ATTENTION Patriots / Birthers / Teabaggers / Whomever - If you did get your Revolution, Then What?

reply to post by whaaa


Possibly a speech?

Maybe my Manifesto?

No, I wanted to put together my thoughts on what my standings are as a US citizen. You know, doing my civic responsibility as a US citizen.

Sometimes its fun to delve into ones own beliefs and see where you stand. Instead of self righteous indignation I put together a well thought out argument for where I stand.

That Global Warming crap has not hit my area. It is currently 8 below right now and I do not go out much during the winter. Kind of a shut in while waiting for the country to go back to work.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whaaa

 

C'mon whaaa.

Post something that means something. Not something illusory.

I do not want to force my will on anyone. As you can see by my points I want the US government to be what they by law are supposed to be.

Of course our government wants us to follow the laws they pass but not follow the law themselves.

Kind of circular logic is it not?

Speaking of circular logic, you don't want tp force your will on anyone, but you do want to overthrow the duly elected President and government of The United States!?
So who elected you as the interpreter of what the Government is supposed to be?
By what mandate do you imagine YOU have the right to usurp the government because of your personal interpretation of The Constitution?
What nerve, what hubris, what arrogance.

reply to post by whaaa

Looks very good so far but let's not ignore the absolute and final litmus test for the contemporary conservative.
Abortion.....
Homosexual Marriage ............
for me a definitive test of a true conservative is their response to those two issues.

"Your definitive test" is unsupportable in a "national" context, and only posed as inflammatory goading.

Abortion and Homosexuality are not the concern of the Federal government, nor are they addressed in the Constitution.

A true conservative will tell you that such social issues as reproduction and sexual preference have no business in a Federal agenda. These are issues left to the people and the States.

jw

[edit on 4-1-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by OldDragger


Why do you folk keep trying to say this ****. You guys are like robots. Repeat it enough times and it will become true?

C'mon OldDragger, you can do better than that.

Pull out that old fallacy book you got right there.

Your insults and lies do not affect someone that speaks truth.

Truth shall set you free OldDragger. Life is but a short path, make it worth living, do not find fault in all that surrounds you. Look at what your government has wrought, the coming together of millions of people. All for the righteous attitude of Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Do not feel left out, join in the celebration that is our Constitution, not the lie that is our new wonderful Corporate Masters and Corporate laws.

Throw off those chains known as Corporate Personhood and be free.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by ziggystrange


Bravo Ziggy, Bravo.

I have and will become off-topic if my character is slandered or my words taken out of context. On that note. Let us debate the issues and the ideas.

reply to post by whaaa


Abortion: Not my body, not the Federal Government's responsibility and really shouldn't be a political issue. My only thing, and this is my own personal view is late term abortions. If it takes you 6 months to figure out you don't want the kid, then you have problems. Again, personal view, not political.

Same-Sex Marriage: Again, who am I to say who cannot and can become a legal couple bound by the State.

That crap the GOP put out regarding a limitus test is ridiculous and I know a lot of conservatives that also believe it is just another shallow attempt at bringing about the religious base to their party.

reply to post by jdub297

A true conservative will tell you that such social issues as reproduction and sexual preference have no business in a Federal agenda. These are issues left to the people and the States.

Oh please, If you believe that, I've got some nice irrigated farmland down by VanHorn I'd like to sell ya.

Your leaders Rush and Beck, Sean and Savage love to trot out the dembs support "women killing babies" BS every chance they get and want abortion made a capital offense. Should I bring out the Palin youtube!!

And don't give me that BS that Rush and the rest of em aren't true conservatives. They are the mouth pieces for the GOP, TPM and the Religious Right.

If the "true" conservatives want any credibility they better start backing away from the hate promoted by those yahoos instead of defending them.
Any fool can see the hate and divisiveness and transparent call to violence by them against those they disagree with.




reply to post by endisnighe

Throw off those chains known as Corporate Personhood and be free.

Perhaps the conservatives should start with Clear Channel and Fox.





[edit on 4-1-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


I hate to tell you this whaaa, I do not watch but one thing on Fox News. Can you guess what it is?

And for my info, what is Clear Channel.

Mainly, most of my MSM is on talk radio in the AM. Not Rush, Not Levine, and not Hannity or many of the other national shows. Mainly my areas talk radio guys. They are local to my state and region. We kind of have a lot of people out there talking about government.

Have you guessed the who, he asks people to do a lot of research.

Hi everyone,

Here is a link to the Constitution for reference.

