climate demands that at least a sizeable, solid and committed minority is willing to belive that the system is broken and needs to be replaced. The thing is, that's all that's required to win an election when turnout is generally less than 50%. You can't get folks out to vote, you're not going to get them going to war. Ideas first, action second, otherwise, you're screwed. Simple enough?
FQ13
-
Tom, its true that ony about 3% fought. That's a little low, but sufficient, look at the numbers our military as a percentage of population. The thing is, that they had the active, or even just passive support of a large portion of our population. Mother's who would sendtheir sons to war, or provide supplies and food to our troops. Folks who would pay their tax money to the Colonials rather than the Brits, and a lot more folks who were prepared to accept them when they won, rather than rising in revolt against the "usurpers" and demanding that the Crown come back and fix the problem. Hell, even those who pulled a Sergeant Schultz were a vital part of the strugle. None of that can be accomplished by force of arms. If it could, the Brits would have won. I say again, you have to prepare the ground before you act or you will lose and lose hard. Again I reccomend Gramsci. You like to read and like history. I took a Ph.D level class that spent 6 weeks on that book. I consider it time and money well spent. I have taught it at least once a year every time I could get away with it. Consider it the AK of books, and PM me when you get a copy, because the table of contents is misleading and if you read it front to back it will make no sense. There is order to the thing, but the publisher wasn't smart enough to figure it out.
FQ13
Wrong again, Active civilian support never exceeded 15% of the population, the other 82% of the population either went with the wind, or, like the citizens of NY actively supported the British.
As to your later comment that you are "I am is a hard eyed realist." who believes "Pragmatism gets things done." All I can say is that you lack the essential ruthlessness to be either realistic or pragmatic.
I have to agree with the others who have insinuated that you are in fact one of the sheep, who, rather than standing up and rocking the boat, sits clinging to the side hoping the water will be smoother after the waterfall .
As I have posted before, the primary problems with the current electoral process are that it grants an equal vote to every dipshit with a pulse, your vote means exactly the same as Cork's. Secondly the primary movers behind the socialist take over are people who never stand for election, but weild huge influence behind closed doors, George Soros, being one example and Micheal Steele another.
-
POOP!
-
As to your later comment that you are "I am is a hard eyed realist." who believes "Pragmatism gets things done." All I can say is that you lack the essential ruthlessness to be either realistic or pragmatic.
I have to agree with the others who have insinuated that you are in fact one of the sheep, who, rather than standing up and rocking the boat, sits clinging to the side hoping the water will be smoother after the waterfall .
As I have posted before, the primary problems with the current electoral process are that it grants an equal vote to every dipshit with a pulse, your vote means exactly the same as Cork's. Secondly the primary movers behind the socialist take over are people who never stand for election, but weild huge influence behind closed doors, George Soros, being one example and Micheal Steele another.
Tom, its not ruthlessness that I lack, I don't carry a gun for decoration. What I do lack is romanticism. I really don't see why the concept of having a solid committed minority of supporters who are willing to assist, if not fight is a problem. I also fail to see why you see no need to convince the "sheeple" (easy to convince by definintion, right) that at the very least passive acceptance of a revolutionary government is necessary, lest those same sheep grow fangs. Remember most Americans were pretty on board with FDR are and that didn't end well for Hitler or the Japs. Building a revolutionary movement is like building anything. You do all the planning and all the steps in order. Otherwise you just grab a hammer and FUBAR it. What part of that do you not get?
FQ13
-
POOP!
-
POOP!
You know Eric, you're giving onreccess a run for his money in regard to reasoned commentary. If there was a trophy for the inarticulate grunt of the day, you would win it. ;) Please try harder.
FQ13
-
Tom, its not ruthlessness that I lack, I don't carry a gun for decoration. What I do lack is romanticism. I really don't see why the concept of having a solid committed minority of supporters who are willing to assist, if not fight is a problem. I also fail to see why you see no need to convince the "sheeple" (easy to convince by definintion, right) that at the very least passive acceptance of a revolutionary government is necessary, lest those same sheep grow fangs. Remember most Americans were pretty on board with FDR are and that didn't end well for Hitler or the Japs. Building a revolutionary movement is like building anything. You do all the planning and all the steps in order. Otherwise you just grab a hammer and FUBAR it. What part of that do you not get?
FQ13
Obviously, you have never "built" anything. I have worked in the construction industry most of my life. I can tell you this, plans for building anything are worth about as much as toilet paper. Fighting a war is the same way. You go in with a goal. In a war the goal is always the same. WIN. Unfortunately because of the pure nature of war you have to make the rest up as you go.
