It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Right Wing Reverse Psychology Blame Game - The Left is always Responsible For All Bad Things Past Pr
page: 3share:
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Z - You just fail to comprehend the implications, and consequences of the things you support. State embargo is the only recourse your United fiefdoms would have, short of war in any dispute. You are completely blinded by your own zeal.
J - I am a strong advocate of revoking corporate charters from those corporations that have been endlessly guilty of malfeasance, but again the O.P. makes no argument as to why "un corporation of corporations" as he puts it, would be a bad thing. Un-incorporating a corporation, or more correctly revoking the charter granted to a corporation by legislation of a state is a right of the government and the U.S. being a government of the people by the people and for the people, it is the right of any person to petition for a revocation of corporate charter for any corporation that has willfully and recklessly disobeyed the law. Would the O.P. offer up the revocation of corporate charters as a shocking and deceptive method of politics and instead hail lawlessness as the preferred method?
Z Duh! the most obvious reason, is that most are publicly held. But that is just the dumbest of reasons against it. Read my piece on the global economy, as you should have before you came here and spouted your ill informed aspersions, and ridiculous theories. You don't get it. The sad part is you are intelligent, but your misguided and half baked ideas totally blind you. An idiot, I can excuse, but pal...
J - The last two charges the zealot strange levels against right wingers is the advocacy of confiscating publicly owned assets in the form of stocks and "canceling" the National debt...
Z - Not by a long shot. I have a whole new set based on your foray in the "Little conversation" thread. But let's finish this set first.
J - It is telling that the zealot who created this thread would gather and collect the ideology of zealots he opposes and lump them all together in this thread to attack right wing ideology. Never bothering to make clear why he opposes the ideas he hopes to shock the reader with as being unsound and reactionary ideas, and to be sure, some of them are, he instead just throws the ideas out there and expects all to agree with him.
Z - It was actually very easy since I got them all from just a smidgen of threads, and these ideas were all put together by the same people whom you seem to have a strong attraction to defend, and refine.
J - Indeed, when posters who did not necessarily agree with him but endeavored to point out that his complaint of lies and deception was equally balanced between both left and right, what does he do? He lies and say's "that's not true!" La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you la-la-la-la-la-la...how does he manage to type with both fingers planted so firmly in his ears?
Z - Well I was a little worried about you before, but by now you are degenerating exponentially. I will include in my index 3 lengthy conversations I had with people that strongly disagree with me. As you will see, they go just like this one. Point for point.
J - The O.P. goes on to imply that downplaying and eventually exiting from the U.N. would be a bad idea, as if most Americans love the U.N. and crave this new world order. He rants and rants and rants without ever bothering to explain why he views these charges he calls right wing agenda as being bad, and to be sure, some of the ideas he does rant against, I think are bad ideas, but that they are all right wing ideas is dubious at best, and I remain skeptical and since the O.P. feels no need to offer any reasoned argument against these ideas or why he believes them to be right wing ideas not at all belonging to left wing ideology, the reader is left with nothing but rant, rant, rant, and not very compelling rants at that.
Z - Your logic is failing you. You think they are bad ideas, but you don't like it when I say they are. Why? Because I say they are part of right wing ideology. Sorry JP but that is exactly right. It's a ridiculous idea. Go read them on the same thread I did. The OP is one of your proteges. Talk about ranting? I have seen almost nothing from you but rants. Yes you are more compelling your audience is partisan, and ......less than informed. I have no party to convince, I'm not trying to compel, rather expose you and your like minded friends.
J - On and on and on he goes spouting off ideas without defending his position that if I were to address each and every idea he lists, it would take me at least three more posts to do so and I am all ready in my third post now! I have taken the time to address some of the points he has listed to illustrate those I agree with and those I disagree with and to declare I am neither left nor right but endeavor to apply critical thinking to real world problems in an effort to find the best way to solve these problems. Does the zealot strange want to solve problems? Perhaps, but apparently his solution is to discredit the right through fallacious ranting and by default declare the left wing ideology to be that solution.
Z - I shuddered at the thought that you may place your attention on me, and my spouting. Your declarations fall on deaf ears. You have proven by your words to be the opposite of what you will claim. Par for the course in your camp. I have defended all my positions, unless the challenge came from an obviously idiotic poster. JP, I just sat back and watched you turn your attention to me, much like a predator stalks his prey. Patiently waiting for the formidable JPZ to come and confront me. I knew that you would.
[edit on 18-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 18-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
Z - You just fail to comprehend the implications, and consequences of the things you support. State embargo is the only recourse your United fiefdoms would have, short of war in any dispute. You are completely blinded by your own zeal.
