Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Civil War Any Day Now

Civil War threads still going on. Freepers continue to say it's time, and then do nothing:

redpoll has a somewhat Commie name for the American Revolution:
The ideas motivating the conflict in our time and during the Glorious Revolution are the same, too... does the monarch (or the state) have unlimited authority, or should the authority of the monarch (or the state) be limited?
NTHockey knows the problem is not enough MEN!
if the MEN who founded the Republic or the MEN who formed the Confederacy were alive today, CW2 would have been well underway by now. Today, no MAN will stop forward to yell “STOP” or to call Elmer Fudd to task.
muawiyah explains that the Democrats have enslaved us all an d must be politically exterminated!
The Whigs were totally devastated in some states, so those states didn't participate in the Republican structure built up to run Fremont for president, but in other states the Abolitionists were actually strong enough to act as a state party and committee so they were invited to send delegates.

We have essentially the same situation today that we had then ~ and the cause is similar. The Democrats have figured out a way around the 13th Amendment and seek to enslave everyone. The successors to the Whigs are as wishy washy as ever on social issues. We must act to save the Republic, and that means we must first act to retain the power to assert ourselves on the national political stage. That requires the political extermination of the people who currently structure the Republican party ~ at the top, and in a number of states.
muawiyah follows up with this nonsense:
Simply reduce the leftwingtards to slavery and you can do anything you want.
SWAMPSNIPER has had it:
Liberals have become a threat to all that I stand for.
Olog-hai knows it's foreign influences who are the real problem
Frankly, the assault of liberalism/leftism upon the US Constitution is an attack fomented from the outside by their allies on the inside. The liberals are the literal modern-day fifth column. Therefore the term “civil war” would not really be applicable.
Renegade knows the important thing is semantics:
It really won’t be defined as a Civil War. A second Revolutionary War is more of a correct definition.It then could turn into a hybrid Rev-Civ War if states start to fight each other.
lucky american: Are you willing to loose it all for liberty?
It will never happen because as much as we would like things to change, we are unwilling to take the first step because it might become inconvient . Are you willing to loose it all for Liberty?
Democrat_media's whole state is just waitin'
Here in Louisiana we are ready for cw2 against the democrats/socialists
tiger63 knows if you kill Obama, everything becomes groovy
The muslim member of islam brotherhood wants a race war that is all he is about, that and printing money every day to prop up the stock market. Our American dollar is worth half and the printing press at the mint is making it worse every day. The head of the snake must be removed to prevent blood in the streets.
JimRed agrees about killing Obama.
It has already begun with the attempts of the left to disarm us. But it won't be army vs. army this time; it will be federal alphabet agencies vs. individuals and small groups. Until we awaken to the fact that cutting off the head will kill the snake and start terminating THOSE WHO GIVE THE ORDERS we are all at risk.

20 comments:

  1. The Glorious Revolution happened in Britain in the late 1600s

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that, first Anon. Good read.

      Delete
  2. lucky american has freepers pegged.
    Freepers not only aren't willing to "give everything up" for freedom,
    freepers aren't even willing to get up off a comfy couch or put down a fried chicken leg for freedom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All that means is that at most they're willing to fight wars when their government tells them to. None of them will ever start a war themselves.

      Delete
  3. @ Anonymous 8:27

    Yes, they are. Pretty much every conservative leaning site has a large and vibrant veteran community. Part of what makes them fun. Have noticed one thing though - not saying it's a universal, but it certainly came to my attention. Most of the "bomb them to the stone age, glass parking lot, take up your arms and shoot the judges" crowd served in peace time. The ones who were on the sharp end - from Vietnam to Afghanistan - are a lot more restrained.

    @euphgeek - Can you see their frustration though? The country and Constitution they swore to defend and gave up a chunk of their lives to defend is falling apart, as far as they see it.
    Not that that complaint is anything new.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That doesn't make what I said any less true. They're the ones who choose to believe a provably false narrative for the sole reason that Republicans don't control the government.

      Delete
    2. Nice divert, but it's raining so I'll play :)

      The Republicans aren't exactly spotless when it comes to running the government either. Reagan did amnesty, GWB pushed through the Patriot Act. Carter was a good man who was totally out of his league. Obama has shredded the separation of powers, spat on it and racked up a horrific debt - with the help of the Republicans.

      Compare that to Clinton. Worked WITH the Republicans, balanced the budget, kept the USA out of conflicts that didn't concern them apart from extensive humanitarian efforts (Well, the Balkans were a bit of a screw up, but that isn't his fault.).