I have said many times that I don't want to see our country go through this, but I fear we may have no choice. I will add this though, I think about my family, and what I would be willing to do for them. What I would be willing to sacrifice for their future. I would give my life to give them a better future. In a heartbeat. That is what makes us so different FQ. I don't have to read books to figure out what to do when my liberty, and my future are at risk. I know instinctively, as a patriot, to pick up a rifle and stand a post. It's called being principled. To hell with pragmatism. I will not sit on my ass, while my country is being stolen from me, and I won't wait for someone else to lead the charge.
-
You know Eric, you're giving onreccess a run for his money in regard to reasoned commentary. If there was a trophy for the inarticulate grunt of the day, you would win it. ;) Please try harder.
FQ13
I call em like I see em..... Really, if anyone on this forum deserves to be compared to onreccess its you.... We will disregard the fact that he too was an "educator" ;)
-
. That is what makes us so different FQ. I don't have to read books to figure out what to do when my liberty, and my future are at risk. I know instinctively, as a patriot, to pick up a rifle and stand a post. It's called being principled. To hell with pragmatism.
That is what makes us different, same basic goal, different means. Wisdom says that you escalate in steps. You don't go the most extreme option first or you have nowhere left to go. I say and maintain, that its a lot easier to win elections then revolutions. You disagree, fine. Do ponder this though. FDR, whose socialism is the underlying problem, did not take power in a revolution, but rather an election. The same was true of Lincoln and the same was true of Washington. Granted both Lincoln and Washington skirted the laws or resorted to force, but they got there through persuasion first, and only then resorted to force to consolidate, not acquire what they had already won. Disregard this advice if you will, but its not based on feelings or emotions, but history. I may be wrong. You might remake the country with your AR and a few hundred feet of rope. I think that you don't get rid of the rock by hitting it with a hammer once. I think it sa thousand small blows over time that do the job. But that's just me.
FQ13
-
That is what makes us different, same basic goal, different means. Wisdom says that you escalate in steps. You don't go the most extreme option first or you have nowhere left to go. I say and maintain, that its a lot easier to win elections then revolutions. You disagree, fine. Do ponder this though. FDR, whose socialism is the underlying problem, did not take power in a revolution, but rather an election. The same was true of Lincoln and the same was true of Washington. Granted both Lincoln and Washington skirted the laws or resorted to force, but they got there through persuasion first, and only then resorted to force to consolidate, not acquire what they had already won. Disregard this advice if you will, but its not based on feelings or emotions, but history. I may be wrong. You might remake the country with your AR and a few hundred feet of rope. I think that you don't get rid of the rock by hitting it with a hammer once. I think it sa thousand small blows over time that do the job. But that's just me.
FQ13
Complete and utter BS!
Washington knew that war was coming - that is why he showed up in his Colonial uniform every damn day the Continental Congress met amd mever said one word about wanting the job.
FQ isn't our resident onrecess, he is more of a Vidkun Quisling living in a Vichy of his own fantasy, thinking everything will be better if we just go along with the fix. Hmm. Maybe Neville Chamberlain is closer.
You dodged my question BTW.
-
Complete and utter BS!
Washington knew that war was coming - that is why he showed up in his Colonial uniform every damn day the Continental Congress met amd mever said one word about wanting the job.
FQ isn't our resident onrecess, he is more of a Vidkun Quisling living in a Vichy of his own fantasy, thinking everything will be better if we just go along with the fix. Hmm. Maybe Neville Chamberlain is closer.
You dodged my question BTW.
Path
Washington didn't become President through the revolution. The Articles of Confederation didn't provide for an independent President. He became President after the Constitution was written. That was a quasi-illegal operation. He and the rest of the Founders, were charged with revising the articles, not tearing them up and starting over. Guess what? The people accepted this second American Revolution without a shot being fired. Why? Persuasion, read the Federalist Papers for the reasons why. Gee, guess what, reason and persuasion. I guess Washington, Franklin, Madison and Hamilton are Quislings and Chamberlins as well. Look Path, you need to step outside of your own private Alamo and realize a fewhome truths. Truth the first. If you are pissed off, odds are good some of your neighbors are, organize them. Truth the second, folks are pissed for different reasons, find a broad and inclusive (but narrow enough to be coherent agenda) and rally folks behind it. Third truth, don't pull a gun, when an election campain will work. You may call me Chamberlin, but you my friend are more akin to the unibomber, or John Brown on your best day. Me, I'll follow Franklin's example. You know, that crazy little thing called a printing press. To each their own.