Presented as the "Official" Version

The source is www.archives.gov

I believe we should use the official text. I saw some others that were annotated and the editors had included their personal interpretation.

If you have a more accurate source, please make your case, and link it.

What I intend to do is go through each of the 21 points and ask questions, and seek out areas that may be troublesome, or unclear in terms of legality according to the articles, sections, and amendments.

Just so I/we all can understand the ground rules.

These are my assumptions begging to be verified, clarified, or negated and replaced with a more accurate understanding.

I AM IN NO WAY SAYING THIS IS WHAT IT IS!!!!

General assumption that when constitutional law, or constitutional anything is mentioned, we are talking about the current Constitution with all it's amendments intact, and as interpreted to date by the Supreme Court?


1.
As I understand it, what Endisnighe is saying is, that this draft is what he, and the others that participated in the drafting, agreed on as a group.

2.
But it is his version and while, the others participated, it is not to be construed as a document that implies the everyone involved with it's drafting, is in complete agreement with all the points presented?

3.
In other words, it's Endisnighe's submission but, while Iamonlyhuman, and the others chimed in, they reserve the right to write their own, or may not approve of some or all the points presented?

What if anything has been deemed "irrelevant" in the preparation of the document, and thus taken for granted as not counting, or too unclear to consider.

Is any of this accurate?

Can the people involved please characterize the nature of the Authorship?

I know it's Endisnighe's submission, I just want to clarify what is deemed to be by the folks that helped. Are the signing it, or are they to be considered as unnamed contributors.


Thanks

Ziggy

The final draft submitted by me was drafted only by me.

I took suggestions from others that had posted on my thread and had applied what they had suggested and what I had agreed with.

Therefore the draft is my doing and in no way represents their points of view.

I will stipulate that the first and foremost thought in the submitted document is number 1.

Some of the other items mentioned do attempt to change components of said Constitution but in the most part, I have attempted to clarify what my positions were that disagree with how our government is interpreting the Constitution either incorrectly or to the detriment of the country.

reply to post by whaaa


EDIT TO ADD: Sorry Ziggy for the off-topic post, but it seems some have not gotten the memo and I took the bait. Again, Sorry. /END EDIT

Whaaa.....who has attached any of those figures to what has been discussed? From what I have read and gather, mostly you.

Diversion is a wily tactic and you use it with good precision. The OP has already stated that we should get back to discussing the issues and everyone seems to have, except you that wants to place us in a heart-shaped box and call us names.

No one is naming names but rather trying to understand, learn and possibly grow some new gray matter....on both sides, right/left/green/blue/conservative/liberal/Jewish/Christian/Agnostic/Buddhist/(and anyone else I left out).....EXCEPT YOU.

Have you yet to comment on what has been presented?

[edit on 4-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

reply to post by ziggystrange


Ziggy-

The points presented are Endisnighe's. He authored it and took suggestions.

Those that participated were offering ideas and opinions because they were asked for.

I saw his thread as one where he was trying to smooth out and hammer out his own personal views. Personally I gathered a lot of information and new ideas from his list and have gained some knowledge on some areas.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

Bravo Ziggy, Bravo.

I have and will become off-topic if my character is slandered or my words taken out of context. On that note. Let us debate the issues and the ideas.

Thank you. Ownbestenemy.

If your character is slandered, you know what to do, it's only fair.
Let the party begin.

Ziggy

Originally posted by endisnighe
The final draft submitted by me was drafted only by me.

I took suggestions from others that had posted on my thread and had applied what they had suggested and what I had agreed with.

Therefore the draft is my doing and in no way represents their points of view.

I will stipulate that the first and foremost thought in the submitted document is number 1.

Some of the other items mentioned do attempt to change components of said Constitution but in the most part, I have attempted to clarify what my positions were that disagree with how our government is interpreting the Constitution either incorrectly or to the detriment of the country.

Thank you.

I just wanted everyone to be clear on what it is.
I understand that your first point is your reference/hinge pin for other points.

Ziggy

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Thanks Ownbestenemy,

Got it. I was pretty sure that was the nature, just wanted certainty.

Ziggy


[edit on 4-1-2010 by ziggystrange]

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by whaaa

 

EDIT TO ADD: Sorry Ziggy for the off-topic post, but it seems some have not gotten the memo and I took the bait. Again, Sorry. /END EDIT

Whaaa.....who has attached any of those figures to what has been discussed? From what I have read and gather, mostly you.

Diversion is a wily tactic and you use it with good precision. The OP has already stated that we should get back to discussing the issues and everyone seems to have, except you that wants to place us in a heart-shaped box and call us names.

