[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

These Are The Most Stolen Cars In Every US State

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval,

China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap

Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm

Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz

The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger


(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Source: Ideas With Consequences
URL Source: http://ideaswithconsequenses.wordpr ... bama-in-portland-a-first-take/
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Michael Beaton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 14:24:20 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 2540
Comments: 182

Obama In Portland. A first take.

I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly.

I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks.

Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there.

Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created.

My first take on the speech follows.

Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American.

It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better.

Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change. We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”.

I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications. It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change - change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge.

My favorite line in the speech:

We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.

In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change.

He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation.

Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs?

Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles.

Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes.

Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression.

Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression?

Or maybe not.

But these are the propositions that are before us now.

What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken. It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different. A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.”

I know this post needs a good editing, and I will do that in subsequent posts. For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to.

What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again, to not choose, or make a default choice of the known; even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past - our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out - just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made.

I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past.

A link to a news report.

Excerpts from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Portland.

As a final note:

When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea.

Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender.

“We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-120) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#121. To: FormerLurker (#118)

It doesn't because the statement that establishes the security of the state is placed before the 'shall not be infringed' part.

Yes, all the rights, responsibilities, shapes, colors, gods... they all exist in the virtual universe of our imagination - that's were 'Platonic love' comes into play. They are all floating in hyperspace, all waiting to be instantiated. The second amendment instantiates the right to bear arms in the context of defending the free State. You can instantiate it for yourself and bear arms regardless of whether the State agrees or not. You may have the abstract right to bear machine guns, I can't see why not but, for as long as the BATF says that you don't have the right, they enter your residence, rough you up, confiscate your machine guns and throw you in jail. The State - and the constitution is the high level manual explaining how the State is suppose to work - says that you may bear arms. Remember, the second amendment CAN be repealed and replaced with one that denies you the right to bear arms. All it takes is for a number of States to agree on it and... goodbye God-given right.

If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-21   20:20:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#51)

A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Sorry to be a jonnie come lately on the thread, but I understand your point and will ask you to consider this.

Line B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The "right" was already in existence prior to the formation of our country. Who or what gave our forefathers that "right"? Did King George issue a decree that stated settlers are given the right to arms?

It was already a "right" agreed to by common sense.

Ragin1  posted on  2008-05-21   20:31:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: James Deffenbach, aristeides, christine, Jethro Tull, rowdee, Peppa (#5)

If there was any danger of him making good on these promises, then he'd be "whited out" like Ron Paul.

What this popular and well received campaign rhetoric tells me is, the PTB know how to market him while never forgetting that campaign promises don't mean jack doodly.

Don't forget that Dennis Hastert did his part before the least election when BushCo was "all things to all people." He said that if re-elected BushCo was going to abolish the income tax!

When Sen. Lugar was doing his presidential exploratory he also promised to run on an "anti-IRS and income tax platform", so the Pubs know all too well how despised the tax and the agency is. They keep it in reserve as a backup winning issue never intending to abolish the god-cursed thing at all.

I can certainly understand why Mr. ari is thrilled by Obama's promise. After all, Obama is the only (mainstream Kosher-approved) candidate to promise closing G-Mo and abolishing renditions.

But, in his heart Obama knows it's DAWGGY dew, as do you, Mr. ari and I.

I disagree on one point with others though. Even though Obama is a damn sure anti gunner, any gun grabs will almost certainly be obstructed by the remaining Publicons in the house and senate. (as long as BushCo doesn't propose the exact same bills, which would likely sail through to passage)

Pubs are at their best when frustrating Democrats' wet dreams. It creates the illusion that they're principled defenders of something, and it requires no substance or bold ideas for governing in the 21st century.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   20:33:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)

Those are all State-given rights.

Wrong. They are state limits. They regulate the state not the people. Period.

