It cannot be denied that the central government has become destructive of our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and our rights to live free. The government is no longer responsive to we the People. They have stretched and shredded the constitution to the point that they have illegally seized for themselves virtually unlimited powers over the citizens and act as if we have no rights and no powers of our own. They are acting without our consent.
What is untrue about that statement? You know, in the not too distant future an overthrow could very well become a reality.
I wasn't responding to the text. The Freepers have a lot history of organizing mass responses to public opinion polls and other casual, non-scientific conversations on the internet and newspapers etc. The purpose of these efforts was to make the hard core conservative point of view, and in particular support for George W Bush when he was running for president and after he became president look as if it had a lot more public support than it actually had.
If a newspaper ran a poll asking if Bush was doing a good job in office, the Freepers would get a bunch of their people together to flood the poll with the highest level of support for Bush.
I used to hear people say that their poll got Freeped, meaning it was the victim of a large organized response designed to fool the public.
As to the overthrow of the government, I think they call that treason. Funny how the uber-patriotic become the treasonous when we go from their guy in office to the opposition guy in office. The one constant is that you guys are always playing with fire. Bush brought us to the brink of collapse with the policies you supported, and still support, and now you are flirting with treason.
Nice going, patriot!
I wasn't supporting the Freepers. I was pointing out that there is some cogency to his statement. As far as the rest of your typical GW bullshit rant, it is yet another hypocritical statement. As if skewed polls don't happen every day in the MSM. Also, correct me if I am wrong but I believe this Country was founded by a bunch of treasonist who were not pleased by their representation. Do these words sound familiar?
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 to 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 shown 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.
I don't believe that I made any anti-Bush rant in this thread. It was an anti-Freep rant.
And while I am sure that people have generated organized responses to polls before, I believe that the Freepers elevated it to a whole new level.
And yes, Z, I am very familiar with the Declaration of Independence, but I don't think it applies to the current situation. You won't hear me endorse any such thing now, nor did I when Bush was in office. I didn't call for the overthrow of his, or any other, presidency by any other means than the ballot box.
I think if you consider yourself a patriotic American, you don't have to like everything a particular leader is doing, you don't have to say My Country Right or Wrong, you don't have to swallow some Kool Aid that tells you that whatever the president does is automatically legal, but you do have to respect the rule of law.
To me it is a disgrace that people who a year ago proclaimed this the greatest country in the world, now want to overthrow it. And you can't even see the irony therein.
My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying My mother, drunk or sober."
~Gilbert K. Chesterton
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.
-Carl Schurz
Then: My mother, drunk or sober; if drunk, to be kept drunk; and if sober, to be set drunk.
~ML (with apologies to GK Chesterton, and well, everybody)
Well, only if she's nicer drunk than she is sober 
I don't believe that I made any anti-Bush rant in this thread.
Does your hands type words independent of your control? You couldn't take the few seconds to simply look up to see where you said:
Bush brought us to the brink of collapse with the policies you supported, and still support, and now you are flirting with treason.
And yes, Z, I am very familiar with the Declaration of Independence, but I don't think it applies to the current situation.
The Declaration of Independence is the cornerstone of our government! It applies everywhere. This isn't "rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", except when some select groups thinks otherwise, because they are better/smarter/agree with me.
I didn't call for the overthrow of his, or any other, presidency by any other means than the ballot box.
Then you clearly do not understand or support the Declaration of Independence at all, because it specifically spells out that any government that violates the rights of the common man should be changed or overthrown.
...but you do have to respect the rule of law.
Guess what, so does the leadership of the United States, and they have violated it, over and over again. The current administration has done it several times, just like the previous administrations have. So if claim to respect the law, why do you support those who don't?
To me it is a disgrace that people who a year ago proclaimed this the greatest country in the world, now want to overthrow it.
Not everyone who wants to overthrow it proclaimed it the greatest country in the world a year ago. Why don't you address them, rather than some tiny subset that you pathetically try to marginalize?
I say that because when, after 9/11, I sometimes expressed my opinion that the president wasn't doing what I thought he should be, and a billion tons of criticism came down on my neck. I was called everything from a Saddam lover to a tool of the terrorists.
I was told that we must trust the president 100% that he is our leader and we must not deviate from the path he has set for us. Very Germany 1933 kind of stuff. Except that the people who said that back in 2002 and 2003 don't continue to adhere to that thinking. Now that a different guy is in charge, they have flipped to a "We have the right to overthrow the government anytime we don't like what the president is saying" mode.