FQ13
-
That is what makes us different, same basic goal, different means. Wisdom says that you escalate in steps. You don't go the most extreme option first or you have nowhere left to go. I say and maintain, that its a lot easier to win elections then revolutions. You disagree, fine. Do ponder this though. FDR, whose socialism is the underlying problem, did not take power in a revolution, but rather an election. The same was true of Lincoln and the same was true of Washington. Granted both Lincoln and Washington skirted the laws or resorted to force, but they got there through persuasion first, and only then resorted to force to consolidate, not acquire what they had already won. Disregard this advice if you will, but its not based on feelings or emotions, but history. I may be wrong. You might remake the country with your AR and a few hundred feet of rope. I think that you don't get rid of the rock by hitting it with a hammer once. I think it sa thousand small blows over time that do the job. But that's just me.
FQ13
FQ, what is the line for you, or from other threads here, what is your "trigger point"? How far does it have to go before you would take action. We've fought hard for the elections. They are rigged. We have had the Tea Parties (and continue to hold them) We have been ignored, marginalized, and mocked. We write, and call and harass our reps. You saw the town hall meetings. We are told to sit down and shut up. That they know better.
Anyone that questions them is completely trashed. (Joe the plumber) Anyone that has a strong voice of opposition is completely destroyed. (Sarah Palin, Rush, Beck) True these people are still going, but not for lack of the vicious PERSONAL attacks, that have no place in politics.
So what the F*&K else would you have us do? You say that I am going for the armed resolution right away leaving me nowhere else to go? Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the steps that have already been taken. Weather you want to see it or not, I believe this will get violent, and soon. Because we are running out of peaceful alternatives. We are losing our liberty FQ, and it's time for you to dig deep for a set of balls, cause it's gonna be at your doorstep, and you won't be able to dodge the questions the way you do in here.
-
FQ, what is the line for you, or from other threads here, what is your "trigger point"? How far does it have to go before you would take action. We've fought hard for the elections. They are rigged. We have had the Tea Parties (and continue to hold them) We have been ignored, marginalized, and mocked. We write, and call and harass our reps. You saw the town hall meetings. We are told to sit down and shut up. That they know better.
Anyone that questions them is completely trashed. (Joe the plumber) Anyone that has a strong voice of opposition is completely destroyed. (Sarah Palin, Rush, Beck) True these people are still going, but not for lack of the vicious PERSONAL attacks, that have no place in politics.
So what the F*&K else would you have us do? You say that I am going for the armed resolution right away leaving me nowhere else to go? Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the steps that have already been taken. Weather you want to see it or not, I believe this will get violent, and soon. Because we are running out of peaceful alternatives. We are losing our liberty FQ, and it's time for you to dig deep for a set of balls, cause it's gonna be at your doorstep, and you won't be able to dodge the questions the way you do in here.
I'm not dodging anything or even disagreeing with your goals (which I presume are a return to basic Constitutional principals that are non-racist and religously inclusive). The point I am trying to make, in the simplest terms, is this. Free your mind and your ass will follow. You can't shoot your way out of a democracy to form a republican democracy. Folks have to be receptive. If you cannot lay the ideological ground work.,you're doing something wrong, start again.It seems to me you are speaking out of impatience and very understandable frustration. I get that. But it doesn't mean that shooting folks is going to solve the problem. Either you will persuade your neighbors or you won't. If you can't, seperation might be a better step, less bloody, and a whole lot easier to organize. Pick a state that is reasonably prosperous, sparsely populated and generally sympathetic. Utah, Idaho, Texas (less sparcely populated than sympathetic), Montana take your pick. Move there and persuade like minded folks to join you. It worked for the Mormons, it can work again.
As far as a trigger point, I will not fire on my flag unless the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are suspended or elections are cancelled. At which point the government has broken the social contract and all bets are off. Until then, I think that we have been able work out worse problems than these peacefully over our history. The one time we weren't, a half million Amercans died at each others hands. I'd really rather not repeat that.
