Molon Labe - the Fascist rallying cry!!!!

[AZRedhawk44]

In fairness, their revolution has been fought inside the confines of the political process.  They are winning, using that framework.  The left convinced the majority of Americans that this is a good idea, this is what we want to do.  Is that not the intention of the political process?  Allowing changes to the social contract which the majority agree is a good idea?

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Bad assumption above.

The intention of the political process is not to allow changes that the majority agrees is a good idea.

The intention of the political process is to protect the rights of the individual.  Our social contract (if you accept that premise, which is a whole other ball of yarn) is defined by this sentence:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The preamble defines the purpose of the Articles of the Constitution.

Any act of government which is contradictory to the preamble is a violation of the mission statement.

[Ron]

The preamble defines the purpose of the Articles of the Constitution.

Any act of government which is contradictory to the preamble is a violation of the mission statement.

If our government including the courts and the people choose to pretend it means something else then what is your recourse?

We are living in a dystopia where words no longer really mean anything and written history is an even worse guide to past events than it used to be. History was always manipulated by the winners but the new post modern spin actually turns everything 180 degrees out of phase. History we've lived is being deconstructed and re-spun. It is almost as if they used 1984 as a guidebook.


War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength

[AZRedhawk44]

If our government including the courts and the people choose to pretend it means something else then what is your recourse?

I left something out.

The preamble isn't just the mission statement.  It's the derivation of power.  The justification.

The individual Articles specify the mechanics of governing.  The preamble empowers, and gives terms of empowerment.

Violation of terms of use will result in suspension of services.  Ultimately, it's a private contract (again, only if you buy into the "social contract" notion in the first place) like any other, with terms and conditions and remedies for wrongs.

In this case, violation of terms will result in the Constitution no longer being "established and ordained."

[Nick1911]

My point was that the current people in power were voted in, fair and square.  Your countrymen want this in overwhelming numbers.

Who are we to cry foul and seek illegal means of recourse against a system that is where it is legitimately, voted signed sealed and delivered?

Based on the preamble?

Your countrymen would argue that Molon Labe hold out gun nuts are a direct threat to "domestic tranquility"

[AZRedhawk44]

My point was that the current people in power were voted in, fair and square.  Your countrymen want this in overwhelming numbers.

Who are we to cry foul and seek illegal means of recourse against a system that is where it is legitimately, voted signed sealed and delivered?

Based on the preamble?

Your countrymen would argue that Molon Labe hold out gun nuts are a direct threat to "domestic tranquility"

If 50.01% of people want to rape your wife, can they vote themselves the right to do so?

Of course not.

Because it violates the principles under which we ceded self authority in order to ordain and establish a Constitution.  When that trust is violated by a breach of clear intent, the entire contract is null and void and we all revert to self authority.

[BlueStarLizzard]

My point was that the current people in power were voted in, fair and square.  Your countrymen want this in overwhelming numbers.

Who are we to cry foul and seek illegal means of recourse against a system that is where it is legitimately, voted signed sealed and delivered?

Based on the preamble?

Your countrymen would argue that Molon Labe hold out gun nuts are a direct threat to "domestic tranquility"

Uhhh... Did we observe the same election?

I would say the majority DID NOT vote for these people. However, the same majority could not agree on any one person.

[AZRedhawk44]

Hell, I pretty much consider the whole shebang null and void after Obamacare, based on the following logic.


1. Slavery consists (among other manifestations) of taking a person and stripping away their ability to choose employers or compete on an open market for fair value for their ideas or labor, mandating that they work for 1 entity only, and have no recourse to increase flexibility of employment or association. It claims ownership of the output of another and dictates the terms of reimbursement in a 1-sided manner.
2. Slavery is bad.
3. Single payer health care creates slaves of doctors, or compels them to flee the industry they invested so very much of their first 25 years of living and study and receive no value for all that sacrifice.  This is due to the single payer mandate, and that ultimately all private insurance will vanish in the face of government "free" health care.
4. Doctors will be slaves in gilded cages to begin with, but as the market share creeps to government single payer fee schedules, the rates for services will drop and doctors will have no means to remedy this, other than changing industries.
5. Ultimately, the art of medicine will be destroyed by this.  Skilled minds will flee the practice of medicine and pursue other paths.

Obamacare creates slaves of doctors.  It declares ownership of their product.

It violates the "establish Justice..." and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" phrases of the preamble.

Logical AND operators in the preamble are not logical OR operators.  All actions of government must meet the dictates of the preamble, or they violate it.  Which frees the victim of the constraints of the social contract.

[ArfinGreebly]

My point was that the current people in power were voted in, fair and square.  Your countrymen want this in overwhelming numbers.

I disagree.

My review of the events leading up to the election, the events on election day, and those subsequent to election day, casts a somewhat different view of the affair.

They won the VOTE COUNT, I'm not so sure they won the actual vote.

[Blakenzy]

How many people actually vote anyway??

Not much legitimacy in the voting process. Low voter turnout has always been a justification to declare a regime illegitimate, even if they win by "landslides".