Ragin1  posted on  2008-05-21   20:35:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)

You may have the abstract right to bear machine guns, I can't see why not but, for as long as the BATF says that you don't have the right, they enter your residence, rough you up, confiscate your machine guns and throw you in jail.

Such a thing would not have happened a hundred years ago as the people back then were more aware of their rights under GOD AND the US Constitution. There are many writings as to what was meant by the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment, I've tried to summarize what the authors meant when they wrote it.

If I had more time, I could delve into Google and find the links and historic writings that prove my point. I leave it to you to do it yourself, as it may be better if you actually found the information on your own so you don't brush it aside as something I may have found at some pro-2nd Amendment site that you might suspect is either exaggerated or ficticious.

Hell, the entire Bill of Rights is being trashed anyways, not just the 2nd Amendment. What you state is in fact true, that the state can do whatever it damn well pleases regardless if it is contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land, because in effect we have forfeited our ability to prevent such abuses and high crimes by allowing them to trample our rights slowly but more egregiously each passing year.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   20:37:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#116)

You either lack elementary reading comprehension or intellectual honesty. Which one is it? Possibly both?

I ask you again, "Got any direct quotes from ANY of the founders who said they were "granting" anyone any rights? No? I didn't think so."

Show us the quotes if you have them. Show us any of the founders statements that said they believed they were "granting" us any rights. I can wait...and wait...and wait.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   20:37:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117) (Edited)

Indeed. And the 'well regulated Militia' means...? Who does the regulation? Could it be... the State?

You think the Founding Fathers thought The State would protect us from The State?

Think again. :)

More government is not the solution to out-of-control government, anymore than that that old woman that swallowed a fly knew what she was getting herself into.

And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot

Dakmar  posted on  2008-05-21   20:38:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#128. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)

I disagree on one point with others though. Even though Obama is a damn sure anti gunner, any gun grabs will almost certainly be obstructed by the remaining Publicons in the house and senate. (as long as BushCo doesn't propose the exact same bills, which would likely sail through to passage)

Dawg they won't go after guns yet. They will tax per round. And those pubbies you consider your protectors will smilingly aye that bill. Over and over and over again.

Ragin1  posted on  2008-05-21   20:39:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)

Even though Obama is a damn sure anti gunner, any gun grabs will almost certainly be obstructed by the remaining Publicons in the house and senate. (as long as BushCo doesn't propose the exact same bills, which would likely sail through to passage)

Yep, gotta agree.....here come the dark days of Bob Michals.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-21   20:40:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)

If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.

Nobody can "grant" a RIGHT. BUT, a state may or may not decide to PROTECT that right. And as is seen in practical matters, the state (being the cabal of puppet masters that actually run the show) can do whatever it wants to do, for the right bribes, kickbacks, and blackmail, along with pure thirst for power.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   20:41:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#121)

If you are looking for God-given rights, you won't find them in the constitution. Those are all State-given rights.

The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   20:42:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)

If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read:

Why point that out just now? You're defending an anti-2nd candidate?

buckeye  posted on  2008-05-21   20:42:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: FormerLurker, a vast rightwing conspirator (#120)

The subordinate militia clause and the RKBA was to guarantee the states' power to raise and arm their own militias so as not to be dependent upon the national govt for funding.

If the feds took it upon themselves to fund state militias then they could with a stroke of the pen deny that funding and eliminate and disarm state militias, which serve as a check and balance against federal tyranny.

The founders were not about to write a blank power draft for the new govt as is evident by the careful wording of the 2nd amendment, which only in passing acknowledges arms for every man. That was a given and was a cultural right of passage for boys and men for centuries prior.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   20:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: HOUNDDAWG (#133)

Excellent points.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   20:45:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: James Deffenbach (#131)

The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.

The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that.

And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot

Dakmar  posted on  2008-05-21   20:47:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: buckeye, a vast rightwing conspirator (#132) (Edited)

There were in fact two militias. The (ordinary) militia which provided their own arms powder and shot, and the select militia, made up of citizens with state supplied arms.

