Revolution?

[JackLuis]

-

Government works for me, not the other way around. When government no longer works in my interest, then it is my right and my duty to abolish it.

Amicus

No, it is your duty as a citizen to change your governments direction. If you understand anything about our Constitution, you must see that.

But as always Ami, you are full of shit.

 

[amicus]

No, it is your duty as a citizen to change your governments direction. If you understand anything about our Constitution, you must see that.

But as always Ami, you are full of shit.

~~~

You have a nasty mouth, JackLuis, you might work on that.

I have spent a lifetime attempting to change the direction this government is taking. I refused to participate in all the functions of government even to the extent of not filing Income Tax for over 40 years.

Is there a level of oppression at which point you would rise up and say NO! to government?

Or would you never assert your right to abolish an oppressive government by the use of force if necessary?

Is government like God to you, that you could never disobey a Commandment?

Just askin'

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

You have a nasty mouth, JackLuis, you might work on that.

I have spent a lifetime attempting to change the direction this government is taking. I refused to participate in all the functions of government even to the extent of not filing Income Tax for over 40 years.

Is there a level of oppression at which point you would rise up and say NO! to government?

Or would you never assert your right to abolish an oppressive government by the use of force if necessary?

Is government like God to you, that you could never disobey a Commandment?

Just askin'

Amicus

Why ask questions of someone else when you can't answer them yourself?
Because you are full of three kinds of shit......and an alzhiemer's shit at that.....rant on with your failed and impotent rhetoric.....
Or debate someone straight up and quit selling the bullshit.....
What am I saying? Mon Ami tell the truth and quit the nonsense? Naaaaa.......
just saying.......

 

[bronzeage]

Bronzeage...there really was an America before the age of Big Government, believe it or not.

Perhaps it is my vintage but I bristle when people use, 'we' as inclusive in national goals.

The history of the energy industry includes more than middle east oil fields. European Petrol prices are largely determined by government taxation, tiny auto's and limited infrastructure, not because the US or NATO has kept the oil lanes open.

Most of the Postage Stamp sized countries in Europe simply do not comprehend suburban expansion the occured naturally in the US, or the distances involved in travel.

I sense a political agenda in your words and that is a shame as there are real problems to be solved and big government is the worst possible solution.

Amicus

There was an America, before there was any kind of government.

Who cares if the Europeans comprehend our suburban expansion. It's not their problem. Your sense of political agenda is about as good as the rest of your senses. I never said anything good about big government. Big government put us in this situation.

There is really nothing natural about suburban expansion any more than European energy taxes are natural. It was carefully crafted and planned. Every one in this nation has a right to an all weather road surface, from their front door to where ever they want to go. They have a right to 200 square feet of concrete waiting for them at their destination, so their car will have a place to wait for them.

You make it sound like bedroom community housing developments grow like mushrooms.


I would like to have the freedom to travel around the United States without being required to carry a ton and a half of steel with me. Decisions made by big government, many years ago has made that impractical, if not impossible. In the name if freedom, we (there is that inclusive we, again) we are slaves to concrete and cars.

 

[JackLuis]

~~~

You have a nasty mouth, JackLuis, you might work on that.


Is government like God to you, that you could never disobey a Commandment?

Just askin'

Amicus

Just callin it like I see it.

If I don't like a Government decision, or Commandment, I try to ignore it.

If I see a stupid incompetent, I look in to his speeches, writings and history. I call a spade a spade and not go raving off into armed rebellion just because my President lied, and pushed to start a war, jeopardizing millions of civilians just because he wanted to do something big and momentous and impress his father.

Amicus if you are as revolutionary as you try to make yourself, do us all a favor and buy a gun. I'd suggest a 9mm hi cap and burn off about 200 rounds. Then think about all that hot lead and what it can ultimately do or accomplish and you will realize that bullets make poor ballots.

 

[Loring2]

Money

Yeah I want some of that Obama Money ... gimmee some Obama money. Hey where does he get that money?

 

[Loring2]

Franklin First

Citation needed. I always hear that attributed to Churchill.