No one is naming names but rather trying to understand, learn and possibly grow some new gray matter....on both sides, right/left/green/blue/conservative/liberal/Jewish/Christian/Agnostic/Buddhist/(and anyone else I left out).....EXCEPT YOU.

Have you yet to comment on what has been presented?

[edit on 4-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]

I plead guilty to a few instances but if you will notice most of my posts have been in reference to what someone else posted previously; And everything I have posted is in relation to the OP in one form or another. Why don't you let the mods be mods and if they think I have transgressed they can take care of it. It seems you want to take away my freedoms and run the show so that it fits your narrow focus. Why am I not surprised!

If you don't want to see my opinions just give me a foe tag and put me on ignore like gwydionblack did. If my take on what is being discussed somehow offends you and you don't like the way I present it......tough!

It's still land of the free until you guys stifle the speech you are uncomfortable with; which is exactly what you are trying to do. Besides it's Ziggy's party not yours, ownbestenemy.

















[edit on 4-1-2010 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by jdub297

 

Your leaders Rush and Beck, Sean and Savage love to trot out the dembs support "women killing babies" BS every chance they get and want abortion made a capital offense. Should I bring out the Palin youtube!!

And don't give me that BS that Rush and the rest of em aren't true conservatives. They are the mouth pieces for the GOP, TPM and the Religious Right.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by whaaa]

Uhhh i do not remember electing ANY of those people as leaders of the libertarian conservative movement. That is a weak straw-man argument perpetrated by the left to get you thinking that they are our leaders. They may claim to be our voice, but they are not MY voice and nobody elected them to this supposed roll of "leader."


You do realize that there are multiple forms of Conservatism right? In the case of this thread Conservatism refers to Constitutional Conservatism. It could also refer to libertarian Conservatism (which is what i personally believe it is referring to, please correct me if i am wrong Endisnighe).

There is...

Traditionalist conservatism
Liberal conservatism
Conservative liberalism
Libertarian conservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Social conservatism
Green conservatism
Cultural conservatism
Religious conservatism

Originally posted by DeathShield
There is...

Traditionalist conservatism
Liberal conservatism
Conservative liberalism
Libertarian conservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Social conservatism
Green conservatism
Cultural conservatism
Religious conservatism

Well, I am not classically trained in the nuances of political and socio-economic descriptions. Mainly what I have learned is through extensive reading of fiction, not non-fiction. I have only recently began investigating the non-fiction.

Labels are transitory in their nature. That is why I have never really called myself anything but conservative.

Now their are all types of different things that you bring up such as Social, Cultural, Religious, and Fiscal. Add to that political.

Come to think of it, I would probably label myself the wrong thing.

I believe what I believe. Actually some very liberal or progressive people here think I have a lot of similarities to the way they think things should be.

Let me give it a try. Politically conservative with libertarian leanings. Socially liberal, Fiscally Conservative with Austrian economic leanings, and Religiously Conservative and liberal.

I feel these labels are indicative to the problems in our countries structure and system.

I believe that gays should be allowed to join as a union, just not write the legislation as marriage, give it every right that a normal couple has just reserve the name marriage for a man and women.

Now for abortion, I do not believe in it except for rape, mother's health or incest. Now I do not believe their should be legislation against it, except for maybe late term abortion. I feel you cannot and should not try to legislate morals of any kind.

Any way, you see what I mean. Labels put me in a box, I do not like to be put in a box.

edit to answer the question-I believe the points I put together are Constitutionally Conservative with both Libertarian and Liberal leanings. I feel several of the points about like the clause on term limits and such could considered liberal/progressive just like the economic components and the libertarian components being the freedoms of rights. It is actually quite hard to put labels on what we do with any accuracy. Like I said labels are what the government uses to divide us.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by DeathShield


My compliments to you DS for not falling for the hate and vitriol that is being promoted by the Conservative talking heads. However they have a huge following and are a force to contend with.
Conservative radio dominates the AM dial. And if there is a violent revolution in this land, the blood will be on their hands.

www.stateofthemedia.org...

And correct about none of the Right Wing conservative media host being elected but they don't need to be elected to exert enormous influence on their devotees and greatly affect elections; [Or perhap cause a backlash as what seems to have happened in 2008]
Possibly much more than the elected Representatives.

Cudo's in that they don't speak for you but they do for Millions of US citizens.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by ziggystrange

Only the leftists are talking about the Conservatives starting a violent revolution, because they want the opportunity to crush them.

What the leftists fear most is a peaceful revolution like they had in East Germany and Czechoslovakia.