Neither were ever confused with the Continental Army which were soldiers in federal service with federal-supplied weapons.

One cannot acknowledge these facts and still deny the true purpose of the 2nd amendment and the sovereignty of the states which were by design without the jurisdiction of the federal government.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   20:49:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: Dakmar, James Deffenbach (#135)

The state is a political entity which has no rights to give anyone. The state has powers, not rights. It cannot give that which it does not have.

The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that.

Actually, he's right, and this is the very point of just how the govt has usurped so many powers by fiat or decree.

Nowhere in the constitution is the word "rights" used in connection to the govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights.

Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us."

Otherwise we could be forced to buy federal guns (disarmed people can be taxed without their consent) and pay the soldiers that are quartered in every home who could then kill us if we resist.

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   20:58:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#138. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)

Otherwise we could be forced to buy federal guns (disarmed people can be taxed without their consent) and pay the soldiers that are quartered in every home who could then kill us if we resist.

We're already there, except for the "quartered" part. It might not be long before that happens if Bush/Cheney find some excuse to implement Continuity of Government plans and suspend what's left of the Constitution.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   21:01:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)

But, in his heart Obama knows it's DAWGGY dew, as do you, Mr. ari and I.

Great post.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   21:03:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)

Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us."

Nor does the power to regulate interstate commerce imply the bureaucratic right to dictate the number of vacation hours I should be allowed to earn, but it happens all the same.

And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot

Dakmar  posted on  2008-05-21   21:03:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: Dakmar (#135)

The Keynesians will be demanding your vital bodily fluids if you keep making remarks like that.

LOL!

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   21:06:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: FormerLurker (#119)

So the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to list what was good for the state, and not necessarily for the people?

To the extent that the State is the expression of the people's will, there is no distinction but, as the State separates itself from the people, the State assumes itself the power to protect or encourage the exercise of certain rights or to prohibit or discourage their exercise. The right to bear arms is a good example of one instance where a State that acquired nuclear weapons and battle robots has no interest in maintaining an armed citizens militia. As for the abstract right itself, the State will tolerate the possession of weak arms for as long as they can only be used for self-protection from other citizens but not from the State troops or for hunting animals. That's how pathetic the current instantiation of the God-given, inalienable but abstract right to has become.

By the way, do you know what was the origin of Judo? The Japanese peasants were not allowed to bear arms and were at the mercy of the Samurai. Eventually, they developed these methods of defending themselves with their bare hands.

I will not continue this discussion. The language of the second amendment is quite clear to me. The right to bear arms is protected but within the very narrow context of maintaining a Militia force. It would not be difficult for a supreme court to interpret 'militia' as today's military or maybe the States' national guard and then you can say goodbye to even the pretense of having a right to bear arms.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-21   21:07:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: HOUNDDAWG (#137)

Actually, he's right, and this is the very point of just how the govt has usurped so many powers by fiat or decree.

Nowhere in the constitution is the word "rights" used in connection to the govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights.

Because the 2nd amendment uses the phrase "right of the people" there is no way it can honestly be interpreted to mean "the feds' power to disarm us and stand over us."

Exactly. How is it that supposedly well-educated people can miss or not understand such simple concepts? Must have been too many years in the government schools.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   21:07:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: Ragin1 (#122)

Line B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The "right" was already in existence prior to the formation of our country. Who or what gave our forefathers that "right"?

Yes, the right existed and it exists as an abstraction. So is 'harmony'. But the very fact that it CAN be infringed and it needs protection (within the context of a useful to the state militia) tells us that, in reality, the right is granted and protected by the State. You need a bunch of instruments to 'make' music but, while they are absent, the concepts of music or harmony do not go away. Same with the right to bear arms. It may exist a priori but, unless you have the ability to take your family out for a stroll while wearing a nice sniper rifle and a couple of grenades and be able to return home for dinner, undisturbed and unarrested, your abstract right can not manifest itself for more than the few minutes it takes the SWAT team to come and get you.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-21   21:14:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: buckeye (#132)

If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read:

Why point that out just now? You're defending an anti-2nd candidate?