J - I am a strong advocate of revoking corporate charters from those corporations that have been endlessly guilty of malfeasance, but again the O.P. makes no argument as to why "un corporation of corporations" as he puts it, would be a bad thing. Un-incorporating a corporation, or more correctly revoking the charter granted to a corporation by legislation of a state is a right of the government and the U.S. being a government of the people by the people and for the people, it is the right of any person to petition for a revocation of corporate charter for any corporation that has willfully and recklessly disobeyed the law. Would the O.P. offer up the revocation of corporate charters as a shocking and deceptive method of politics and instead hail lawlessness as the preferred method?
Z Duh! the most obvious reason, is that most are publicly held. But that is just the dumbest of reasons against it. Read my piece on the global economy, as you should have before you came here and spouted your ill informed aspersions, and ridiculous theories. You don't get it. The sad part is you are intelligent, but your misguided and half baked ideas totally blind you. An idiot, I can excuse, but pal...
J - The last two charges the zealot strange levels against right wingers is the advocacy of confiscating publicly owned assets in the form of stocks and "canceling" the National debt...
Z - Not by a long shot. I have a whole new set based on your foray in the "Little conversation" thread. But let's finish this set first.
J - It is telling that the zealot who created this thread would gather and collect the ideology of zealots he opposes and lump them all together in this thread to attack right wing ideology. Never bothering to make clear why he opposes the ideas he hopes to shock the reader with as being unsound and reactionary ideas, and to be sure, some of them are, he instead just throws the ideas out there and expects all to agree with him.
Z - It was actually very easy since I got them all from just a smidgen of threads, and these ideas were all put together by the same people whom you seem to have a strong attraction to defend, and refine.
J - Indeed, when posters who did not necessarily agree with him but endeavored to point out that his complaint of lies and deception was equally balanced between both left and right, what does he do? He lies and say's "that's not true!" La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you la-la-la-la-la-la...how does he manage to type with both fingers planted so firmly in his ears?
Z - Well I was a little worried about you before, but by now you are degenerating exponentially. I will include in my index 3 lengthy conversations I had with people that strongly disagree with me. As you will see, they go just like this one. Point for point.
J - The O.P. goes on to imply that downplaying and eventually exiting from the U.N. would be a bad idea, as if most Americans love the U.N. and crave this new world order. He rants and rants and rants without ever bothering to explain why he views these charges he calls right wing agenda as being bad, and to be sure, some of the ideas he does rant against, I think are bad ideas, but that they are all right wing ideas is dubious at best, and I remain skeptical and since the O.P. feels no need to offer any reasoned argument against these ideas or why he believes them to be right wing ideas not at all belonging to left wing ideology, the reader is left with nothing but rant, rant, rant, and not very compelling rants at that.
Z - Your logic is failing you. You think they are bad ideas, but you don't like it when I say they are. Why? Because I say they are part of right wing ideology. Sorry JP but that is exactly right. It's a ridiculous idea. Go read them on the same thread I did. The OP is one of your proteges. Talk about ranting? I have seen almost nothing from you but rants. Yes you are more compelling your audience is partisan, and ......less than informed. I have no party to convince, I'm not trying to compel, rather expose you and your like minded friends.
J - On and on and on he goes spouting off ideas without defending his position that if I were to address each and every idea he lists, it would take me at least three more posts to do so and I am all ready in my third post now! I have taken the time to address some of the points he has listed to illustrate those I agree with and those I disagree with and to declare I am neither left nor right but endeavor to apply critical thinking to real world problems in an effort to find the best way to solve these problems. Does the zealot strange want to solve problems? Perhaps, but apparently his solution is to discredit the right through fallacious ranting and by default declare the left wing ideology to be that solution.
Z - I shuddered at the thought that you may place your attention on me, and my spouting. Your declarations fall on deaf ears. You have proven by your words to be the opposite of what you will claim. Par for the course in your camp. I have defended all my positions, unless the challenge came from an obviously idiotic poster. JP, I just sat back and watched you turn your attention to me, much like a predator stalks his prey. Patiently waiting for the formidable JPZ to come and confront me. I knew that you would.
[edit on 18-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 18-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
G Gordon Liddy on Obama
Pat Buchanan on a few things
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
G Gordon Liddy on Obama
Pat Buchanan on a few things
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
J - He accuses the right of making up history ignoring and denying that the left will do the same thing and he himself offering no evidence of historical knowledge what so ever. He finally asks the reader what you think and asks if it is only the internet that buys into right wing ideology, never allowing for any reality that supposes there is plenty of left wing ideology not just in this site, but all over the internet, and asks if large groups of people outside of internet users buys into what he calls crap, as if his thread was something of a sweeter smelling manure.
Z - Leaving out scatology, and evidence, you repeated my questions.