FQ13
-
I'm not dodging anything or even disagreeing with your goals (which I presume are a return to basic Constitutional principals that are non-racicist and religiously inclusive). The point I am trying to make, in the simplest terms, is this. Free your mind and your ass will follow. You can't shoot your way out of a democracy to form a republican democracy. Folks have to be receptive. If you cannot lay the ideological ground work.,you're doing something wrong, start again.It seems to me you are speaking out of impatience and very understandable frustration. I get that. But it doesn't mean that shooting folks is going to solve the problem. Either you will persuade your neighbors or you won't. If you can't, seperation might be a better step, less bloody, and a whole lot easier to organize. Pick a state that is reasonably prosperous, sparsely populated and generally sympathetic. Utah, Idaho, Texas (less sparcely populated than sympathetic), Montana take your pick. Move there.
As far as a trigger point, I will not fire on my flag unless the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are suspended or elections are cancelled. At which point the government has broken the social contract and all bets are off. Until then, I think that we have been able work out worse problems than these peacefully over our history. The one time we weren't, a half million Amercans died at each others hands. I'd really rather not repeat that.
FQ13
First of all, we are not a democracy! How many times do we have to explain this to the eggheads! The United States is a REPUBLIC. And yes there is a difference. As for your dodging, mine is the first question that you HAVEN'T dodged. Just ask Path. The only problem with your trigger points is that if you wait for all that to happen, it will be too late. Without the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you will no longer have the means to resist. Your weapons and all your liberty will be stripped from you, and we will all probably be locked in a camp somewhere.
As for firing against my flag, what are you insane. If not for that symbol of freedom, what the hell banner would you be fighting for?
-
Actually JC
We are a democratic republic. We contain elements of both. Granted, we are more democratic after the he 17th ammendment which mandated the direct election of Senators and the universal state level policy of directly voting for President. This a change from the oriinal Constiution, but doesn't change the republican nature of government. As far as firing on the flag, what exactly do you think the government troops will be wearing, a swastika? Lets be real. They will be the boys in blue, and we will be the "unlawfull combatants" if it ever comes to your worst case scenario. You WILL be shooting at the US flag, they won't change it for your peace of mind. It is something that I am highly reluctant to do and I will wait until the Constitution is suspended or other outrages occur.
FQ13
-
Tom, its not ruthlessness that I lack, I don't carry a gun for decoration. What I do lack is romanticism. I really don't see why the concept of having a solid committed minority of supporters who are willing to assist, if not fight is a problem. I also fail to see why you see no need to convince the "sheeple" (easy to convince by definintion, right) that at the very least passive acceptance of a revolutionary government is necessary, lest those same sheep grow fangs. Remember most Americans were pretty on board with FDR are and that didn't end well for Hitler or the Japs. Building a revolutionary movement is like building anything. You do all the planning and all the steps in order. Otherwise you just grab a hammer and FUBAR it. What part of that do you not get?
FQ13
Yet again you get it wrong, most Americans, including Oliver Wendell Holmes, either agreed with what Hitler seemed to be doing in Germany, or were indifferent, (google American Bund ) As with 9-11 most Americans didn't give a sh!t what happened "over there" until the Japs attacked US, and Hitler declared war on us. The truth is, we had no dog in the European war, we only participated because FDR committed us to supporting England when our true national self interest was confined to the Pacific.
-
Path
Washington didn't become President through the revolution. The Articles of Confederation didn't provide for an independent President. He became President after the Constitution was written. That was a quasi-illegal operation. He and the rest of the Founders, were charged with revising the articles, not tearing them up and starting over. Guess what? The people accepted this second American Revolution without a shot being fired. Why? Persuasion, read the Federalist Papers for the reasons why. Gee, guess what, reason and persuasion. I guess Washington, Franklin, Madison and Hamilton are Quislings and Chamberlins as well. Look Path, you need to step outside of your own private Alamo and realize a fewhome truths. Truth the first. If you are pissed off, odds are good some of your neighbors are, organize them. Truth the second, folks are pissed for different reasons, find a broad and inclusive (but narrow enough to be coherent agenda) and rally folks behind it. Third truth, don't pull a gun, when an election campain will work. You may call me Chamberlin, but you my friend are more akin to the unibomber, or John Brown on your best day. Me, I'll follow Franklin's example. You know, that crazy little thing called a printing press. To each their own.