No, I am not trying to defend a pre-determined conclusion. I am only giving the second amendment a honest reading. I am not saying that individuals do not have the right to self-defense. They do, but that right is nowhere to be found in the bill of rights. The second amendment is about the collective defense of the beloved State.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-21   21:19:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: Dakmar (#140)

Nor does the power to regulate interstate commerce imply the bureaucratic right to dictate the number of vacation hours I should be allowed to earn, but it happens all the same.

The abuse of powers does not legitimize such, does it? Or, perhaps it does.

"The price of freedom is ever vigilance." The usurpation of our rights and freedoms directly correlate with the people's unwillingness to safeguard them. So, in theory we may have (or had and lost) those rights and freedoms, but we're going to (or already have) forfeit them by default.

I'd be willing to bet that if voters were given a choice between absolute freedom and cradle to grave health care and welfare it would be "goodbye constitution, Hello REAL ID!"

And, then seniors could get busy campaigning, lobbying, agitating for stem cell research that would permit them to live and collect benefits forever!

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   21:20:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#144)

I see. The right to keep arms is nothing more than an invitation to intimdate and abuse other citizens. Sweet. Good thing you've never seen that home movie of me thrusting at my then next-door neighbor with salad tongs, cause dog gonnit I really like salad, especially with those little cherry tomatoes. Now that's just good eating, there.

And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot

Dakmar  posted on  2008-05-21   21:25:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#145)

The second amendment is about the collective defense of the beloved State.

It doesn't persuade me to pull the lever for Obama. It might lure me into attending a Constitutional Convention, though.

buckeye  posted on  2008-05-21   21:28:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#142)

It would not be difficult for a supreme court to interpret 'militia' as today's military or maybe the States' national guard and then you can say goodbye to even the pretense of having a right to bear arms.

The major obstacle to that is the most comprehensive study ever done on the 2nd amendment in the early 1980s by the house select committee on the right to keep and bear arms.

They went back tens of thousands of years and logically progressed forward leaving no historical gaps that would permit creative interpretations by antis or state worshipers.

The conclusion simply read, "Thus it is inescapable that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right."

To ornery folks who insist that it can be dismantled by judicial decree, I say, "If you mean to have a war then let it begin here."

The govt knows that millions share my commitment to the defense of the 2nd amendment, which is why they don't share you glib appreciation of the current state of affairs, or embrace your seemingly simplistic solution to the question of the armed American.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   21:31:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: HOUNDDAWG (#146)

I'd be willing to bet that if voters were given a choice between absolute freedom and cradle to grave health care and welfare it would be "goodbye constitution, Hello REAL ID!"

American Voters recently proved so in the primaries. Anti-war, civil libertarians could have voted for Gravel or Kucinich, but either didn't or there weren't enough of them. I'll go with the latter.

And, then seniors could get busy campaigning, lobbying, agitating for stem cell research that would permit them to live and collect benefits forever!

At least some things will always be the same.

And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot

Dakmar  posted on  2008-05-21   21:38:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: Dakmar, HOUNDDAWG (#150)

American Voters recently proved so in the primaries. Anti-war, civil libertarians could have voted for Gravel or Kucinich, but either didn't or there weren't enough of them. I'll go with the latter.

I'll go with a third option. American voters watch TV and read their magazines and newspapers to find out how to vote. They just do what they're told. Could we break the cycle? How? Do we have to manipulate them, as well? (That would end badly, I think.) The answer I keep coming to is to do my best to change minds even when it's unpopular or unprofitable. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave with a sand bag.

buckeye  posted on  2008-05-21   21:49:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: Ragin1 (#128)

Dawg they won't go after guns yet. They will tax per round. And those pubbies you consider your protectors will smilingly aye that bill. Over and over and over again.

