(09-05-2012 01:03 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 12:38 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Realistically, you can't have people elect to not follow a law simply because they don't like the law. If that were to happen, our country would slide down a slippery slope into anarchy. No one wins with anarchy.

Isn't that what we have right now with Obama?

Yes if you are referring to him refusing to defend current laws that are already on the books, appointing czars and how he went about the auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler then yes that's true. Fortunately, as citizens, we can remove this law breaking individual if we exercise our rights and vote in November.

(09-05-2012 12:38 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 12:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  " The bottom line is that we are legally bound to do certain things by our government, but that is a true statement no matter where you live. Unless you destroy all of your legal documents and move to an isolated area where no one cares to bother trying to find you, you will be beholden to governments."


And that's exactly why we are in the mess we are today. The original intention of the Constitution has been pissed on to the point of being unrecognizable.

The word is tyranny.

It's lily livered people like yourself who just stand back and take it in the ass.

Some on this board will fight it to the death. I'm in.

That's not correct. We have a voice in our government through the representatives that we vote into office. I will not disagree with you that we've lost a number of liberties that we used to have; however, we voluntarily gave up these freedoms by our voting patterns since FDR. Regardless, we still have to work within the system if we want to change things. That includes building a strong third party that is more focused on freedom. But while we try to work within the system to make things better, we still have to follow the laws on the books. Realistically, you can't have people elect to not follow a law simply because they don't like the law. If that were to happen, our country would slide down a slippery slope into anarchy. No one wins with anarchy.

The decline of this country is, i believe, in direct correlation to the increase over the last 75 years of the number of laws we are "legally bound" by. Of course we have a vote and send reps to "represent" us, but at what point do we actually rise up and say **** you government, I'm not "legally bound". You know why?? Because the founding documents say so.

I truly believe that point will be in the next few years and representatives be damned, it won't be pretty.


Free people will only accept being "legally bound" so far.

....and your last few lines has been going on for some time. This POTUS has taken it to a whole new level.

(09-05-2012 12:55 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 12:40 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  We all take part in government? What a novel concept. Better start an uproar over talk of it!

That's not a controversial statement. Why not apply for the DNC? ...unless you can't see the difference between what you posted and what they actually said. If you can't, you could probably be Dim VP.

lol. You must be trolling me... I hope you are... lol

(09-05-2012 09:58 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 09:57 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 07:48 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 07:46 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  that one is going to be coming back to haunt all sort of Democrat elections this year, I do believe..

The day the last Democrat, Progressive, Communist, and/or Socialist dies off will be a very joyous occasion for America.

Yeah because America is becoming less progressive. Keep fighting the losing fight.

Glad you finally admitted you're a Communist. Progressivism is an offshoot of Communism. Actually, it was the term that was created to be more aesthetic than Communism, a word that wasn't popular here.

I'm on record as saying Progressives exist on both sides of the aisle.


Try again.

Rebel, name a progressive Republican please.

(09-05-2012 02:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, name a progressive Republican please.

Mitt Romney.

Snowe

(09-05-2012 02:48 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 02:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, name a progressive Republican please.

Mitt Romney.

HEY! You owe me a new monitor!

(09-05-2012 12:38 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 12:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  " The bottom line is that we are legally bound to do certain things by our government, but that is a true statement no matter where you live. Unless you destroy all of your legal documents and move to an isolated area where no one cares to bother trying to find you, you will be beholden to governments."


And that's exactly why we are in the mess we are today. The original intention of the Constitution has been pissed on to the point of being unrecognizable.

The word is tyranny.

It's lily livered people like yourself who just stand back and take it in the ass.

Some on this board will fight it to the death. I'm in.

That's not correct. We have a voice in our government through the representatives that we vote into office. I will not disagree with you that we've lost a number of liberties that we used to have; however, we voluntarily gave up these freedoms by our voting patterns since FDR. Regardless, we still have to work within the system if we want to change things. That includes building a strong third party that is more focused on freedom. But while we try to work within the system to make things better, we still have to follow the laws on the books. Realistically, you can't have people elect to not follow a law simply because they don't like the law. If that were to happen, our country would slide down a slippery slope into anarchy. No one wins with anarchy.

Anyone that really believes that they have ANY voice in our "representative" system is simply indoctrinated beyond being able to actually see what is going on. These people do NOT represent us. They represent those that shell out cash to get them elected. Hell...even the SCOTUS is now in bed with them by allowing PACS. They are not even trying to hide it anymore. Still...Americans feel all warm and fuzzy when they get to vote. What damn joke. The FIX is really in and WE are the suckers!!

(09-05-2012 01:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:03 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 12:38 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Realistically, you can't have people elect to not follow a law simply because they don't like the law. If that were to happen, our country would slide down a slippery slope into anarchy. No one wins with anarchy.

Isn't that what we have right now with Obama?

Yes if you are referring to him refusing to defend current laws that are already on the books, appointing czars and how he went about the auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler then yes that's true. Fortunately, as citizens, we can remove this law breaking individual if we exercise our rights and vote in November.

