Happy Independence Day
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The most important written document in the history of mankind.
Thanks Owen, the declaration makes me proud, every time I read it.
Take some time to remember what it meant to those 56 men to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, to commit treason in order to create the greatest country on Earth. Remember what a momentous task they undertook, to convince thousands of farmers that it was time to take up arms and become soldiers, for the formation of a nation that hadn’t even been described to them. A nation that would become the most powerful on Earth in only a hundred and fifty years.
Happy Fourth of July everyone. Best wishes to you and yours, be safe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 0814 hrs
Jefferson said that it is tyranny when people fear the government but it is Independence when the government fear the people.
What are the secularist and socialists celebrating today?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 0919 hrs
The most important written document in the history of mankind.
Whoa. As important as it is, I’m not sure I agree with that.
What are the secularist and socialists celebrating today?
Presuming that when you say “secularists and socialists” you mean “Democrats,” I’d say they’re celebrating the fact that crazies like you don’t hold the reins of power in Washington right now.
Posted by scott on July 04, 2010 at 0957 hrs
Yup Scott, Today’s Democrats = secularist and socialists. No doubt about that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 1010 hrs
The most important written document in the history of mankind.
Certainly top ten, and definitely the most important one written in the US. Great men wrote it to create a great nation which we should all be proud of, from the President on down.
I’d say they’re celebrating the fact that crazies like you don’t hold the reins of power in Washington right now.
Four more months baby, four more months.
Presuming that when you say “secularists and socialists” you mean “Democrats,”
No, there are still a small group of conservative Democrats, though the Nancy-Harry-Barack axis is trying their level best to drive them away. On by one, they get Liebermanned or threatened into submission. I suspect those JFK conservative blue dog Democrats will do OK in November too. Too bad there are not more of them allowed in that party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 1143 hrs
On by one, they get Liebermanned or threatened into submission.
The very idea that the Democratic party is lunging leftward in recent years and that the Democratic party is less inclusive and tolerant of moderates than the GOP is ludicrous. You can file these right between “death panels” and “socialist.”
Posted by scott on July 04, 2010 at 1153 hrs
Whoa. As important as it is, I’m not sure I agree with that.
Name a document that has changed the course of human history as much…
One could make an argument for the bible, but I’m not into that stuff.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 1246 hrs
One could make an argument for the bible, but I’m not into that stuff.
Yes, one could. Easily. And also for the scriptures of a few other faiths as well. I’m not a believer myself—like you, “not into that stuff.” But that doesn’t diminish their importance in history.
I find the Declaration supremely important in only one way: It marks the beginning of a nation that would go on to become today’s global economic and military superpower. It’s hard to imagine what the world would be like without the influence of the US over the last 100 or 150 years. But the document itself, I don’t know. We didn’t invent revolution. You might have a better case in my book for the Constitution itself—although we didn’t invent Democracy, either.
It’s an intriguing question, though. What are the most important written documents in human history? You may be right that American founding documents are right up there. I just immediately have a doubt about whether the Declaration is top among them.
Posted by scott on July 04, 2010 at 1323 hrs
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
They obviously didn’t mean that. What they meant was:
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, hold more popularity contests and hold some signs. That’ll change it.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 04, 2010 at 1355 hrs
Name a document that has changed the course of human history as much…
For the United States, I can’t think of one. The very powerful idea behind that document and the force of will of the men who wrote it was the catalyst that started it all. Perhaps “Common Sense” would be up there, as it was the viral video of it’s day and brought the ideas of liberty to the people and got them fired up to fight.
Worldwide, there are many other documents that directed the flow of history. How about the Magna Carta? Many of our freedoms came from the winning of the concessions contained within it. Clearly, the New Testament instituted a massive change in history. The Treaty of Versailles obviously led to the Second World War and the massive global political change that it brought.
Other ideas?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 1430 hrs
I find the Declaration supremely important in only one way: It marks the beginning of a nation that would go on to become today’s global economic and military superpower.
This, of course, explains a lot about why scott is a sectarian liberal. He completely ignores the unique character of this document. No, the founders did not invent revolution and no, they did not invent democracy. They did, however, clearly state the unconventional concept that rights were endowed by their Creator, not granted by the governing class (whomever they may be). It is this simple concept of individual freedom (and the pursuit of their own “selfish” improvement) that allowed this country to grow into the economic and military superpower.
ps: Note the founders also argued that when a government evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security, which is what all of us “crazies” (scott’s term) are doing once again this election year.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 1744 hrs
It wasn’t a revolution, it was a secession.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 04, 2010 at 1838 hrs
This, of course, explains a lot about why scott is a sectarian liberal.