That's quite plausible.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   21:57:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: Jethro Tull (#129)

Yep, gotta agree.....here come the dark days of Bob Michals.

No matter how many times DEMlibs get their teeth kicked in on gun control (sic-actually it's unilateral personal disarmament) those morally bankrupt assholes keep coming back.

Obviously their idea of good govt must involve some Castor oil that we as an armed citizenry may resist.

This is why Larry Flynt said, "Scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist underneath, every time!"

They want to be our nannies and inject us, feed us, force us to exercise, quit smoking, drive slow and think little and question nothing. Or, we fucking DIE when they send the state gun goons after us!

Their definition of equality is mutually shared misery where we're all steam rollered flat and therefore "eekwal!"

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   22:04:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#145)

The second amendment is about the collective defense of the beloved State.

The "people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment are the same "people" mentioned in the 4th. In other words, you are taking a statist viewpoint and twisting the words of the amendment to make it mean whatever the state wants it to say, as most statists actually do in practice.

You ignore the fact that the amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Those people are the same people referred to in the 4th Amendment, which states;

Amd 4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Are you saying that the 4th Amendment is about the collective security of the state from unreasonable searches, and is not an individual right protected by the Constitution?


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   22:08:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: buckeye (#151) (Edited)

One thing that stuck with me from a property tax protest I went to last year was the idea that everyone on the government payroll votes, so that's easily half the population right there.

And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot

Dakmar  posted on  2008-05-21   22:11:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: FormerLurker (#138)

We're already there, except for the "quartered" part. It might not be long before that happens if Bush/Cheney find some excuse to implement Continuity of Government plans and suspend what's left of the Constitution.

Right.

The only problem is I've been reading this stuff since the 70's when I was told (by a fundie preacher's son) that Carter would suspend the congress and be the last elected prez of the US.

Despite secret EOs, bills and decrees, the fact is there is still a heck of a lot of wishful thinking by those power mongers, and they just can't realize their nightmares because they have little or no support in their own counsels.

And the one reason we haven't had them all thrust upon us just to see what flies (like post-war Italy which has had over 300 govts) is because of the 2nd amendment.

It is the final obstacle to global govt, and not one of these "daring progressives" Neocrooks, Trotskyists or corporatists dare to be the one who fires the second shot heard 'round the world.

Their own polls of the military apparently aren't very reassuring, and even Blackwater goons would not have attempted to occupy an armed white enclave the way they did post-Katrina black New Orleans.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   22:15:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: buckeye (#151)

I'll go with a third option. American voters watch TV and read their magazines and newspapers to find out how to vote. They just do what they're told. Could we break the cycle? How? Do we have to manipulate them, as well? (That would end badly, I think.) The answer I keep coming to is to do my best to change minds even when it's unpopular or unprofitable. It's like trying to stop a tidal wave with a sand bag.

We'll reach a point where 5% fight for change, 5% oppose them (or us) and the other 90% will go along with whoever wins.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   22:16:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: HOUNDDAWG (#156)

And the one reason we haven't had them all thrust upon us just to see what flies (like post-war Italy which has had over 300 govts) is because of the 2nd amendment.

Exactly right, that is why they are trying as best they can to erode support for gun ownership and to demonize those that legally possess weapons as means of self-defense as opposed to duck hunting.

It is the final obstacle to global govt, and not one of these "daring progressives" Neocrooks, Trotskyists or corporatists dare to be the one who fires the second shot heard 'round the world.

It won't be them that will do the dirty work. It will be the militarized police of all stripes and flavors that carry out the dirty deed in response to a "national emergency" more than likely, they have the upper hand as to knowing exactly when, how, and why it will happen.