FQ13
I'm not sure about Washington, But Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton, while maybe not "traitors" in the sense of Quisling, were most certainly traitors to the revolutionary principles in the mold of Daniel Ortega. Prior to the revolution Franklin took the job of Stamp tax collector, but was forced to resign, the reason he went to France to work for the Revolution was because his elitist positions left him with no credibility among common Americans. Madison, Adams, and Hancock diligently stirred up the disenfranchised working classes who fell below the property requirement to vote when they wanted to oppose the Crown, but once they got their snouts in the trough they not only reintroduced the property requirement, but in several states (Ma. being one of them) RAISED it, taking the vote away from many who had previously held that privilege. And then there was Hamilton, Tool of the NY speculators and who's financial scheming with Govenour Morris and the European financial interests was the spark that led to both the Whiskey rebellion AND Shay's rebellion. Aaron Burr did the nation a great favor by killing that SOB. We should bring back dueling.
Franklin did not serve the revolution with his press, he made himself a wealthy slave owner with it, he served the revolution by screwing and drinking his way through French high society. (admittedly not a bad job if you can get it ). And do you a grave disservice to us, as well as underlining your total lack of both understanding, and l
"libertarian" values by comparing unorganized Patriots to a mental case Professor from Berkley.
Ted Kozinski used random violence because he was disturbed but did not know WHO to lash out at. We on the other hand know exactly who needs to leave, die, or go to prison, but we hold back because we realize that to target the guilty would mean going over the bodies of those who are NOT at fault, who in fact often AGREE with us.
-
From FQ,
"Pick a state that is reasonably prosperous, sparsely populated and generally sympathetic. Utah, Idaho, Texas (less sparcely populated than sympathetic), Montana take your pick. Move there and persuade like minded folks to join you. It worked for the Mormons, it can work again.
Did you sleep the ENTIRE time you were pissing away your College money ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War
he Utah War, also known as the Utah Expedition, Buchanan's Blunder,[1] the Mormon War,[2] or the Mormon Rebellion[3] was an armed dispute between Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") settlers in Utah Territory and the United States federal government. The confrontation lasted from May 1857 until July 1858. While it had mainly non-Mormon civilian casualties, the "war" had no pitched battles and was ultimately resolved through negotiation. Nevertheless, according to historian William P. MacKinnon, the Utah War was America's "most extensive and expensive military undertaking during the period between the Mexican and Civil Wars, one that ultimately pitted nearly one-third of the US Army against what was arguably the nation's largest, most experienced militia."[4]
From FQ
"Actually JC
We are a democratic republic."
We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC Our nation was MEANT to be ruled by laws. Not the screams of an uninformed mob owing allegiance only to the plutocrat that gave them free sh!t, currently known as "entitlements". Another meaningless word like "assault weapon" , the only things you are "entitled to" are Life, Liberty, and Property, and then ONLY if you abide by the common law by not killing, raping, robbing, or committing treason. But the Dems, keep using OUR tax dollars to buy them vote cattle ( cattle derives from the word chattel which refereed to all animals in the household, goats, sheep, slaves and women. )
From FQ,
"They will be the boys in blue, and we will be the "unlawfull combatants" if it ever comes to your worst case scenario. You WILL be shooting at the US flag, they won't change it for your peace of mind. It is something that I am highly reluctant to do and I will wait until the Constitution is suspended or other outrages occur."
The Constitution is being readily IGNORED, it doesn't need to be suspended any more than the Soviet Constitution was. And what could you possibly mean by "other out rages" at Waco government agents barbecued children, will you get of your ass if they actually sit down and start eating them ?
-
We should bring back dueling.
At least boxing gloves, (the really thin one's).
"The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness."
Robert Heinlein
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
Col. Jeff Cooper
"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
To Waxman:
Never forget that...
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
John F. Kennedy
To Obama:
Read More Kennedy.
-
From TW's Post
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
Cooper may have said that but if he did he stole it word for word from Heinlein's "Starship Troopers"
I don't have a copy to reference the page number but The hero's "Moral Philosophy" instructor says it while he is in high school in the first part of the book.
Actually, "dueling" is NOT illegal ( Military forbade it under the articles of war but they have been replaced by the UCMJ, Senate rules may forbid members from engaging in them, I'm not sure ) What is illegal is causing an injury.
You could have a contract that stipulated the first one hit resigns or publicly renounces the offensive act then fight with T/C Contenders loaded with Simunitions, (using eye and ear protection of course ) ;D
-
Actually, causing an injury is perfectly legal..... Its all about consent. Take boxing for example..... If one fighter dies or is injured in the ring, the other fighter is in no way responsible because of consent. The boxer who died in the ring consented to getting in there undergoing great personal injury or death.
-
From TW's Post
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
Cooper may have said that but if he did he stole it word for word from Heinlein's "Starship Troopers"
I don't have a copy to reference the page number but The hero's "Moral Philosophy" instructor says it while he is in high school in the first part of the book.