So I guess what you’re trying to point out is that it may be one of the first such documents to recognize “natural rights.” That’s actually a pretty interesting point. The only lingering question in my mind is: why are you being such a dick about it?
ps: Note the founders also argued that when a government evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security, which is what all of us “crazies” (scott’s term) are doing once again this election year.
I am having a hard time translating this from nutjob-speak, but I think what you’re getting at is that Americans have every right to change or even overthrow violently a government which no longer responds to their controls. Or something. Which is perfectly true. What bugs me about it is the fact that you guys lost a fucking election and less than a year later you’re on television talking about “second amendment solutions” to the fact that most of your neighbors voted for the other guy. Here’s an idea: field some candidates and a political platform that people like better than ours. No firearms necessary. And if you can’t do that, you have no right—none—to shoot anybody over it.
Posted by scott on July 04, 2010 at 2052 hrs
Americans have every right to change or even overthrow violently a government
I don’t get the violent part out of it but that is the most direct way of attempting to achieve a change in government. There’s other peaceful ways such as non-cooperation, civil disobedience etc. but usually people like to skip those and go straight to the “let’s shoot the bastards”.
Of course if it ever came to an armed rebellion, it’d last about 30 seconds.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 04, 2010 at 2116 hrs
translating this from nutjob-speak
Let me help. My point was more in regard to a government that gradually, over the last century, has been on a path that steadily reduced individual freedoms. And, as a simple fact, the trend has accelerated since the last election. Luckily, this has finally managed to wake many people up (a lot of fairly normal folks as well as the “crazies”) to realize what has happened to the country since these inspiring words were first penned.
ps: The words “throw off such Government” do not necessarily imply any “second amendment solutions” - that’s your own hyperbolic rhetoric.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2010 at 2117 hrs
“second amendment solutions” - that’s your own hyperbolic rhetoric.
Actually, no. I lifted that phrase directly from teabagger and Nevada Republican primary winner Sharron Angle. Her exact words were “second amendment remedies,” suggesting that they might be required if she lost to senate majority leader Harry Reid. Fact.
There is no “tyranny” for you to overthrow. There is precious little that is unconstitutional about our federal government today (excepting what troublesomely lingers from the previous administration such as illegal surveillance and torture—none of which seemed to bother you at the time). If you think your neighbors have mistaken ideas about public policy, talk to them. Make some phone calls. Take part in some GOTV efforts. Maybe you can win some elections. Nothing’s stopping you. The idea that we are in control because we cheated or that your’e not getting a fair shake is ignoring reality.
Posted by scott on July 05, 2010 at 0008 hrs
No, nothing Obama has done justifies a violent overthrow of the government. Thing is, though, most tea partiers agree on that point:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/04/15/how-to-demonize-tea-partiers-with-polls-part-2/
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on July 05, 2010 at 0017 hrs
There is precious little that is unconstitutional about our federal government today.
*spits soda on keyboard, keels over with uncontrollable laughter
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on July 05, 2010 at 0020 hrs
But you thought warrantless wiretapping of Americans was a-ok, right? And torture? We just didn’t do it. Water-boarding people a hundred times is perfectly legal. Right?
The sad thing is that president Obama has done very little to fix what went wrong in the previous eight years. That is the major disappointment of civil libertarians today. I know thoughtful, intelligent liberals who have written him off completely because of it.
Posted by scott on July 05, 2010 at 0023 hrs
There is precious little that is unconstitutional about our federal government today
Serious? Are you able to look at the Bill of Rights and not identify all but the third as having been infringed on by government? This didn’t start with Obama nor will it get better whenever Obama is no longer President. In fact I think this is prime territory for some tyrant talking about liberty and freedom while waving a flag and carrying a bible.
I have a hard time believing you can’t find several instances of government intruding on the individual and breaking the very constitutional bonds that were set up to keep government from breaking them in the first place.