J - You want divisiveness and argument, Mr. Strange? Fine, but why not let's take the tone down a notch and engage in reasoned debate and apply a certain amount of civility to that debate? If you want to claim the mantle of intellectualism then act intellectually and less emotionally. If you want us to accept you as erudite and well versed in critical thinking then earn that respect and offer us sound reason and at least some semblance of syllogistic logic. Is that too much to ask?
Z - I want the attempts to obfuscate, dodge, lie, and deceive to stop. I don't want divisiveness, I want to stop you from dividing the country into little tyrannical communities.
As to my intellect, I can only work with what I have, thus far, it has served me well. I don't have your emotional temperament JP. I try to control my outbursts, as best I can. So far my number of deleted posts is very low. Who is it you represent that I want to accept me? A bunch of deluded pseudo revolutionaries? I'll pass.
As to debating you? If I feel so inclined I will. You are free to act as you like.
You believe after this little rant of yours I owe you a debt of honor? You are sorely mistaken.
Index in ensuing posts.
A Welcome to The Real World of Virginia - by George Allen
George Allen Lies on Meet The Press
Obama is a Terrorist
These are some illustrations of the blame game.
All it's components are relevant. You have here and in the following posts a number of videos that are the non ATS component, so as to keep a rich set of reference material to weigh the value of my claims.
Feel free to find Democrats, and liberal people doing the same. Now the same people rigth wing people bashing Bush does not count.
Let's be fair. You can only contrast Liberals and Democrats against the ones I put up.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
J - He accuses the right of making up history ignoring and denying that the left will do the same thing and he himself offering no evidence of historical knowledge what so ever. He finally asks the reader what you think and asks if it is only the internet that buys into right wing ideology, never allowing for any reality that supposes there is plenty of left wing ideology not just in this site, but all over the internet, and asks if large groups of people outside of internet users buys into what he calls crap, as if his thread was something of a sweeter smelling manure.
Z - Leaving out scatology, and evidence, you repeated my questions.
J - You want divisiveness and argument, Mr. Strange? Fine, but why not let's take the tone down a notch and engage in reasoned debate and apply a certain amount of civility to that debate? If you want to claim the mantle of intellectualism then act intellectually and less emotionally. If you want us to accept you as erudite and well versed in critical thinking then earn that respect and offer us sound reason and at least some semblance of syllogistic logic. Is that too much to ask?
Z - I want the attempts to obfuscate, dodge, lie, and deceive to stop. I don't want divisiveness, I want to stop you from dividing the country into little tyrannical communities.
As to my intellect, I can only work with what I have, thus far, it has served me well. I don't have your emotional temperament JP. I try to control my outbursts, as best I can. So far my number of deleted posts is very low. Who is it you represent that I want to accept me? A bunch of deluded pseudo revolutionaries? I'll pass.
As to debating you? If I feel so inclined I will. You are free to act as you like.
You believe after this little rant of yours I owe you a debt of honor? You are sorely mistaken.
Index in ensuing posts.
A Welcome to The Real World of Virginia - by George Allen
George Allen Lies on Meet The Press
Obama is a Terrorist
These are some illustrations of the blame game.
All it's components are relevant. You have here and in the following posts a number of videos that are the non ATS component, so as to keep a rich set of reference material to weigh the value of my claims.
Feel free to find Democrats, and liberal people doing the same. Now the same people rigth wing people bashing Bush does not count.
Let's be fair. You can only contrast Liberals and Democrats against the ones I put up.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
The second American Revolution - Tea Party
From You Tube
Bob Basso author of "Common Sense" plays the role of Thomas Paine to ignite the fire of change in America. Patriotism and Pride for America lead Thomas Paine to help take back America!
Link Here
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
From You Tube
Bob Basso author of "Common Sense" plays the role of Thomas Paine to ignite the fire of change in America. Patriotism and Pride for America lead Thomas Paine to help take back America!
Link Here
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
reply to post by ziggystrange
In the arguments I originally posted in this thread, I ended my arguments asking the zealot strange if he was willing to earn the respect he so clearly thinks he deserves. I asked him if instead of engaging in the politics of divisiveness and blame, he could instead just offer sound reasons as to why he opposes those he labels as "the right" and rely upon the more reliable tools of debate such as syllogistic logic. What was his response? Well, of course, if you are reading this far, then you have read his response.
The O.P. has made it perfectly clear that he has no intentions of actually debating the issues, only smugly asserting that if he were so inclined to do so, he would. Ah, but if only he could. For it is in debate, that the civil discourse of disagreement can flourish where wiser men will find common ground, but the zealot strange has no desire to find common ground with people he so clearly reviles. With people he so clearly despises, and will show his own willful intolerance by engaging in name calling and ad hominem attacks on those he believe have no right to an opinion.