Your information is incorrect. Churchhill may have said it but it was Franklin who said it initially, several hundred years earlier.

Loring

 

[Dragonlipz]

Your information is incorrect. Churchhill may have said it but it was Franklin who said it initially, several hundred years earlier.

Loring

Do you understand when Franklin lived? And when Churchhill lived? Do you understand what 'several' means? It means more than three, probably a few more. Think about it......'several hundred?'
Yore a jeanyus!!!!

 

[Loring2]

Well said but

That is stating it very simply. You can vote for anyone you like, but they have to be on the ballot. Your vote can be one out of hundreds, thousands or millions. In the end, the aggregate judgment of voters shapes the Republic.

Most of this kind of stuff matters very little to people. Very few people have the time to keep informed on complicated issues (that does not stop them from talking about it). Interest in what the government is doing increases when there is a big issue such as healthcare, or invading a country that does not have weapons of mass destruction.

We worry about more practical matters. Things like paying the rent, getting our children to school on time and the like. Who is sitting in Congress or the Whitehouse just doesn't matter much on a day to day basis.

In the US, we have many rights and privileges. Every right we enjoy comes with some kind of restriction. I can drive anywhere in the nation, cross borders and stop anyplace I like. I must carry a valid driving licence. The car I drive has to have a separate license. I can vote for any candidate on the ballot, but I must register with the government, have my name on a list, vote only at a specific place and be prepared to prove my identity. I can start a business, but the government can restrict where I put the business.

The list can go on and on. As I said before, a Republic is usually claimed by the neglected majority.

I can vote for you bronzeage whether you're on the ballot or not.Write in candidates are permissable at all levels. Useless maybe but for the sake of protest ok.

I wish I had voted for you in the last cycle... sigh and alas

Loring

 

[Pure]

two questions

you won't see answered, amidst all the patriotic spew:

amiIs there a level of oppression at which point you would rise up and say NO! to government?

Or would you never assert your right to abolish an oppressive government by the use of force if necessary?

1. What were the oppressions, if any, you suffered during the Bush presidency?

2. What new oppressions have you come to suffer since Obama took office?

 

[bronzeage]

I can vote for you bronzeage whether you're on the ballot or not.Write in candidates are permissable at all levels. Useless maybe but for the sake of protest ok.

I wish I had voted for you in the last cycle... sigh and alas

Loring

Thank you very much. If I were to be a candidate, I am sure all the naked pics of me on the internet would be a campaign issue.

I will leave it to the pundits to decide whether this would help or hurt my chances at the polls.

 

[Liar]

Your information is incorrect. Churchhill may have said it but it was Franklin who said it initially, several hundred years earlier.

Loring

Cool. Always open to learn new stuff. A source to this?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sorry Cloudy,

Europeans believing the earth was flat was a 19th century invention of Washington Irving. Any sailor who went out of sight of shore could see that the earth was round - right back to the Bronze Age.

Og

That's probably true, but saying the Earth was not the center of the universe probably could get you burned at the stake.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I somewhat agree with Amicus, except that I don't expect a violent revolution. Instead, I expect something like The Contract with America in 1994 when the voters will boot out many of the Socialist sympathizers this year and in 2012, followed by dismantling many of the programs they have foisted onto the American public.

ETA: Thats a prediction, by the way, not a statement of fact.

 

[Liar]

ETA: Thats a prediction, by the way, not a statement of fact.

Glad you made that distinction, I was beginning to suspect you had bootlegged my time machine blueprints.

 

[oggbashan]

That's probably true, but saying the Earth was not the center of the universe probably could get you burned at the stake.

Yes - because that was denying the authority of The Church and was therefore blasphemy.

Og

 

[Boota]

Your language fits your avatar, coarse and abrasive.

I gave eight years active duty in military service for starters and then 30 years combined in radio and newspaper news reporting.

News reporting may not seem a service to you, but back in the days of 'objective' reporting, it was accepted as a service of information.