Just because you agree with what government is doing doesn’t mean it’s not unconstitutional.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 05, 2010 at 0031 hrs
First, national security actually IS one of the federal government’s responsibilities. Second, I note that you responded by talking about something else…
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on July 05, 2010 at 0040 hrs
But you thought warrantless wiretapping of Americans was a-ok, right?
You didn’t seem to have a problem with it when those same rules were applied to organized crime, did you? Certainly, outside of the libertarian view, the hue and cry over the Patriot Act subsided just as soon as it was continued by the Obumbler administration. It was only bad when President Bush did it. I suppose many liberal realized that the Patriot Act simply gives the government the tools needed to track fast paced electronic intelligence in the age of the disposable cell phone. It was a great political football when they needed it, but now it is seen as the useful tool that it is.
Continuing to defend the nation by using clearly Constitutional methods developed by President Bush to gather intelligence is one of the few (very few) areas in which Obumbler has performed adequately. Very telling that some uber liberals would turn their backs on him for that. Either they are clueless as to the what the Patriot Act contains, or they are just simply clueless.
I am still waiting for someone to show me one of their rights that was infringed upon by the Patriot Act, or offer the names of the Americans that were jailed under it or even give me a real example of how the Patriot Act forced them to change a single thing in their lives.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1136 hrs
those same rules were applied to organized crime, did you?
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I expect that when you try to explain we’ll find out that you don’t either. Care to enlighten me?
I suppose many liberal realized that the Patriot Act simply gives the government the tools needed
I suppose many liberals are simply unaware that Obama has done little to renounce these overreaches in the 1 year extension of the law. I am aware, as are some others. And he’s criticized widely for it among knowledgeable liberals.
I am still waiting for someone to show me
And I’m still waiting for someone to show me how wiretapping Americans without a warrant or any judicial oversight whatsoever didn’t violate the letter and the intent of the FISA law. It’s clearly illegal on its face and only takes on the appearance of legality when one ridiculously broadly interprets the president’s wartime powers.
By the way, the reason people can’t tell you their rights have been violated is because the government doesn’t have to disclose any information about what they are doing.
Posted by scott on July 05, 2010 at 1414 hrs
Either they are clueless as to the what the Patriot Act contains, or they are just simply clueless.
Ever try reading it? It’s full of cross references to other bills that are also unconstitutional. Of course someone with the word Liberty in their name would have known this already, so moving on.
I am still waiting for someone to show me one of their rights that was infringed upon by the Patriot Act, or offer the names of the Americans that were jailed under it or even give me a real example of how the Patriot Act forced them to change a single thing in their lives.
Read it. Then read the bill of rights. Then try to perform some gymnastics about how it only applies to certain people and could never be used against other people. Fool yourself into thinking that an infringement of liberty is a-ok as long the people identified for said infringement are brown turban wearing muslim a-rabs. Just because there hasn’t been an example of a violation, that we know of, doesn’t mean it’s still not unconstitutional and against liberty. Of course someone with Liberty in their name would realize this.
It must be July 5th. The flag waving patriotic quoting must be over. Time to fall back into the left vs. right paradigm.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 05, 2010 at 1446 hrs
I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Hm, that’s the same thing Peggy West said when they told her that Arizona borders Mexico. No real surprises there.
And he’s criticized widely for it among knowledgeable liberals.
A large group, no doubt <snicker>. Too bad it didn’t make the news. Seems like most everyone you elected agrees on the issue too. I wonder why they don’t give a rats rectum what their loyal supporters like you think about their collusion with the evil policies of Bush?
By the way, the reason people can’t tell you their rights have been violated is because the government doesn’t have to disclose any information about what they are doing.
How convenient. It’s clearly happening and the proof is that there is no proof. Off we go into the land of conspiracy theory. If it’s so unconstitutional, then why hasn’t the Supreme Court struck it down? Perhaps the conspiracy runs so deep that even they don’t know what’s in it.
So basically, you don’t like it because people told you not to, and you have not a shred of evidence or specific to cite as to why. Yeah, got it.
Ever try reading it? It’s full of cross references to other bills that are also unconstitutional. Of course someone with the word Liberty in their name would have known this already, so moving on.
I think we differ on the meaning of the word “Liberty”. I’m not of the opinion that government should be abolished… neither were the founding fathers. They wanted a federal government with a specific set of functions, as specified in the US Constitution. States would then offer the functions and services that they chose to, as long as the basic rules were not violated.
