• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Check out this crack pot...

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
PT111 wrote:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
This would seem to be contrary to many people's interpretation of the constitution as their idea of a militia is to take over the government.
The unspoken rule of the Constitution is that sometimes the insurrectionists should win.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson
Since the colonies had just shed it's self of tyranny rule by armed revolt, to create a new independant nation, the outhors of the Constitution had the foresight to understand that the form of government they were establishing could, in time, also become oppressive to the people. They included the 2nd Amendment to insure that the people would have the arms to cast off another oppressive government, if needed, and start again. Keeping "The People" armed was to hedge against tyranny rising from the new Republic.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
You are buying into the leftist media ideal that "militias are dangerous" and "full of weirdos just waiting for an excuse to blow things up and shoot people". 

 

LOL  Because that IS true in some, if not most, cases.  Get your head out of the sand, man.


And stop saying "leftist media."  It makes no sense for media owned by mega-corporations to be anything but to the right, where all the mega-corporations are.
Replace "to the right" with "statist", and you'd have made a true statement.

Instead you fell into the partisan trap.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

marshaul wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
You are buying into the leftist media ideal that "militias are dangerous" and "full of weirdos just waiting for an excuse to blow things up and shoot people".



LOL Because that IS true in some, if not most, cases. Get your head out of the sand, man.


And stop saying "leftist media." It makes no sense for media owned by mega-corporations to be anything but to theright, where all the mega-corporations are.
Replace "to the right" with "statist", and you'd have made a true statement.

Instead you fell into the partisan trap.


You got me. "Statist" would be more proper, but "right" is the word that everyone understands. Modern day neo-cons, the modern "right," and modern "republicans" are statist, so "right" is the term I went with.

Regardless, the American media isn't "leftist" so let's just roll with that one.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
You got me. "Statist" would be more proper, but "right" is the word that everyone understands. Modern day neo-cons, the modern "right," and modern "republicans" are statist, so "right" is the term I went with.

Regardless, the American media isn't "leftist" so let's just roll with that one.
Except that everyone understands that "Statist" = Left.

'Left'and 'Right'are not partisan terms; they're philosophical terms.

Neo-cons (Trotskyites) and Republicans are on the Left, as are the Democrats, the Socialists and the Communists. Libertarians are on the right.

The American media is a hard-left group, after social control, the most basic of all Leftist desires.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
You got me. "Statist" would be more proper, but "right" is the word that everyone understands. Modern day neo-cons, the modern "right," and modern "republicans" are statist, so "right" is the term I went with.

Regardless, the American media isn't "leftist" so let's just roll with that one.
Except that everyone understands that "Statist" = Left.



Obvious idiot is obvious.


Correctly used, left and right are economic policy terms - also interchangable with capitalist and communist. The second axis of the political spectrum, the one that gives a position some real meaning and depth, is totalitarian vs. individualism.

American media isextreme-right/totalitarian, much like the republican party. The Democrats and people called "left"are moderately-right/totalitarian. In the grand scheme of things, the people refered to as "left" in this country are still well to the right. The joke is in the fact that they're ALL totalitarian.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
smoking357 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
You got me. "Statist" would be more proper, but "right" is the word that everyone understands. Modern day neo-cons, the modern "right," and modern "republicans" are statist, so "right" is the term I went with.

Regardless, the American media isn't "leftist" so let's just roll with that one.
Except that everyone understands that "Statist" = Left.

Obvious idiot is obvious.
Hey, don't blame me that you exposed your ignorance, yet again.

Communists like yourself work feverishly to disavow certain Leftist groups like Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini for no other reason than you're embarrassed to have them in your camp.
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

There is no such thing as left/right. It's pro-liberty or anti-liberty, authoritarian or libertarian. Centralized government-control of a market is anti-liberty. A market devoid of government control is pro-liberty.

Back to the militia topic, the militias could be called forth by Congress to "execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Since Congress was never meant to pass unconstitutional laws the militia would never be enforcing unconstitutional laws. If the government always remained within the bounds of the Constitution then all insurrections would be unconstitutional.

I think the idea was that there would never be a large government-controlled force of arms. Instead the government had to rely on calling forth the militia (the people with their arms) or raising an army which could not be funded past 2 years.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

N00blet45 wrote:
Centralized government-control of a market is anti-liberty. A market devoid of government control is pro-liberty.


Only in fantasy land. Wage slavery isn't liberty. Neither is being under the boot of corporations. Government control is collective bargaining andprotectionfor the common people - protection of the minority from the majority.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
N00blet45 wrote:
Centralized government-control of a market is anti-liberty. A market devoid of government control is pro-liberty.


Only in fantasy land. Wage slavery isn't liberty. Neither is being under the boot of corporations. Government control is collective bargaining andprotectionfor the common people - protection of the minority from the majority.
Spoken like a true Communist. Karl Marx would be so proud.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
N00blet45 wrote:
Centralized government-control of a market is anti-liberty. A market devoid of government control is pro-liberty.


Only in fantasy land. Wage slavery isn't liberty. Neither is being under the boot of corporations. Government control is collective bargaining andprotectionfor the common people - protection of the minority from the majority.
I agree with the 2nd and 3rd sentences, but not the rest of it.

Any time you ask the government to do for you what you should and can do for yourself, you're asking for the beginning of the end.

When you find yourself under the foot of the wealthy, cut it off. Nothing puts a stop to tyranny, financial or otherwise, faster than a round to the back of the head.