Yep...and replace him with another master. The next one will do the same as those before...use the tools left lying around. Once the precedent is set...they see it as a mandate to piss on the Constitution and centralize power. It will NEVER end....until it does.

(09-05-2012 09:58 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 09:57 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 07:48 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 07:46 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  that one is going to be coming back to haunt all sort of Democrat elections this year, I do believe..

The day the last Democrat, Progressive, Communist, and/or Socialist dies off will be a very joyous occasion for America.

Yeah because America is becoming less progressive. Keep fighting the losing fight.

Glad you finally admitted you're a Communist. Progressivism is an offshoot of Communism. Actually, it was the term that was created to be more aesthetic than Communism, a word that wasn't popular here.

It's clearly obvious that you side with historical losers. Conservatives have fought against the emancipation of slaves, voting rights for women and minorities, child labor laws, a 40 hour work week, work place safety laws, integration of the military and public schools, social security, Medicare, women's reproductive rights, clean drinking water and air. Now healthcare and marriage equality. In addition to that you support Ole Miss. You just won't learn.

(09-05-2012 02:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, name a progressive Republican please.

Teddy Roosevelt. That when the republican party was probably the best party this country has ever had.

(09-05-2012 05:19 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 01:03 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(09-05-2012 12:38 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Realistically, you can't have people elect to not follow a law simply because they don't like the law. If that were to happen, our country would slide down a slippery slope into anarchy. No one wins with anarchy.

Isn't that what we have right now with Obama?

Yes if you are referring to him refusing to defend current laws that are already on the books, appointing czars and how he went about the auto bailouts for GM and Chrysler then yes that's true. Fortunately, as citizens, we can remove this law breaking individual if we exercise our rights and vote in November.

Yep...and replace him with another master. The next one will do the same as those before...use the tools left lying around. Once the precedent is set...they see it as a mandate to piss on the Constitution and centralize power. It will NEVER end....until it does.

I'm all for a strong third party that is entrenched in libertarian views. However, we have nothing close to that now and we need to build it from the ground up. I think the Libertarian party can be that vehicle in time; however, it will take awhile to build it up and it will have to begin on the local level and move up the chain from there. Until that happens, we are at the mercy of the GOP being strong enough to create enough gridlock vs the dems so that a minimal amount of damage is done to further erode our freedoms. Aside from the lack of a viable 3rd choice, too many people are already indoctrinated into the welfare state mentality. I use this term in the general sense where people instinctively think of government as their primary problem solver. Things can change, but it will take some time.

Look, I get exactly where you are coming from and I have a libertarian heart. If you think about this thread, it was started primarily as a "gotcha" attempt that perpetuates the game of "D" vs. "R". We need a 3rd party, because the Tea Party did not make a strong, lasting impression on the GOP. Hell, I'm skeptical of much of the Tea Party now because they seem to be more interested in GOP affairs than constitutional issues now anyways.

(09-05-2012 07:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  We need a 3rd party, because the Tea Party did not make a strong, lasting impression on the GOP. Hell, I'm skeptical of much of the Tea Party now because they seem to be more interested in GOP affairs than constitutional issues now anyways.

I'm hoping that the TEA Party is accepting the fact that it needs to build on its success, and not just assume those seats are fixed. If influencing R is a path to success, more power to them. The Constitution Party and others have been at this for some time w/ little to show for it.

As for the Libertarian party:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=211018

Wow! That's just plain scary. Ironically the complete opposite of what the unscripted Eastwood said at the RNC. Seems like the democrats have really screwed up first with the platform removing God from their platform for the first time and also NOT recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The DNC is the gift that keeps on giving I can see the Romney camp using this in commerical until election day. The RNC may have been a little dry, but no Gaffs of this magnitude.

(09-05-2012 09:12 AM)miko33 Wrote:  This video is nothing more than a "gotcha" moment that will pass by quickly. I watched this video and it's pretty clear that they did not mean to say that the gov't is in possession of us. The clip was trying to portray how everyone has voluntary associations in various social clubs, churches, and other social events. When you say you belong to a church it doesn't mean that the pastor of the church owns you. They were trying to make this a feeling of community amongst all of us. We all participate in our government by the fact that we vote our officials into office, and we make choices for who we want in based on their beliefs, etc., etc.

I'm not a democrat. I'm a registered republican, but think of myself more as having a libertarian spirit. Even I can see that this video was trying to convey a very different meaning to the idea that the government possesses us as property.

Obama says he didn't mean to say "You didn't build that" but that is still hurting him in the polls. So a lot of non-democrats must think otherwise.

(09-05-2012 08:51 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Demographic trends would suggest otherwise, however, and if any ideology sector is in danger of "dying" in upcoming generations, it's likely the social conservative wing of the GOP. People like Akin, Huckabee, Bachmann, Santorum, etc.

Bronco.. disagree... Last poll i remember seeing had a larger number of eople considering themselves as "social conservatives" (60% i think? Which was an increase of nearly 8% since Obama took office.)

I'd have to find the source (it was reprinted on a blog I frequent, so I don't have it in front of me...)