Frankly, both their slavish devotion to Bush (then) and their tin foil hat opposition to Obama (now) is disturbing and sickening.
Yet your slavish devotion to Obama and your tin foil hat opposition to Bush is also disturbing and sickening. Really, slavish devotion or all-consuming hatred of anyone is disturbing.
The other problem I see is that you equate everyone who says negative things about Obama (or just Democrats in general) to those who hold slavish devotion of Bush, which just isn't true. I don't see why you can't comprehend that a person who doesn't like Obama might also dislike Bush.
Does seem to me they waited a few years too long to come out with this!
That's all I was saying...
Yep, if they didn't bitch about what the last Administration pulled, then they got no right to bitch about this one either!!
Thanks for saying what I have been thinking for a long time regarding Gramp's blanket mindset of those not in accord with Obama.
Not sure how you get the idea that I am 100% for everything Obama does. You guys are like that with your guy and it drives me nuts. Even now it is hard for any of you to admit that maybe Bush might have contributed just a tiny bit to the problems we face now.
On the other hand, I take what Obama says and does one issue at a time. I don't believe in blanket approval for anyone. I don't support everything Obama does and I think I have been pretty clear about that.
In fact, I think I was pretty fair with Bush when he was The Decider. I never saw the guy as all bad. I said many times that I think he had good intentions, he trusted his instincts and went with them, and didn't back down. Those are pretty good qualities as long as your instincts are on target, and it isn't always clear until later if they are or are not.
Longtime MVers may recall that on Bush's birthday a couple of years ago, I linked to a story about that with the headline "Happy Birthday Mr President" Now as it turned out, Iraq had no WMD and his financial policies were just like Herber Hoover's with nearly the same outcome. I give Bush credit that at the 11th hour he changed policies before the crash could come and tried to take a different course with TARP, flawed as it is, it would have been far worse if nothing had been done.
Read my comment again Gramps because it is obvious you didn't get it the first time. I was responding to jammer's comment:
"The other problem I see is that you equate everyone who says negative things about Obama (or just Democrats in general) to those who hold slavish devotion of Bush"
I never said you were 100% into Obama (although you sure are quick to defend just about everything he says or does). My comment simply stated that I agree with jammer's observation. You then reinforce both jammer and my observations in your last comment by stating:
"You guys are like that with your guy and it drives me nuts"
No Gramps, you are just nuts. Period. It is pretty f-ing annoying that you turn my dislike of Obama into support for Bush. Just because I don't care for Obama does not mean I ever was a hardcore Bush supporter. In fact, on numerous occasions you and I have gone back and forth on Bush and many times I have told you I was never a hardcore Bush supporter. Yet over and over you claim he is "my guy" and now that I have a "slavish devotion to Bush and a tin foil hat opposition to Obama". Here is a fat 
for that comment BTW.
Your flippant response puts you on the same level as Cut/Cat. You got all pissy when he called you names you didn't like and cried to anyone that would listen. Now here you are essentially doing the same thing and being a snot about it. Thank you, hypocrite.
Gramps couldn't possibly be responding to the fawk you, hmmn?
Just sayin' is all.
Not being pissy, flippant, nor am being a snot. I thank you for your point of view, which I think is sincere.
I did not intend to label you personally as a hard core Loyal Bushie, that was meant to the general population of people who apologized for every Bush excess and who are now jumping all over Obama when he does the same stuff they gave Bush a pass for doing. As you say, that label does not fit you, and I believe you when you say that.
Therefore my comments were not appropriate to you and you gave me the flaming finger of FU for doing so. I simply accepted your response as being your sincere response to my (unfair) criticism.
Now do I have to say I'm sorry, or can we leave it at that? 
Not sure how you get the idea that I am 100% for everything Obama does.
...
On the other hand, I take what Obama says and does one issue at a time. I don't believe in blanket approval for anyone. I don't support everything Obama does and I think I have been pretty clear about that.
I think this statement is more directed at me than zekej3, so let me respond. No, you have not been "pretty clear". I do not believe you are necessarily 100% behind Obama, nor do I even believe you are necessarily 100% behind Democrats. However, even if you occasionally dissent (and I've never seen you say or do anything to support that statement), you never seem to share that dissension with anyone. I have yet to see you criticize the current administration (including Obama and the current Congress - barring blaming the Republican congressmen for something) for any recent policy, and I have seen you flip-flop your stance on things you previously bashed Bush for. Essentially you show all the psychological symptoms of someone who essentially has been brainwashed. If you truly can't understand how someone might have that impression of you, I suggest you go back and look at your previous posts. You might be surprised at what you find.