      Yes, I just praised Slick Willie.

      Delete
    3. Tell me, when did Obama ever shred the separation of powers? You do realize that before he raised his hand to take the oath of office in 2009, the Republicans met and agreed that they would block him no matter what he proposed, don't you? And the debt he racked up is no more horrific than any other president.

      As far as Clinton goes, he passed his budget in 1994 before the Republicans won the midterm elections. After the Republicans took the House and Senate, they obstructed him as much as they could too, but it was too late to block his budget and the result was prosperity. So they resorted to a witch hunt that eventually resulted in impeachment.

      Delete
    4. Do me a quick favor. Find any other President who has refused to enforce laws that his party passed. That used EO's as much as the current incumbent (don't forget to pro-rate for years served). That bypassed Congress (the ONLY leg of the Executive that has the right and duty to pass bills raising and disbursing revenue).

      You'll not find one in the last century. The President isn't the King. His powers are limited for a very good reason. Congress and the Senate enact laws, with any laws regarding taxation or excise coming from Congress. The Courts judge if the various laws are constitutional. The Executive branch enforces the laws. All of them. There isn't a clause that says "I, as president, don't like this law so it does not get enforced." I know you know this crap - so denying it is a waste of time.

      As far as the balanced budget of the Clinton era goes (and can we get back to that, please!) it happened in 1995. A lot of people want to knock him - hey, what he did with an intern doesn't fuss me much, I don't give crap one - but he did work with the Republicans to balance a budget.
      Wonderworm, on the other hand, hasn't had a budget yet.

      Delete
    5. First, you're going to have to be more specific on his refusing to enforce laws. He isn't a policeman, after all. And show me how his use of EOs has exceeded any other president, even pro-rated. And why are you complaining about him never passing a budget? Those originate in Congress, you know, and as you said, "The President isn't the King." Clinton passed the budget in 1994. That's part of the reason the Republicans were able to take over the entire legislative branch that year.

      Delete
    6. Congress has sent a budget every year, without fail. They have not been signed by the president. He has sent budgets back to the House (both chambers) and had zero votes on his own budget. This is why the CR battles happen every few months.

      As far as refusing to enforce laws - let's see. And we'll just stick with Obamacare, if that is OK with you, but I could pick anything.

      Employer mandate unilaterally delayed by one year.
      Sign up dates unilaterally extended.
      "Sub standard" plans unilaterally declared to be valid for an extra year,
      Exemption for Congress and staffers - applied by executive order.

      Note - I am not saying if these are right or wrong in and of themselves (personally I lean towards single payer, but don't tell anyone - they'll revoke my conservative card). I am saying that the procedure used was wrong. Once something is law, it is the President's job, it's there in the oath, to have them enforced equally upon all.

      Delete
    7. Congress has sent a budget every year, without fail.

      Yes, full of right-wing wish-fulfillment fantasies that they know the president would never sign.

      As far as refusing to enforce laws - let's see. And we'll just stick with Obamacare, if that is OK with you, but I could pick anything.

      Oh, so due to political pressure he delays enforcement of certain parts of Obamacare (backed up by Congress) and you think that's "refusing to enforce laws"? Your complaint is that the president isn't acting like a king while at the same time you claim he acts like a king? Is it any wonder Obama's opponents look weak and disorganized when they can't even come up with a coherent and consistent criticism of him?

      Delete
    8. Really. "Backed up by congress?" Show me the vote to delay the employer mandate, to re-establish "substandard" plans. Don't bother with the vote for expemting congress - there wasn't a vote, but none of them would have disagreed with it.

      But you are missing the point. Political pressure doesn't matter. Is, or is not the ACA the law? If it is, the President is obliged to uphold it - as it stands. No variance. No "Oh, we'll leave that bit until later." The dude takes n oath on the bible about doing that when he is sworn in.

      And the Right wing wish fulfillment in the budgets submitted (apart from actually having money in = money out?)? You made the claim - prove it.

      You can't.

      Look - I get he's your guy. I had major hopes for him myself back in '08. To haul in race for a second - I thought "It's about fucking time." Having grown up during the civil rights movement, I am fucking sick of the BS. From both sides. I really hoped Obama would make a difference. He has not.

      Delete
    9. Actually, I think EC has a point, though he takes it too far.

      Obama's use of selective enforcement and selective prosecution has expanded the executive power beyond the already Brobdingnagian proportions Bush had managed. It isn't healthy for separation of powers, and is damaging to our Republic.