The zealot strange has declared himself, self righteously so, the moral arbiter of all that is good and just, not by offering sound reason and inarguable logic, but simply by declaring those he opposes wrong, and in his own deluded state, by default he is right. But is he right? Does not this zealot have every bit of a right to state his opinion as the zealots he opposes? Well, of course he does! Here is the absolute beauty of liberty and freedom. That every man and woman, regardless of their race, creed or code can advocate their beliefs openly and without abrogation or derogation to their unalienable right to do so. However, having the right to express an opinion does not by nature of that right, make them right in their arguments, if this is what one would call this zealot strange's invectives.
This liberty, however, is not a freedom that the zealot strange advocates. Indeed, he has gleefully declared that I belong in prison! Why? Why does this strange and spiteful zealot think I belong in prison? Why, for expressing the ideas and values I hold dear openly and without fear of censorship, this is why. True to his leftist ideology, he declares I belong in prison because I have advocated revolution. (Gasp!) How dare I advocate change. This strange and incomprehensibly hateful person would have me imprisoned for wanting to change the tyranny of elitist souls who deem themselves better than the average Joe, average Joe's that the O.P. gleefully and without shame refers to as "a community of simpletons" and "knuckle dragging Patriot puppet toys".
The O.P. has opened this thread in a pitiful attempt to "expose" the lies, deceit and revisionist history of "the right", while himself lovingly embracing mendacity in order to declare himself right. He hopes to rely upon the word revolution to shock and disturb, somehow believing that revolution necessarily means violence. It is a lie to assert that advocacy of change means advocacy of violence.
No doubt, there have been those, many of whom hold values and ideas that I openly advocate, who are advocating violence. I am not one, however, who believes that violence is the only answer, not one who believes that now is the time for violence, and in my strong belief that revolution can happen through peaceful means, I have insisted that reasonable discourse and calmer heads will prevail. The zealot strange has acknowledged I have done this, but what is his own assessment of my appeal to reason and civil discourse? Why, he declare it delusional!
It is necessary that the O.P. continue to frame revolution as synonymous with violence because he has no rebuttal, no considered response to reason and logic and can only hope to shock and disturb you the reader, those he believe are simpletons' and of "lesser intelligence" than he, hoping that your own reasonable nature will fall prey to his sensationalism. Ironically, it is he who suggests I am delusional, and while he will admit and acknowledge that I openly and consistently call for a peaceful solution, he attempts to imply that I do so out of disingenuous strategy.
The O.P. would have you the reader believe that it is he who calls for peace, yet no where in this thread is there any evidence of that. On the contrary, this strange and self declared monitor of dangerous posters, has willingly and admittedly opened this thread to foment further divisiveness and to provoke those "bottom feeders" into violently reacting. He does this because he no more advocates peace than those he takes to task. It is not he calling for a more a reasoned debate, he would rather act as some internet enforcer, some technological prosecutor of those he disagrees with.
Why does this Ziggy Strange believe that by calling those he opposes, "a community of simpletons" and "knuckle dragging Patriot puppet toys" and "bottom feeders", is appropriate? Because he has no intentions at all of appealing to reason and would rather engage in fallacious hyperbole as a method of exercising his own right to free expression. With no regard at all nor any willingness to acknowledge that those he opposes would willingly fight and die, indeed there have been many throughout history who have, for him to have this right to hurl shameful invectives at those he opposes, instead he insists that those who would fight for his rights, want to remove these rights.
I have relied upon my natural right to respond to this O.P.'s assertion that those he opposes are liars, by insisting that he himself is a liar, and in response to my posts the O.P. returns the accusations and now calls me a liar. The both of us can go back and forth calling each other liars in a tedious display of emotion, or we can settle this argument like reasonable men will, and discuss our differences with intelligence and calm. Of course, the O.P. has promised to prove his assertions of deceit by quoting directly those he claims are liars, from extracting their posts from other threads, he being the self appointed monitor of right wing liars, but of course, has thus far failed to do so, only because he has been to busy calling those he oppose liars and simpletons and knuckle dragging Patriot puppet toys of whom he views as bottom feeders.
Enough of this silly name calling Ziggy! If you have ideas that you believe are solutions to this great divide that threatens to explode into violence sometime down the future then for God's sake declare them! Instead of viciously attacking those you oppose, offer reasons as to why you oppose them! Or, would you insist that this was not at all the purpose of this thread and that you only opened it to provoke and to push emotional buttons? Indeed, you have openly admitted this is your cause, pretending you have some how brilliantly laid a trap to ensnare myself and others of whom you relish to taunt.