Their own polls of the military apparently aren't very reassuring, and even Blackwater goons would not have attempted to occupy an armed white enclave the way they did post-Katrina black New Orleans.

Most of the military is spread thin across the globe and/or recovering from multiple extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blackwater would do whatever they're paid to do if the price was right.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   22:25:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: Dakmar (#155)

One thing that stuck with me from a property tax protest I went to last year was the idea that everyone on the government payroll votes, so that's easily half the population right there.

If they vote themselves too much of the taxable economy they'll drive it underground.

And then like bureaucrats in the former Soviet Union they'll have to supplement their meager, inflated wages with bootleg and black market gasoline, cigs, sugar and bathroom tissue. That's assuming there's any left after the low level cargo handlers have take their cut.

They can certainly kill the proverbial Golden Goose, and as it is the govt is concentrating on taxing their own non-compliant employees (whose wages are within the grasp of the power to seize them) and not wasting any more precious man hours trying to collect anything from people like me.

They can pass all the laws they like but, like Mexicans we won't protest, we'll simply ignore them.

People who wish to fall on their swords by deducting a percentage to avoid supporting the war machine will still be able to do so. But, in order to do that they'll have to file. Why file when it makes more sense to avoid it altogether, and then the govt has no starting point to target and punish dissent? (Martyrs are welcome to sacrifice and garner the praise of other dumbshit assholes)

At that point it becomes more dangerous to comply than to fight. And that will be the beginning of the end of the transfer of wealth that is the real culprit.

Why fight and die when we can simply de-fund the bastards and their evil schemes?

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   22:31:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: HOUNDDAWG (#159)

They can pass all the laws they like but, like Mexicans we won't protest, we'll simply ignore them.

Why fight and die when we can simply de-fund the bastards and their evil schemes?

And don't forget how utterly incompetent more than 75% of the gubmint trained monkeys actually are.

"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"

angle  posted on  2008-05-21   22:38:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: FormerLurker (#158)

It won't be them that will do the dirty work. It will be the militarized police of all stripes and flavors that carry out the dirty deed in response to a "national emergency" more than likely, they have the upper hand as to knowing exactly when, how, and why it will happen.

When I lived in Los Angeles I became friends (and the bootleg gunsmith) for several LAPD guys, active and retired.

Believe me, they had no plans to join their fellows, other agencies and the guardsmen and fight in the streets. In fact they all without exception had escape plans for their wives and children who they intended to join as soon as they could get away from the city and to their retreats, a long way away from the soon-to-be warring armies of blacks and Hispanics.

Those cops know all too well that they cannot win and they won't die in the vain attempt.

Most cops are only cops because the people respect them and don't shoot them on sight.

Damned few would ever report to work again once they know that Americans consider them the enemy. Those commandos who do believe that state might makes right will do so at their own peril.

Hell, on New year's Eve and The 4th of July here, there isn't a single prowl car to be seen anywhere around. There are too many citizens who celebrate with live ammo and the cops don't want to present any targets of opportunity to liquored up celebrants. When they do answer calls they fly through the neighborhoods at high speeds without sirens, hoping to avoid drawing attention to themselves.

They won't announce this because they don't want the people to know how much they rely on us to discipline ourselves, and how much they fear those nights when Americans feel entitled to shoot their guns in the air. I dare say that if one cop per night was shot, by day four there wouldn't be anyone to answer the calls because their families won't let them report for duty.

The only other way to remain above the fray is to do what the German police did-they stayed away from Hitler's actions and were never targeted or punished during or after the war.

Imagine what BushCo (or Hillary or whoever) would say when they realize that the police refuse to be the muscle that makes tyranny a reality?

I was actually told this by an LAPD sgt. That was his idea of how to avoid being murdered in the event that the feds tried to spring the trap. Believe me, the police have given this a great deal of thought. Given a choice of being respected or killed by their own friends and acquaintances, the majority will opt for the former.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2008-05-21   22:49:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (162 - 182) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]