[Nick1911]

I wrote a couple different replies, but had to scrap them.  I'm interested in exploring this further.  Unfortunately, the direction it would take the conversation; the logical conclusions to these arguments - would likely be in violation of APS's terms of service.  As such, I'll bow out. 

[AJ Dual]

Under the entire condescending smarmy tone of the article, there is a kernel of truth. If everything goes sideways, and the revolution is fought, there's no guarantee that we'd like the outcome even if the current regime is deposed.

However, I'm fully willing to see the whole thing burn down if the alternative is letting the Leftist/Collectivist mindset "win". 

As to the U.S. Balkanizing, Purging Milwaukee/Madison is do-able, but I'll admit our proximity to Chicago is going to be a problem. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

I wrote a couple different replies, but had to scrap them.  I'm interested in exploring this further.  Unfortunately, the direction it would take the conversation; the logical conclusions to these arguments - would likely be in violation of APS's terms of service.  As such, I'll bow out. 

My point was more to the statement "your countrymen want this in overwhelming numbers"

Which is a false assumption based on the election. The actuality is that the minority won, based on a lack of cohesivness among the majority.
Just because he won, fair and square by our laws, doesn't mean he represents the actual majority.

[Nick1911]

My point was more to the statement "your countrymen want this in overwhelming numbers"

Which is a false assumption based on the election. The actuality is that the minority won, based on a lack of cohesivness among the majority.
Just because he won, fair and square by our laws, doesn't mean he represents the actual majority.

President Obama won the popular vote.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

[BlueStarLizzard]

President Obama won the popular vote.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

add up the counts from all the parties that lost nick.

[AZRedhawk44]

BSL's right.  Then add up all the folks that didn't vote at all.

[Nick1911]

add up the counts from all the parties that lost nick.

Obama - 65,899,660
Everyone else - 63,165,002

Umm... okay?

[AZRedhawk44]

Obama - 65,899,660
Everyone else - 63,165,002

Umm... okay?

Obama won 27% approval in this election.

[Blakenzy]

^^^ That's what I'm talking about!

[Nick1911]

So we're counting the votes of people who couldn't actually be bothered to vote?

I reject the premise that they have any say in the election.  And so does our election process.  People who didn't bother to vote don't count.

[AZRedhawk44]

So we're counting the votes of people who couldn't actually be bothered to vote?

I reject the premise that they have any say in the election.  And so does our election process.  People who didn't bother to vote don't count.

I went through a very deliberate decision making process to not vote this year.  And I'm sure you'll suggest that I'm somehow throwing away my voice by doing that.  I don't see it that way.  I reject the sense of authority that any of them have over me.  That's what not voting means to me.  No confidence in their philosophies, their leadership, their intentions and their integrity.

It boils down to FOR and NOT FOR.

27% of America voted for Obama.  73% did not vote for Obama.  Why should 73% of the country be bent over the barrel and shafted by 27% of the country?  It's immoral.

[Jim147]

Sorry guys, there was some really good scripted reality shows on that day.   

I don't watch much TV at all. Some people seem to live their lives around that crap.

My state was called for Romney before the polls opened. That might have had something to do with the low turnout, but it would have still been a low number. I voted for Johnson and wrote in None of the above several times.

jim

[Waitone]

The code word of choice by the left is "racist".  Fortunately the term is a little worn and no longer fulfills it purpose of stopping reasonable discussion. 

So the term "fascist" is a good as any to replace it.  Not the historical definition but the definition developed over time by its repeated use in discrediting a targeted group.  I believe the term will be used against any unfavored group such as returning military, second amendment advocates, TEA party types, etc.  No sense in being outraged.  It is how the game is played.

[longeyes]

Shermanesqe?

[TommyGunn]

Realistic assessment of the current state of affairs is not surrender talk.

  

Enough with the surrender talk!


Sorry, but I pretty much agree. We're not facing Hitler or Tojo anymore, a perceptible foe capable of defeat by bullet or bayonet against whom we are unified despite differences. The enemy is the darker, atavistic impulses of ourselves. As I asked in the Clinton/Benghazi thread, how do you fight apathy?

Realistic assessment?  Apathy?
Who says this is realistic?   
Do you guys think apathy is a recent invention?
You need to overcome apathy.

Perhaps you should read up on how General Washington & Nathanial Greene managed to pursuade the southern states to join the fight against the Redcoats during the Revolutionary war.
They were pretty  ..."apathetic" -- until they realized they, too were in the same boat.
And they didn't want the British in it! 

No one said this is easy.
It's bloody d@mned tough. 
Sorry guys but I'm not the cheering section. 
But don't get me depressed or I WILL OTZ YOUR BODKINS but good.

[Scout26]

Nick, the founders setup the government specifically to protect the rights of the minority and avoid the tyranny of the majority.  They wanted to make it as difficult as possible to pass laws, simply because they recognized that any law passed will infringe on the rights of the states and the people.

It was all about limiting the government.