Taunting is a childish and mindless game played by those incapable of intelligently discussing their own ideas, if indeed you have any ideas outside of laying pointless traps to show the world what an effective monitor you are. If we are at war with each other Ziggy Strange, then it is a war of ideas, and this war will not be brought to any resolution through foolish barbs and silly taunts. You have smugly declared that you are not, at least at this moment, so inclined to engage in civil discourse, but I entreat you reconsider your ill conceived strategy and make the attempt to discuss the issues, to analyze the options and to learn to accept those whom you disagree with are no less your brothers and sisters, than those you wish to impress.
If you are so opposed to violence, Strange, then drop the provocations and embrace the wisdom of peace, and attempt civil discourse!
In the arguments I originally posted in this thread, I ended my arguments asking the zealot strange if he was willing to earn the respect he so clearly thinks he deserves. I asked him if instead of engaging in the politics of divisiveness and blame, he could instead just offer sound reasons as to why he opposes those he labels as "the right" and rely upon the more reliable tools of debate such as syllogistic logic. What was his response? Well, of course, if you are reading this far, then you have read his response.
The O.P. has made it perfectly clear that he has no intentions of actually debating the issues, only smugly asserting that if he were so inclined to do so, he would. Ah, but if only he could. For it is in debate, that the civil discourse of disagreement can flourish where wiser men will find common ground, but the zealot strange has no desire to find common ground with people he so clearly reviles. With people he so clearly despises, and will show his own willful intolerance by engaging in name calling and ad hominem attacks on those he believe have no right to an opinion.
The zealot strange has declared himself, self righteously so, the moral arbiter of all that is good and just, not by offering sound reason and inarguable logic, but simply by declaring those he opposes wrong, and in his own deluded state, by default he is right. But is he right? Does not this zealot have every bit of a right to state his opinion as the zealots he opposes? Well, of course he does! Here is the absolute beauty of liberty and freedom. That every man and woman, regardless of their race, creed or code can advocate their beliefs openly and without abrogation or derogation to their unalienable right to do so. However, having the right to express an opinion does not by nature of that right, make them right in their arguments, if this is what one would call this zealot strange's invectives.
This liberty, however, is not a freedom that the zealot strange advocates. Indeed, he has gleefully declared that I belong in prison! Why? Why does this strange and spiteful zealot think I belong in prison? Why, for expressing the ideas and values I hold dear openly and without fear of censorship, this is why. True to his leftist ideology, he declares I belong in prison because I have advocated revolution. (Gasp!) How dare I advocate change. This strange and incomprehensibly hateful person would have me imprisoned for wanting to change the tyranny of elitist souls who deem themselves better than the average Joe, average Joe's that the O.P. gleefully and without shame refers to as "a community of simpletons" and "knuckle dragging Patriot puppet toys".
The O.P. has opened this thread in a pitiful attempt to "expose" the lies, deceit and revisionist history of "the right", while himself lovingly embracing mendacity in order to declare himself right. He hopes to rely upon the word revolution to shock and disturb, somehow believing that revolution necessarily means violence. It is a lie to assert that advocacy of change means advocacy of violence.
No doubt, there have been those, many of whom hold values and ideas that I openly advocate, who are advocating violence. I am not one, however, who believes that violence is the only answer, not one who believes that now is the time for violence, and in my strong belief that revolution can happen through peaceful means, I have insisted that reasonable discourse and calmer heads will prevail. The zealot strange has acknowledged I have done this, but what is his own assessment of my appeal to reason and civil discourse? Why, he declare it delusional!
It is necessary that the O.P. continue to frame revolution as synonymous with violence because he has no rebuttal, no considered response to reason and logic and can only hope to shock and disturb you the reader, those he believe are simpletons' and of "lesser intelligence" than he, hoping that your own reasonable nature will fall prey to his sensationalism. Ironically, it is he who suggests I am delusional, and while he will admit and acknowledge that I openly and consistently call for a peaceful solution, he attempts to imply that I do so out of disingenuous strategy.
The O.P. would have you the reader believe that it is he who calls for peace, yet no where in this thread is there any evidence of that. On the contrary, this strange and self declared monitor of dangerous posters, has willingly and admittedly opened this thread to foment further divisiveness and to provoke those "bottom feeders" into violently reacting. He does this because he no more advocates peace than those he takes to task. It is not he calling for a more a reasoned debate, he would rather act as some internet enforcer, some technological prosecutor of those he disagrees with.
Why does this Ziggy Strange believe that by calling those he opposes, "a community of simpletons" and "knuckle dragging Patriot puppet toys" and "bottom feeders", is appropriate? Because he has no intentions at all of appealing to reason and would rather engage in fallacious hyperbole as a method of exercising his own right to free expression. With no regard at all nor any willingness to acknowledge that those he opposes would willingly fight and die, indeed there have been many throughout history who have, for him to have this right to hurl shameful invectives at those he opposes, instead he insists that those who would fight for his rights, want to remove these rights.