I’m for smaller government, and more limited government. I don’t want an absence of government, or a government that is ineffective or incapable of carrying out the tasks with which it was charged. In that vein, I don’t find offering the government the power to defend us against new threats to be in violation of the Constitution.
btw, I note that you also chose to punt rather than offer anything of substance on why the Patriot Act is so evil, or what rights you have lost. Very telling indeed for someone who is so vocally against it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 1753 hrs
Why do you insist that Liberty is an absence of government? Here’s the definition according to Dictionary.com
lib·er·ty? ?[lib-er-tee]
–noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.btw, I note that you also chose to punt rather than offer anything of substance on why the Patriot Act is so evil, or what rights you have lost. Very telling indeed for someone who is so vocally against it./quote]
Learn how to comprehend what is written. I stated I couldn’t name anything. That is irrelevant. A encroachment of liberty is an encroachment of liberty regardless if you like it or not. You don’t have to have a clear violation and then smack yourself on the forehead and say “Gee, that was a violation of the constitution and individual liberty”. It IS a violation just by the very fact it exists and CAN be used to violate an individuals rights. Oh wait that’s right, if they’re brown people then who cares about their rights.
I don’t find offering the government the power to defend us against new threats to be in violation of the Constitution.
Just as I thought. You’ve read and understand nothing, yet claim you’re for liberty. Disgusting.
Ever hear the phrase “Never give your friend a weapon that your enemy may one day possess?” Maybe once it’s being used against you you’ll understand why it’s bad. Too bad you’ll be willfully ignorant until then.
You have no idea what liberty is, and the fact you have it in your name is disgusting. Change your name to A Son of Tyranny, or A Son of Obedience, or A Son of Idowhateverthegovernmenttellsme. Any one of those would fit you better.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 05, 2010 at 1814 hrs
I stated I couldn’t name anything. That is irrelevant.
Yeah, ok. Your rights are being violated, but you don’t know which ones or how… just that they are. Got it.
Oh wait that’s right, if they’re brown people then who cares about their rights.
Huh? You mean if I think that you are a bit of a dope for complaining about things that you know nothing about, then I must be a racist somehow? Brown people? Dude, get a grip. Hurling veiled accusations of racism because I challenged you and you came up empty is pathetic.
You’ve read and understand nothing, yet claim you’re for liberty.
What I support is a government based upon our Constitution. I’m not really sure what you are arguing in favor of, but I’m beginning to be of the opinion that I’d rather live in Feldstein’s America than in the one you seem to desire. As ridiculous and socialist as it might be, at least he’s got some grasp of government. Perhaps you should try a months vacation in Somalia. It has all the liberty in the world to do whatever you’d like to. No real force of law or government to be found. Sounds like a Jay4liberty paradise.
I believe you were the type of person that Abraham Lincoln was referring to when he made reference to the fact that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. To you, it apparently is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2010 at 2308 hrs
Scott,
I think your whole argument has been has been missing the point. The people who speak seriously about changing the Government through ‘second amendment solutions’ are anything but party Republicans. Your rebuttals about wire tapping etc. are actually support for those beliefs. As you continually point out, Bush and Republican majorities were also unfit for responsible governmental duties.The whole pathetic popularity contest elections fraught with petty attempts to make the other candidate look worse, (because nobody has anything positive on their resume) all to elect someone whose sole purpose seems to be to get re-elected rather than Govern from day 1 is a pretty strong indication that methods need to change. Will the elected officials of any party effect these changes that could harm their chance at re-election? Pretty much impossible, so why would Republican party members talk about overthrow? They are vested in the system. It is the disenfranchised that would have interest in overthrow. Ironically, conservatives are the disenfranchised. A knowledgeable conservative would not vote for many Republicans. It sounds like you knowledgeable liberals should be for overthrow as well. You already think Republicans all suck and you are seeing that the best you had to offer was sub-mediocre at best. The current system breeds sub-mediocity, idolizes it almost.
Maybe we are not so far gone as a nation that ‘second amendment solutions’ are necessary, but please try to keep one thing straight in future comments. Mainstream Republicans like Bush supporters (your avowed enemies) are not the ones murmuring about more extreme measures being necessary to fix our Country. That means statements that include things like ‘wire-tapping’ or ‘torture’ are aimed squarely in the wrong direction.