You are hung up on 'sacrifice' it is no sacrifice to work to feed my family and provide for them, it is no sacrifice to defend the principles of liberty because those principles are part of my existence, with or without a government to enumerate them.

Government works for me, not the other way around. When government no longer works in my interest, then it is my right and my duty to abolish it.

Amicus

Military service doesn't necessarily, or in fact usually, mean patriotism. There are many reasons someone joins the military and it is rarely for patriotism. Newspaper and radio reporting is a job. Not a sacrifice.

You have stated what is not a sacrifice. And still you have not said what you would sacrifice. I take that mean that you would not sacrifice for your country. This means that you are not and cannot be a patriot. Your call for revolution means nothing because you don't have the balls for it. Patriots love their country. You obviously don't. Perhaps you love some ideal of America that has never existed, but you don't have in you what it takes to be a patriot.

I would reason that with your hopes that America fail under any President you don't support, you are not only NOT a patriot you are borderline treasonous to your country. Hoping for its failure seems like a clear cut treasonous thought. How very un-American of you, Mr. Patriot. Your arguments for your positions are weak, your logic even weaker. You come across as someone who really really really wants to be Rush Limbaugh, and you are merely a pale imitation at that. (Not that he is something a patriot should aspire to.)

As for my avatar, my control of that stopped when I stood in front of the camera. If you find that coarse and abrasive I guess that's your take. That's just how I look.

 

[Pure]

i really wish

ami would tell us what new oppressions he's suffered since Jan 1, 2009.

leaving ami aside, i think the folks at Fox are showing the 'poor loser' syndrome, and of course that old assumption "Republicans govern the US by divine right." deviations can only be accounted for by monstrous evils.

 

[stephen55]

Give me Liberty or give me death (from colon cancer)...,

Stephen55 never seems happier than when he can attack a philosophy or political opinion opposed to his own.

The trouble is, Stephen55 and the many other cowards of the Left, never divulge just what their philosophy concerning human individual liberties are in any terms philosophical or political.

I feel sadness for the starving and abused children of Africa and a different kind of sadness for the defeated and miserable intellects of Europe and Canada.

Most Americans who are not recent immigrants or political refugee's, cannot conceive of the depravity of sacrificing one's individual rights and choices to the will of the majority.

Stephen55 blurts his pain out in vengeful vitriol because he/she has been born again without an individual sense of life and finds a vacuum where there ought to be a sense of right and wrong, in other words, a moral and ethical foundation.

I don't really know if a frog in a pot of water on a stove would jump or be boiled alive but Stephen55 and his cohorts surely don't have the sense of even the frog as rights and liberties are slowly removed and the boiling point approaches.

A rational person would applaud those who warn of approaching danger, the Stephen55's in this world merely place there heads in the sand with their hind ends up and warm to the approaching barbarians.

Perhaps you will survive with just a reamed rectum or perhaps you will not survive; it is out of your hands.

an amused amicus...(laughing at my own extemporaneous soliloquy)

Once again I have to remind amicus that I do not attack his philosophy or his political opinion because of it's differences with my own. I attack his pompous and bombastic attitude of personal liberty. He advocates revolution because the US Congress passes a bill to make health care more accessible. I wonder if he simmers over the government's insistence that before driving a car on the streets, one has to prove competency at driving and pay for a driver's license. My guess is that the government feels that the safety of the driving public trumps someones personal liberty to drive without due education and a commitment to obey the rules of the road.

There are multiple examples of how things go better if we all accept certain restrictions on our personal liberty. I think it is simply common sense and reasonable precaution to prohibit personal weapons when traveling on a commercial plane. If you feel that this prohibition violates the Second Amendment, then you are a true patriot. If you're willing to accept that you shouldn't carry heat when flying, then amicus feels that you are a coward of the Left, born without a moral and ethical foundation.

amicus feels a kind of sadness for the miserable and defeated intellectuals of Canada. Being one of those Canadians who likes the idea that all of us are better off with decent and accessible health care, mea culpa. But then, having accessed the Canadian health care system several times myself and having seen my wife and children do the same, I must admit to a certain inescapable feeling that my rear was reamed every time. Just kidding...wait a minute, no I'm not. When I was in my local hospital getting a colonoscopy, one week after I had some minimal rectal bleeding, I did get my rear reamed. The surgeon found a single polyp, removed it and told me to come back in five years. Seeing as how the bleeding was a one time event, had I simply let it slide, I would have gone on to develop colon cancer. I wonder how many cases of colon cancer in the US are due to people not having ready and affordable access to colonoscopy.