I have relied upon my natural right to respond to this O.P.'s assertion that those he opposes are liars, by insisting that he himself is a liar, and in response to my posts the O.P. returns the accusations and now calls me a liar. The both of us can go back and forth calling each other liars in a tedious display of emotion, or we can settle this argument like reasonable men will, and discuss our differences with intelligence and calm. Of course, the O.P. has promised to prove his assertions of deceit by quoting directly those he claims are liars, from extracting their posts from other threads, he being the self appointed monitor of right wing liars, but of course, has thus far failed to do so, only because he has been to busy calling those he oppose liars and simpletons and knuckle dragging Patriot puppet toys of whom he views as bottom feeders.
Enough of this silly name calling Ziggy! If you have ideas that you believe are solutions to this great divide that threatens to explode into violence sometime down the future then for God's sake declare them! Instead of viciously attacking those you oppose, offer reasons as to why you oppose them! Or, would you insist that this was not at all the purpose of this thread and that you only opened it to provoke and to push emotional buttons? Indeed, you have openly admitted this is your cause, pretending you have some how brilliantly laid a trap to ensnare myself and others of whom you relish to taunt.
Taunting is a childish and mindless game played by those incapable of intelligently discussing their own ideas, if indeed you have any ideas outside of laying pointless traps to show the world what an effective monitor you are. If we are at war with each other Ziggy Strange, then it is a war of ideas, and this war will not be brought to any resolution through foolish barbs and silly taunts. You have smugly declared that you are not, at least at this moment, so inclined to engage in civil discourse, but I entreat you reconsider your ill conceived strategy and make the attempt to discuss the issues, to analyze the options and to learn to accept those whom you disagree with are no less your brothers and sisters, than those you wish to impress.
If you are so opposed to violence, Strange, then drop the provocations and embrace the wisdom of peace, and attempt civil discourse!
If a right winger shot a left winger, it wouldn't be the rights fault (in their mind), it would be the left winged guy's fault for not dodging the
bullet.
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Jean Paul,
I'm operating on my schedule.
I decided to show you, since you did not bother to read the threads.
These ATS links, not the video links, will address your claim that I'm just shooting blanks into the night sky, hoping to scare a duck to death.
I will also present my solutions at the right time.
You won't like them.
You ask for civil discourse, yet continue the same insinuations, name calling, jabs, and barbs you object to my using.
You say stupid, I say simpleton, what's the difference? What's more you started the name calling. So stop protesting and deal with it. You started the fight. Fair or dirty was up to you. Practice what you preach, I may respond in kind. I have before.
You came out of the gate in full charge. There was no substance in most of what you said, except in saying I don't know what you self identify as.
Post away if you want to. I'll get back when I'm ready.
Here are some video links to tide you over.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
Jean Paul,
I'm operating on my schedule.
I decided to show you, since you did not bother to read the threads.
These ATS links, not the video links, will address your claim that I'm just shooting blanks into the night sky, hoping to scare a duck to death.
I will also present my solutions at the right time.
You won't like them.
You ask for civil discourse, yet continue the same insinuations, name calling, jabs, and barbs you object to my using.
You say stupid, I say simpleton, what's the difference? What's more you started the name calling. So stop protesting and deal with it. You started the fight. Fair or dirty was up to you. Practice what you preach, I may respond in kind. I have before.
You came out of the gate in full charge. There was no substance in most of what you said, except in saying I don't know what you self identify as.
Post away if you want to. I'll get back when I'm ready.
Here are some video links to tide you over.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
Top Tea Party Member holding questionable sign.
Dale Robertson - Claims to be President and Founder of the Tea Party.
Link
From the article Source Pensito Review
Quote
The photo was taken in Houston on Feb. 27, 2009.
Robertson is the operator of the Tea Party website (teaparty.org). Here’s what he wrote about himself on the website’s “About Us” page:
A Word From The Founder;
Dale Robertson is a man of courage and conviction, a rare commodity in today’s topsy-turvy world. Dale, is the Founder of the modern day Tea Party and also President of TeaParty.org
Dale Robertson, a public speaker, a family man with a wife and 5 children, has lead [sic] Tea Party rallies across America from its inception.
A little later, Robertson talks about this educational background:
Dale Roberson’s academic background includes extended training in theology, as well as excelling in the field of Engineering at Southwest College, San Diego, California. He went on to earn a second degree in Political Science at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
End Quote
Death Panels
A Celebration of Trent Lott - You tube video
Link
A Patriot
On Republican Lies
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
Dale Robertson - Claims to be President and Founder of the Tea Party.
Link
From the article Source Pensito Review
Quote
The photo was taken in Houston on Feb. 27, 2009.