Accepted.
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand
Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. - Thomas Paine
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too. - Somerset Maugham
Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. - Herbert Hoover
God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. - Daniel Webster (1834)
Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the State becomes lawless or, which is the same thing, corrupt. - Mohandas Gandhi
When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny. - Thomas Paine
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. - Abraham Lincoln
since its quote day...
"Little Miss Muffet sat on a tuffet, eating her curds and whey. Along came a spider, he sat down beside her, he said, eh what's in the bowl bitch?"
Andrew Dice Clay
Now? Now they want to overthrow the gubmint?
Sorry, I'm with Gramps on this one.
F-ing Freepers.
Just vote'em out. That would mean that some lazy SOB's would have to get off their keesters and vote.
The problem is when you have tweedle dee and tweedle dum to vote for - what is the big choice .. but then again - that is the democratic process and people need to vote in the primaries and stop listening to the talking heads on TV that only talk about the front runners.
IMHO .. people need to really vote third party if you want a change.
No, they have wanted to throw them out for quite some time. I know several people who voted third party in the last couple of elections (including the ones in which Bush ultimately won). To say that they now want to overthrow the government is both a lie and is miscasting the complaints as partisan to discredit them. I know you have more intelligence than that.
I mean, did you even bother to read the statements in the link? Bush would have fared just as poorly as the current administration (and Congress) would.
I also voted third party in the elections in which Bush "won".
BTW, Jim Robinson posted this when? Not while Bush was in office.
I'm just sayin'.
Just because he posted it now does not mean anything. You'll notice he appoints the Secretary of State as temporary President (and you can't find a more hard-core Democrat than Hillary Clinton), and also calls for the complete removal of Congress, which includes both Democrats and Republicans. You protestations of partisanship are completely wrong.
He's not appointing Hillary Clinton - the Secretary of State is next in line of succession after the President, Vice President, Pelosi and Byrd have been removed.
Yes, I am aware of that, but if he is stripping people of office, and he was as partisan as your comments suggest, he would strip her of power too. However, he does not.
Kinda makes ya wonder - so, why'd he stop there?
I mean, it kinda makes me wonder. No, no it doesn't. Not really. 
To be perfectly honest, I do wonder why he stopped there, but that is probably just because I really dislike Hillary Clinton. Still, I personally would like to see the entire government purged and refreshed: Supreme Court, Congress, and the Execute branch. I would also like to see Congress just replaced with public voting (that would truly eliminate all partisanship in a heartbeat, because no party has fifty percent of the voting population).
Somehow I come back to this, why did he start where he did with this post (now-ish) and not 2 or 4 or more years ago?
There are several reasons that could be the answer. I have also thought about writing such a proposal. I have refrained for several reasons, the most pertinent at the moment is my time is rather limited due to work and grad school. A second reason is although I have several severe issues with the current operation of the government, I do not know how to make things better, and I dislike complaining without offering an alternative solution. A third reason is that I want to research more things about the Founding Fathers, the time period they existed in, and determine why they made the choices they did. I also want to try to rid myself of some of the partisanship I was taught in grade school and college. I suspect I will retire before I am able to feel fully confident in my understanding of the hows and whys of our government.
It could be any or all of these reasons why he did not post this two or four years ago. However, let me pose a question in return. Why did he not post this ten years ago? Twenty? These issues existed then, although not to the level of today. Why does it only matter that he did not bring this up during Bush's presidency? Obviously technology is one reason (blogs did not exist ten years ago, and the internet was nothing like it is today twenty years ago). The point is there are most likely many reasons, and to marginalize it to just partisanship is tactic unworthy of those with intelligence.
If it will make you feel better, I don't believe he is totally independent of being partisan. The blog does self-identify as conservative, so clearly there is some impact due to that. However, the message is clearly not partisan. I would also like to point out that it is also a rough draft. The writer posted it to gather comments from others. The final copy may call for the complete removal of government, and it may not be finished until after the current administration has left office.
So, you think we should go with the "Canadian" and "British" system of Government?
Where did you get that idea? I want to go with the Constitution/Declaration system of government. What we have now if far closer to the Canadian and British systems than I like.