      That being said, if you blame Obama alone you're dumb. First, all Presidents seek to extend their power - and the greatest did so the most.
      Second, this is a necessary response to Republican intransigence. Obama's choices are to grow executive power or to allow himself to be neutered and reward the scorched earth policy of the GOP. I like his choice.

      Now, I think an Obama who was better at negotiating could probably have cajoled Congress out of it's opposition, a la Clinton. But that's really all I worry about re: Obama's actions.

      Delete
    10. Make up your mind, EC, either he's acting like a king or he's not. If he bends to political pressure, he's not. You are right that the presidential powers have been expanded, but as Ozy said, it's due to Republican intransigence. Although I would argue that Obama's negotiating skills have nothing to do with it, since Republicans have refused to negotiate with him at all. And they did that on purpose to try to make him look bad in a cynical ploy to win the 2012 election. Luckily, it didn't work.

      And the Right wing wish fulfillment in the budgets submitted (apart from actually having money in = money out?)?

      So except for the wish-fulfillment fantasies, you want me to tell you what the wish-fulfillment fantasies are? And that's exactly what that is. When has a congress ever demanded that of a previous president? Heck, when have Republicans ever demanded that of their own president? Republicans==hypocrites.

      Delete
    11. @Ozy - thank you. Nicely thoughtful response.

      @Euphgeek

      " You are right that the presidential powers have been expanded, but as Ozy said, it's due to Republican intransigence."

      Bush did the same thing on a smaller scale, due to Democrat intransigence. It was not right then, it is not right now.
      Maybe I'm an idealist, but I firmly believe that partisan politics should stop at the door of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Like it or not (I don't, as you may have guessed :) ) - he's the president. President of all the people, not just one faction.
      And yes - I hold Republicans to the same standard. Reagan understood that. He was a master of compromise. The kindest thing I can say about Bush 41 is he didn't really make much difference either way. Clinton was a deal maker, much in the Reagan mold and with the same sort of people skills.
      Both Reagan and Clinton tried to leave partisan politics at the door. Hell, JFK, according to his own words, deliberately attempted that (plus, he was a guy you could have a few beers with)

      Having said all that - what, exactly, is wrong with wanting things to be paid for? You want a new car, you go buy one. Yet you trim your other costs to make the payments. Your kids want to go to college? You start saving for that the day the missus is confirmed as pregnant. Sure, it's a coffee less a day, or cutting down on the smokes, but you do it.

      Delete
    12. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I firmly believe that partisan politics should stop at the door of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

      If by "an idealist" you mean "extremely naive," yes. ;)

      he's the president. President of all the people, not just one faction.

      I've always gotten the impression that that's how he sees himself, too. But how many times has he tried to reach out to Republicans, only to get his hand bitten? He's even tried to implement policy Republicans suggested, only to have them filibuster their own suggestion! Is that insane, or what? And you expect him to make deals with these people?

      Having said all that - what, exactly, is wrong with wanting things to be paid for?

      Nothing, when it's running a household. But when you're running a country, it's practically impossible. Republicans know this and use it as yet another excuse to say no to everything Obama proposes, holding him to an impossibly high standard no other president was ever asked to live up to. Unlike a household, debt can be good for a country that needs to invest in infrastructure and create jobs. Too much, of course, is a bad thing, but we're a long way away from that. If anything, I'd criticize Obama for not spending enough to get us out of the deep recession his predecessor left us in. But then, Republicans would have to share that blame, since they blocked everything he tried to do.

      Delete
  4. I'd also point out to EC that the Congressional "exemption" from Obamacare only exempted its employees from seeking coverage through the ACA markets, just like it "exempts" every other American who enjoys employer-sponsored health insurance. Otherwise, the plans afforded them as Feds are subject to every other ACA regulation, just like every other employer-sponsored plan. As a sort of reality-check, the ACA originally proposed cancelling Congress' group policy and forcing its staff to obtain coverage through their state marketplaces. Congressional staff successfully opposed this, arguing that because they worked for the nation's largest employer, they should enjoy group coverage, just like every other American who works for a company with more than 50 employees. The "exemption" was actually to Congress' original exemption from employer-sponsored insurance, not an exemption from the ACA itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Captain.

      You are, of course, correct. I withdraw that point unreservedly. (Hey, my legalese is rusty!)

      Delete
  5. Forget SOP, the NDAA is worse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W4LSHUFT2o

    ReplyDelete