You always use to use the phrase ‘world-view’ and refer to how people you argued against were hide-bound to their world-view. Newsflash: Everyone who is not a ‘knowledgeable liberal’ was not a Bush supporter. Most of your arguments lately seem to pre-suppose that those you argue with are Bush supporting Republicans and only make sense if that is true, but it has seldom been the case.
Go back to the election posts last year. Few enough non-liberals actually spoke out approving Bush policies and fewer still supported the Republican nominee. People here today only defend Bush for two reasons: 1) It pisses you off and 2) It was Bush’s fault (aimed, I am sure, to piss off certain people)is still all too common an argument by liberals. It didn’t work with you when Republicans blamed Clinton policies and it is equally unprovable that most things were Bush’s fault. It is a fatuous and useless argument and yet it is still your most common recurring talking point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1129 hrs
The people who speak seriously about changing the Government through ‘second amendment solutions’ are anything but party Republicans.
I’m not so sure. The so-called “teabaggers” turn out to be just the conservative wing of the Republican party.
why would Republican party members talk about overthrow?
Because while it may inspire a nut or two to shoot someone or blow something up, the real payoff is a lot of pissed off conservatives who are motivated to show up at the ballot box and elect them. Anyway, you should ask them. As I indicated before, the person from whom I stole the quote is the winner of a Republican primary election. Therefore, Republicans (at least one) ARE the ones talking about “second amendment solutions.”
you knowledgeable liberals should be for overthrow as well
I can’t imagine things improving if the elected government of the united states was violently “overthrown” by one or more populist factions. I really can’t. What I can imagine improving things is the media doing it’s job and public financing of campaigns. Those two things alone would probably make enough difference that the rest of the problems in American politics would quickly take care of themselves.
Few enough non-liberals actually spoke out approving Bush policies and fewer still supported the Republican nominee.
So what you’re asking me to believe is that most of the conservatives here didn’t vote for or support either Bush or McCain?
It was Bush’s fault
Do you think I personally do this too much or unfairly?
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1200 hrs
I believe you were the type of person that Abraham Lincoln was referring to when he made reference to the fact that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. To you, it apparently is.
You lack the ability to read and comprehend the written english language and of course you bring up other irrelevant arguments such as Somalia to cover for the fact you have no idea what you’re talking about. How many times must I point out that just because there hasn’t been a violation, that we know of, doesn’t mean it isn’t unconstitutional? How many times must I point out that the Patriot Act references other unconstitutional bills? You’re earned the name “Son of Stupidity”.
Now go grab your flag and wave it around and talk about freedom and liberty as though you understand it.
I’d rather sit down and have a drink with scott before engaging in the brain killing activity that would be conversing with you.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 06, 2010 at 1415 hrs
What can I say, the teabaggers are as shortsighted as the rest of the party followers.
What I can imagine improving things is the media doing it’s job and public financing of campaigns. Those two things alone would probably make enough difference that the rest of the problems in American politics would quickly take care of themselves.
And I cannot imagine those things happening without some sort of upheaval.
I think the majority of regular conservatives on this blog voted for Bush. If they voted in the last election, though, they voted against Obama in what they thought the best way, but if you read any of the posts, the vast majority of Republicans and conservatives ‘held their nose’ and voted for McCain. They did not support McCain.
Do you think I personally do this too much or unfairly?
Way too much and ‘unfairly’ is the wrong question. Improperly is a better word in many cases. Take this thread, for example. If someone supports Republicans, they are rarely truly for some sort of institutional change in our Government. They may use the phrase to incite using histrionics, but they just want Republicans in charge, not an updated system.
When you bring up the loss of liberties instituted by Republicans (especially when they are not repealed by your party leader), all you are really saying is that neither party is capable of competent governing. Anyone who really thinks that our system is continually getting worse would use the same arguments as you to prove that neither party is working for the people of the US. You are not refuting, you are agreeing yet your conclusions state something other than your arguments just proved.
I commend that you realize that Obama campaigned on repealing those things and when he reneged there was no media backlash, but at that point isn’t the whole argument off Bush’s back, so to speak? After all, it was not a Bush Presidential directive, it was a bi-partisan bill in the first place.
To use it on this thread in support of re-working our Government makes sense. To use it to somehow convince anyone that there is ‘little tyranny to overthrow’ is just… weird.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1415 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 75
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 12:42 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).