So if you think that my acceptance of having a portion of my tax dollars go to decent health care makes me miserable, defeated and without moral or ethical values, you're a moron.

 

[LaRocha]

Stephen's a team player, right after he got his colonoscopy he told the doc just to reuse the scope for his upper GI endoscopy to save the Mother Land some green. If you don't follow, I'm saying: Stephen is into ATM.

 

[Boxlicker101]

A few years ago, some members of this forum were calling the president of the USA all the bad things they could think of and claiming that a revolution to overthrow him and his minions would be a patriotic thing, and one which they had a right to do. Others expressed disagreement.

Now, some of those other members of this forum are calling the current president a different kind of bad things and claiming that a revolution to overthrow him and his minions would be a patriotic thing, and one which they had a right to do. The same members who were previously advocating revolution are describing the others as treasonous.

Now, the question that brings up is this: Why is it alright to advocate the overthrow of one president but treasonous to advocate the overthrow of the other? Both were elected in accordance with the election laws of the USA, although there were some irregularities in both elections.

Personally, I do not and did not advocate the overthrow of either president, except peacefully, at the ballot box in 2004 and 2012.

 

[PoppingTom]

Now, the question that brings up is this: Why is it alright to advocate the overthrow of one president but treasonous to advocate the overthrow of the other? Both were elected in accordance with the election laws of the USA, although there were some irregularities in both elections.

Personally, I do not and did not advocate the overthrow of either president, except peacefully, at the ballot box in 2004 and 2012.

It is never treasonous to advocate the overthrow of a president - if you got good reasons.

Off course, if you don't care about any reasons, when the president is called Bush, but get a nightmare of America breaking down because a Dem President called Clinton gets a blowjob, then, off course, you will ask a lot of stupid "Why Dems hate me so much" questions.

But I think it's treasonous for a Republican to question the honesty of his own doing.

 

[Huckleman2000]

A few years ago, some members of this forum were calling the president of the USA all the bad things they could think of and claiming that a revolution to overthrow him and his minions would be a patriotic thing, and one which they had a right to do. Others expressed disagreement.
[...]

You're really stretching, Box. People were calling for Bush's impeachment over apparent crimes that seem to many people far more serious than Clinton's. That's not the same thing as a violent overthrow of the government by force. That's not breaking windows and sabotaging homes in the dead of night. That's not intimidating others by wearing guns to political speeches and demonstrations. That's not intimating assassination in campaign media.

Ridiculing people and mocking people is not the same as physical intimidation. It may be mental intimidation, I'll grant you - but grown ups learn how to deal with mental intimidation.

 

[Boota]

I was never an advocate for violent overthrow of the President, but I do feel like he should be tried for his crimes. One of which, if he can be convicted, is treason. The outing of a CIA agent and subsequent cover-up and subterfuge to protect the guilty party is not even in the same ballpark as lying about a blowjob. Rove leaked it, Bush knew it and covered up for him. Watergate doesn't mean a damn thing compared to that and look what happened to Nixon.

 

[stephen55]

Not quite...........

Stephen's a team player, (sic) right after he got his colonoscopy he told the doc just to reuse the scope for his upper GI endoscopy to save the Mother Land (sic) some green. If you don't follow, I'm saying: Stephen is into ATM.

After my colonoscopy I told the doc to go ahead and reuse the scope for my cystoscopy in order to save the Motherland some green. The guy smiled softly, shook his head 'no' and said, "Sorry, it's not long enough". If you don't follow, talk to LaRocha about micropenis.