Actually, "dueling" is NOT illegal ( Military forbade it under the articles of war but they have been replaced by the UCMJ, Senate rules may forbid members from engaging in them, I'm not sure ) What is illegal is causing an injury.
You could have a contract that stipulated the first one hit resigns or publicly renounces the offensive act then fight with T/C Contenders loaded with Simunitions, (using eye and ear protection of course ) ;D
Hell, I'd settle for paint balls, just for the entertainment value alone, as long as regular citizens got to challenge their "representatives". ;D
FQ13
-
Hell, I'd settle for paint balls, just for the entertainment value alone, as long as regular citizens got to challenge their "representatives". ;D
FQ13
That's the thought that inspired me. How could I put a bullet in"Abscam Jack" Murtha's head and not go to jail for it. ;D
I visualized him making his resignation speech with a big red welt in the middle of his fore head ;D
Actually, causing an injury is perfectly legal..... Its all about consent. Take boxing for example..... If one fighter dies or is injured in the ring, the other fighter is in no way responsible because of consent. The boxer who died in the ring consented to getting in there undergoing great personal injury or death.
I don't know about that Eric, I have seen guys in the Court report charged with "Assault (fight by consent)".
Also, there is a big difference between punching each other and shooting at each other that might be more than the legal system could swallow.
-
Manslaughter at best
-
My goodness! The rhetoric is hot! In the spirit of the season, I thought y'all might like this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ
;D ;D ;D
-
My goodness! The rhetoric is hot! In the spirit of the season, I thought y'all might like this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ
;D ;D ;D
There's a special place in hell for you FA, just for that video.
I gotta go clean up my mess on the floor, keyboard, desk, damn, it's everywhere!
-
There's a special place in hell for you FA, just for that video.
I gotta go clean up my mess on the floor, keyboard, desk, damn, it's everywhere!
Thank you very much!!!!
-
My goodness! The rhetoric is hot! In the spirit of the season, I thought y'all might like this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsKO_r76kfQ
;D ;D ;D
You're an A hole ! I watched that stupid thing all the way through waiting for him to get blasted with a .50 cal, toward the end I at LEAST expected the stuffed doll to get sledge hammered.
FA You stink !!!
;D
-
I hate that purple bastard.
-
I hate you,
You hate me,
Let's hang Barney in a tree. ;D
-
I hate you,
You hate me,
Let's hang Barney in a tree. ;D
Now THAT is spontaneous revolutionary violence I can get behind, but only if we wax Elmo as well.
FQ13 ;D
-
Now THAT is spontaneous revolutionary violence I can get behind, but only if we wax Elmo as well.
FQ13 ;D
You surprise me, FQ, I figured you would be a charter member of the "Save the Barney from TomB" club. ;D ;D ;D
-
You surprise me, FQ, I figured you would be a charter member of the "Save the Barney from TomB" club. ;D ;D ;D
Peg, if I had my choice of being strapped down and watching Barney or setting my self on fire, I'd just ask for a beer before they handed me the zippo. I got to deal with this nightmare a couple of weeks ago when babysitting my two year old cousin. The only positive thing I have to say is that its marginally better than "The View", but only marginally.
FQ13
-
Peg, if I had my choice of being strapped down and watching Barney or setting my self on fire, I'd just ask for a beer before they handed me the zippo. I got to deal with this nightmare a couple of weeks ago when babysitting my two year old cousin. The only positive thing I have to say is that its marginally better than "The View", but only marginally.
FQ13
Having spent half the evening watching 'Dora the Explorer' and 'Phineas and Ferb', I was looking for a Zippo and a gallon of hy-test myself.
Son and daughter-in-law came out to eat supper and our 3 year old grandson wasn't ready for Wednesday night at the range yet.
He may have even cringed a little at 'Pincus & the Bane' when I tried to get him interested in the shows. ;D
-
Now THAT is spontaneous revolutionary violence I can get behind, but only if we wax Elmo as well.
FQ13 ;D
In Elmo voice - "Elmo knows where you live" (thank you Simpsons!) - - more than enough reason to whack the little red . . . critter?
You think you got it bad? One evening? I can actually name every one of the Backyardigans, I think Ming-Ming (of the Wonder Pets) is kinda cute, and Max (of Max and Ruby) is a funny role model for my granddaughter. These are a few of the major drawbacks to being laid off and having them live with me.
Back to the thread drift already in progress.