Robertson is the operator of the Tea Party website (teaparty.org). Here’s what he wrote about himself on the website’s “About Us” page:
A Word From The Founder;
Dale Robertson is a man of courage and conviction, a rare commodity in today’s topsy-turvy world. Dale, is the Founder of the modern day Tea Party and also President of TeaParty.org
Dale Robertson, a public speaker, a family man with a wife and 5 children, has lead [sic] Tea Party rallies across America from its inception.
A little later, Robertson talks about this educational background:
Dale Roberson’s academic background includes extended training in theology, as well as excelling in the field of Engineering at Southwest College, San Diego, California. He went on to earn a second degree in Political Science at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
End Quote
Death Panels
A Celebration of Trent Lott - You tube video
Link
A Patriot
On Republican Lies
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
Start of reference for the OP's premise.
Threads to be used
My first thread
posted on 1-1-2010 @ 06:38 PM
ATTENTION Patriots / Birthers / Teabaggers / Whomever - If you did get your Revolution, Then What?
I created this thread to hear what everyone had to offer if the Revolution that they wish for came to pass, and what they would do.
It was inferred that the thread title was biased.
I created this thread.
Hypothetically Speaking You Want a Revolution - State Your Case
A few people posted there. People kept posting on the first thread.
Endisnighe the spun off this thread as his response to my first thread. I later asked and he confirmed, it was his answers, he just had some folks make suggestions to him.
Endisnighe 1
Most of the points were posted for discussion on my first thread later.
The ensuing firefight which you were a part of, was at least a partial reason for the creation of this thread by Endisnighe
Labels and the BOX they put us in!
Later, endisnighe created
A little discussion about Revolution and the Declaration of Independance
I created
Obama Weighs Fee to Recoup Bank Bailout and Cut Deficit
Start of reference conversation 1. Ownbestenemy a very civil discussion.
Post in Thread
Which led to my discussion on The Global Economy, and Government as social engineering tool with an example. I do present my qualifications.
This is by way of explaining why all the schemes you and others propose are based on lack of knowledge of Economics, and the nature of interrelation and Global flow of assets and values. Most of the proposed "changes" would cause a catastrophe. Explain it away if you can.
As well as how little people know about how things actually work.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
Threads to be used
My first thread
posted on 1-1-2010 @ 06:38 PM
ATTENTION Patriots / Birthers / Teabaggers / Whomever - If you did get your Revolution, Then What?
I created this thread to hear what everyone had to offer if the Revolution that they wish for came to pass, and what they would do.
It was inferred that the thread title was biased.
I created this thread.
Hypothetically Speaking You Want a Revolution - State Your Case
A few people posted there. People kept posting on the first thread.
Endisnighe the spun off this thread as his response to my first thread. I later asked and he confirmed, it was his answers, he just had some folks make suggestions to him.
Endisnighe 1
Most of the points were posted for discussion on my first thread later.
The ensuing firefight which you were a part of, was at least a partial reason for the creation of this thread by Endisnighe
Labels and the BOX they put us in!
Later, endisnighe created
A little discussion about Revolution and the Declaration of Independance
I created
Obama Weighs Fee to Recoup Bank Bailout and Cut Deficit
Start of reference conversation 1. Ownbestenemy a very civil discussion.
Post in Thread
Which led to my discussion on The Global Economy, and Government as social engineering tool with an example. I do present my qualifications.
This is by way of explaining why all the schemes you and others propose are based on lack of knowledge of Economics, and the nature of interrelation and Global flow of assets and values. Most of the proposed "changes" would cause a catastrophe. Explain it away if you can.
As well as how little people know about how things actually work.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
My second and very telling thread.
Notice nobody came, except two progressives, with constructive things to say.
You are POTUS - Take the Bully Pulpit and Show Us The Way
I consider this thread a success, it proves a point. Nobody really wants the job. Too much thinking.
Later Jaundice posted his first thread, rigth after he signed up
President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors
Here you will see a long conversation about ideology,
and propaganda.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
Notice nobody came, except two progressives, with constructive things to say.
You are POTUS - Take the Bully Pulpit and Show Us The Way
I consider this thread a success, it proves a point. Nobody really wants the job. Too much thinking.
Later Jaundice posted his first thread, rigth after he signed up
President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors
Here you will see a long conversation about ideology,
and propaganda.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
reply to post by ziggystrange
And once again the zealot strange refuses to engage in reason! Claiming, incorrectly so, that I started the name calling! Unless of course, he believes my usage of the term zealot is name calling. He claims to be aware of my posts and what I advocate, and if he were then he would know that I consistently advocate the free people should jealously and zealously guard their rights. Thus, when I refer to another as a zealot, I am not offering it up as a pejorative, but merely calling another on their own dogmatism, not passing any judgment on dogmatism itself, simply illustrating that there is a difference between his dogma and my own.