Well they do have more than 2 parties, if you look at the French and some others, they have many more than just 2! Though I would hate to live as a Disliked minority in a system that was STRICTLY majority rule! Just think what the US would be like today if the Moral Majority bunch had had full sway and the power to change the way things worked during the time just past! Some of those on the far religious right are not that far away from being the American version of the Taliban!! They could have FORCED everyone to become evangelical Christians under the threat of law or violence if they could get in power long enough to change the law and Constitution!! This is America, we are allowed to be different, but treated equally, with STRICT rule by the majority, that wouldn't last long that is why the framers of the Constitution opted for a Republic, or at least one of the reason, slow communications in those days did have a part to play in that decision also!!
Well they do have more than 2 parties, if you look at the French and some others, they have many more than just 2!
You really don't understand the Constitution at all. The two party system has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution and the Declaration are based around the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in that order. Everyone has a right to life. Everyone has a right to do whatever they want, so long as it does not revoke the life of another, or restrict the liberty of another. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness (a lot of people forget the pursuit part and assume they have a right to always be happy - this is where obscenity/decency laws come from), so long as that pursuit does not infringe on someone's life, liberty, or pursuit. I don't know where you got all that other stuff you said, but it certainly didn't come from me.
Actually I agree with most of what you said! The reason we have a 2 party system by default is that those 2 have taken advantage of their power in the states to make it almost impossible for a third party to get enough votes to elect anyone! Mainly by gerrymandering and using the rules or changing same to there advantage! There are a few independents in the house and senate but they have to play along with one party or the other to get anything done! But I do prefer a Republic to a TRUE Democracy! A TRUE Democracy is to liable to be swayed by a Demagogue just long enough to get the rules change where there is no going back, you now have a dictatorship! Even if it was one by a really popular Religious leader!!
It doesn't even necessarily have to be a religious leader. Merely looking at the way people practically worship Bush or Obama is enough to make anyone who supports the Constitution worried.
I agree! Though I do think Obama is no longer getting anywhere near the blind devotion that Bush had! Bush could wave any number of Red Flags and they would all fall in line! Democrats just don't seem to have that many "Hot Button" Issues that he can use that way, not even "National Health Care
I don't think so ,, the latest polls suggest other wise .... Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats continue to approve of the President 19s performance In dems eyes .. by a staggering amount .. they love their man Obama. The equally interesting number is that 80% of the repubs disapprove ... the polarity and partisanship is very apparent.
Approval rating is one thing, but action in the Senate doesn't seem to be following the same pattern! Even with 60 votes! Unlike the Repubs who are in lock step! If you are waiting for his approval rating to drop into the 20s, don't hold your breath! I doubt he will show the disregard for American Values that Bush showed to get that low!!
Obama hasn't changed the direction that Bush had us going in - Meet the New Boss 0 same as the old boss.
In what ways has Obama really changed US policies other than give better lip service in his speeches?
It more what he hasn't done, YET! May be hard to resist the temptation now that Bush and CO. have shown the way to run rough shod over the Constitution!
yes .. TARP 2 and crap and trade and his manipulating the press and lack of transparency like no one else has are really wonderful for this country ... 
Warrant less wiretapping, Torture, Suspending Habeas Corpus, etc. We are talking a difference in kind! Obama has at least been going through the system, instead of around it! Well, till the latest Signing statement!
Guess what? All those issues you listed? None of them have been stopped by Obama. Every single one is still in effect. Obama is basically just piling more Constitutional violations on top of Bush's. They affect different areas, yes, but he still hasn't done anything to reverse Bush's policies. There will still be detainees who will not be given habeas corpus. He has not repealed the law to waterboard detainees. He has not stopped warrantless wiretapping (and has made statements saying he is going to continue). Tell me, why is Obama not just as guilty as Bush for continuing all these acts? Partisanship, pure and simple. It is also why the Democrats did not push to impeach Bush. They knew damn well they intended to do the same damn thing.
I am not a democrat. I wrote to my representatives in 2007 and 2008 regarding my support for the impeachment of Bush (and Cheney.) I got the nicest letters back saying that in these already devisive times blah blah blah stay in school don't do drugs.
I'll try to find those letters to post in a blog... They're really pretty funny.
I am a Democrat, but also a gun owner, would be Libertarian if there was a REAL Libertarian party! I also got in touch with my Representatives and got much the same answer as you did!! Would have actually Voted for Dennis or Ron Paul If I could have!!
There is a real Libertarian party. Also, you certainly could have voted for Dennis or Ron Paul. You always have the right to write in a candidate. Its only the Republican and Democratic parties who push to make that as hard as possible and you to believe you can't.
I know what you mean. I liked both those guys better. But this last time I didn't vote alternate party.