The conservative notion that money can't be a tool for tyranny is just as dumb as suggesting that government would never abuse it's power either... The solution is the same.

Redistribution is not the answer, elimination of the tyrant, is. Much the same as using government to further oppression of your fellow Americans with whom you disagree always comes back to haunt you when the gov changes hands... Partaking of the same abuse does not eliminate it.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

N00blet45 wrote:
I think the idea was that there would never be a large government-controlled force of arms. Instead the government had to rely on calling forth the militia (the people with their arms) or raising an army which could not be funded past 2 years.
Bingo. That is why there has to be appropriations every two years in Congress for the army, and why the rely so heavily on the backdoor approach of the National Guard and Reserve forces.

The National Guard is merely a perversion of the militia system (no offense to Guard members please, you do a heck of a job) and was instituted to ensure total Federal control over the "militia", and make the states dependent upon the feds to keep their local troops maintained to a great degree.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
When you find yourself under the foot of the wealthy, cut it off. Nothing puts a stop to tyranny, financial or otherwise, faster than a round to the back of the head.

The conservative notion that money can't be a tool for tyranny is just as dumb as suggesting that government would never abuse it's power either... The solution is the same.

Yea, sure thing... but for those of us that don't enjoy the idea of shedding blood every other year, there's this collective bargaining chip called representative government. You know, the "by the people, for the people" entity that's supposed to help us all stand toe-to-toe with those that we otherwise could not stand against alone.

As I've said many times here, the concept of government is not, in itself, the problem. The problem is that, over time,the governmentbecomes beholden to big business (because it controls the money) and not to the people.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
As I've said many times here, the concept of government is not, in itself, the problem. The problem is that, over time,the governmentbecomes beholden to big business (because it controls the money) and not to the people.
No, the lizard people who control the international jewish banker cabal are the real problem. :p
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
ixtow wrote:
When you find yourself under the foot of the wealthy, cut it off. Nothing puts a stop to tyranny, financial or otherwise, faster than a round to the back of the head.

The conservative notion that money can't be a tool for tyranny is just as dumb as suggesting that government would never abuse it's power either... The solution is the same.

Yea, sure thing... but for those of us that don't enjoy the idea of shedding blood every other year, there's this collective bargaining chip called representative government. You know, the "by the people, for the people" entity that's supposed to help us all stand toe-to-toe with those that we otherwise could not stand against alone.

As I've said many times here, the concept of government is not, in itself, the problem. The problem is that, over time,the governmentbecomes beholden to big business (because it controls the money) and not to the people.
This is true. But if being a tyrant were more perilous, and commonly so, there would be less frequency.

The only failure is in those who are 'too reasonable' to do anything but whine. What is reasonable about being a slave?

The idea that violence is always bad is what gives them the control, they are willing to use it, and those they enslave are 'too reasonable.'
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
As I've said many times here, the concept of government is not, in itself, the problem. The problem is that, over time,the governmentbecomes beholden to big business (because it controls the money) and not to the people.
No, the lizard people who control the international jewish banker cabal are the real problem. :p


Damn them all. EDIT: DIAF 357

Ok, maybe that one went too far.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
ixtow wrote:
When you find yourself under the foot of the wealthy, cut it off. Nothing puts a stop to tyranny, financial or otherwise, faster than a round to the back of the head.

The conservative notion that money can't be a tool for tyranny is just as dumb as suggesting that government would never abuse it's power either... The solution is the same.

Yea, sure thing... but for those of us that don't enjoy the idea of shedding blood every other year, there's this collective bargaining chip called representative government. You know, the "by the people, for the people" entity that's supposed to help us all stand toe-to-toe with those that we otherwise could not stand against alone.

As I've said many times here, the concept of government is not, in itself, the problem. The problem is that, over time,the governmentbecomes beholden to big business (because it controls the money) and not to the people.
This is true. But if being a tyrant were more perilous, and commonly so, there would be less frequency.

The only failure is in those who are 'too reasonable' to do anything but whine. What is reasonable about being a slave?

The idea that violence is always bad is what gives them the control, they are willing to use it, and those they enslave are 'too reasonable.'


I don't disagree; I just think we aren't there yet...or maybe we've been there too long. Either way, it's not fun and games. Despite what the leadership of this country would make you believe, war is a serious thing. Too many people here are chomping at the bit - probably even praying- forsomething that isn't really desirable, and nothing more than an extreme last resort, by anyone with a level head.
 

MSC 45ACP

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,840
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Military funding is actually done annually, rather than bi-annually as "required by the Constitution".

I can remember some years in the early 80's when we couldn't cash our paychecks on 1 OCT (actually 30 SEP was the payday) because Congress hadn't yet approved the budget. Even if we DID manage to get a paycheck, the banks would not cash it until they had heard about the budget being passed by Congress. The longest waitI can remember was 1984, I think. We couldn't cash our paychecks until the 2nd or 3rd day of OCT.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
N00blet45 wrote:
Centralized government-control of a market is anti-liberty.  A  market devoid of government control is pro-liberty.
 

Only in fantasy land.  Wage slavery isn't liberty.  Neither is being under the boot of corporations.  Government control is collective bargaining and protection for the common people - protection of the minority from the majority.
If a free market truly existed, the corporation as we know it today could not.

Corporatist/statist economics are NOT free market economics.



Also, "left" and "right" refer to the seating arrangement in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics

Classical liberalism is traditionally "leftist" for this reason.

So, I'm going to have to disagree with anyone whose definition doesn't fit those historical precedents.

On the other hand, I avoid using the terms at all.
 
Top