Like WC Fields said when asked who he voted for:
"I don't vote for, I vote against."
(at least I think it was Fields.)
NO! There is a party that calls it's self Liberatarian, but don't actually practice it anymore than the "Communist" Part was actually communist!
Yep, I voted Against GW both times!! It's like getting old! It sucks till you consider the alternative!!
Actually, YES, it is libertarian. It sounds like you might suffer from the same thing I do, in that you don't believe the party goes far enough libertarian (which is why I do not self-identify myself as libertarian anymore, but something between libertarian and anarchist, also known as a minarchist). That is why the libertarian party is so fragmented. It is also why political parties in general are such a bad idea. They always tend to marginalize the members beliefs. It is also why the Democratic and Republican parties need to be basically shattered into many smaller parties (or eliminated completely) to better represent the true feelings of the American population.
Yep, minarchist says it all! Only problem with that is after all the run-offs we would be right back where we started! Unless you go for a Senate and house set up more along the lines of some of the European countries where the number of representatives a party seats is dependent on what portion of the popular vote the party gets! I think Sweden does it that way!
Actually, I'm leaning towards just replacing Congress with a popular vote. From my understanding (and I want to research this some more), I don't think even half of the voting population voted in the last President election. If the country can't get enough people together to vote on that, then gathering a fifty percent popular vote on a Congressional bill will be next to impossible. Only the most vital and important legislation would ever have a chance to be passed to the President, and I think that is the way it should be.
Years ago, there was a "Nobody for President" campaign. The goal was to get everybody who could register but hadn't yet as well as those registered but not voting out to the polls to vote for "Nobody" as a write-in candidate.
It didn't go as planned and I never bothered to file the paperwork to legally change my name to "Nobody.
You would have to change the way things work to be able for that to happen, since every bit of money the Government spends has to go through Congress!! That's why the spending bills are so huge no one can actually read all of it!! Got to make appropriations for every project no matter how small or large! Doubt it was that way at the start, but things have changed since Washington's day!!
At least they admit they are conservative, although I do agree the claim of "news" is inaccurate.
I kinda missed the admit they are conservative thing... its just another freaky blog...
or like air wolf JAFO heh
The Secretary of State shall immediately assume the office of interim Chief Executive."
Obviously a Hillary supporter.
Let's get physical
Get down, get hard, get mean
Let's get physical
And beat that other team!
It's going to take a lot more than Obama to get me to take up arms.
Agreed. Something like this won't happen until it gets really bad. But judging by the current state of affairs and our current leaders unwillingness to listen to the people and continue on a path that will collapse our economy and impoverish our nation it may happen sooner than later.
Well, I have been thinking it's inevitable for years now. Just not sure what's going to be the catalyst for a full-out civil war.
Racism, hypocrisy, and hate isn't quite enough apparently...
Racism, hypocrisy, and hate
That's politics baby!
It was, at least partly, last time around.
Yeah, but we weren't revolting. I mean, we didn't revolt.
That depends on which side of the Mason Dixon you were on. Not condoning the southern stance of course. The problem this time around would be the federal government is big, stronger, and has a growing number of dependent voters on its side.
If you look at the recent American history, under the First They Came concept, nothing will be the catalyst, because they aren't going to take something from a large enough group of people to cause a revolution. I would say the American people as a whole needs to get over their selfishness and stand up to defend those who hold different opinions, even if they don't agree with those opinions.
Oh. That last time around.
If you believe the lying dog Paulsen and Bernake and Pelosi etc ... this country was a heart beat away from financial ruin and total collapse ... that is how TARP 1 got thru and Wall Street made out like the thieving bandits that they are. I think if the banks, Wall Street, govt offices, electricity etc were suddenly turned off due to lack of money ... then that might constitute SHTF scenario. That is why freeper dudes didn't start this 4 years ago .. we were not so close to the precipice. Since that debacle bailout courtesy of Wall Street and Nancy Pelosi and mafioso Reid .... we had TARP 2. The expenditures and debt increase of this country is astronomically .. significantly higher than it has ever been before. The only jobs that Obama can seem to generate are federal jobs .. which really don't make money, but have to be paid for by taxes.
Maude .. I love you for voting third party. I must admit I voted for GW Bush over Al Gore .. in the main election - though I voted third party in the primaries. I could not stomach the thought of Al Gore leading this country. I'm pretty sure I would do the same ... Al Gore is such a *&(^&*(*%&(%
I just want to thank everybody for their ongoing participation in this conversation.
Gramps
Damn Freepers