The O.P. insists that I came out of the gate charging in a thread he created, that immediately calls those he opposes liars, deceivers and revisionists. It is more game playing by a user incapable of defending ideas, and only interested in provocations. He claims he will present solutions "when the time is right" and apparently before that time is "right" he needs more time to taunt and engage in childish behavior. He further claims I won't like his solutions, apparently unaware of the fact that if I wont like them, I will not be so inclined to see them as solutions. But the O.P. does not care if the so called "solutions" he has to offer are acceptable to others, as he does not believe in freedom and natural rights.
Indeed, earlier when responding to my posts he asked me why I see the 14th Amendment as arrogant and unfortunate only to then turn around and engage in his own arrogance and answer his own question! Here is what the Ziggy Strange says:
"Z - You start to unravel here JP. Like anything else there are parameters. But let's talk about your characterization of the 14th Amendment. Why arrogant? Why unfortunate. Unfortunate for whom? Whites? Arrogant how? Because it gave Black peolple what they should have had to begin with? Like I said your own words betray you for the depth of your bigotry."
Typical of his debating style, he claims I start to unravel at this point without explaining why. Instead what he attempt to do is characterize me as a racist for declaring the 14th Amendment as arrogant and unfortunate, through the insinuation of questions, asking if I think it is an unfortunate piece of legislation for white people. Well, allow me to answer your question Ziggy. No, it is not unfortunate for just one race of people, it is unfortunate for all races of people. Why? Well, you answer that yourself with your next question. Again, typical of the left, they view you the readers natural born rights as something that can be given by government, and here in lies the arrogance of such a thought.
Rights that can be given can be taken away. This is why the Founders of the United States were careful to declare rights inalienable. What is inalienable is non negotiable and can not be declared a privilege granted by government or other people. The 14th Amendment, much like Ziggy Strange, arrogantly deigns to grant rights to people who all ready had those rights to begin with! The O.P. hopes to frame me as a "bigot" because I have the audacity to assert that those who were unjustly held as slaves possessed the very same inalienable rights as anyone else and did not need an Amendment to grant them rights that their slave owners all ready enjoyed. This is the unfortunate nature and arrogance of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunate because it is used by posters such as Ziggy Strange to imply that rights can be given by government.
Indeed, earlier in his supposed rebuttals that show how I "unravel", he presumes to take me to task over the 13th Amendment. Ignoring the fact, that I had stated that there is nothing at all wrong with the 13th Amendment as it stands today, instead he wishes to smugly declare me ignorant because I have no idea what this ranting and goings on in terms of some "original" 13th Amendment, that Ziggy claims grants titles of nobility. He feels justified in dismissing my own intelligence because I am ignorant to this debate about an "original" 13th Amendment, ignoring all together, that I showed strong support for the 13th Amendment as written!
Why do I fully support the 13th Amendment as it stands today? Because it prohibits the reprehensible act of slavery, plain and simple. Perhaps I should have clarified that in my original post, and perhaps I should not have assumed that Ziggy Strange was civil enough and reasonable enough to understand this, but as it is becoming painfully clear, Ziggy Strange is not at all interested in being reasonable.
In fact, when I ask the O.P., in response to his baiting and taunting over immigration, if he would deny that nations have the right to protect their own borders, I did most diligently clarify that I myself was not an advocate of halting immigration. I went further to state that I loathe this popular phrasing of "illegal immigrant", of which Ziggy himself was comfortable in using. I made it clear, as is consistent with my ideology, that I fail to see how any person can be deemed "illegal" simply by the circumstance of where they reside. Even so, how does the Ziggy Strange respond to my question and assertion? Let's quote the O.P. again:
"Z- Oh! Tthe horror! The calumny I perpetrate by stating the obvious. In the context it is discussed and given the causation mechanism that drives it, it is immoral, and reprehensible what you profess. You are claiming you have no knowledge of the threads and posters that specifically triggered this thread. You truly have no idea how transparent you are. A good thing as it portends how effective your "Fight Club" Jingo fantasy revolution will be."
In what context is Ziggy referring to, even given the causation mechanism that drives it, that it would be "immoral, and reprehensible what I profess?" What have I professed but declaring that people can't be labeled "illegal"? Is it immoral and reprehensible to ask the O.P. if nations have a right to protect their borders? Is it immoral and reprehensible that I myself do not advocate any halting of immigration? What in God's name is this ranter going on about?
Let's be clear here. This O.P. makes wild and bold accusations, declaring that I belong in prison, asserting that he can prove his claims but so far has proven nothing. While he capriciously and willfully lumps all he disagrees with as "right wing" ideology using sweeping generalizations to categorically indict the right, when I do the same and point to how the left loves to use the term "homegrown terrorist" and point to anomalies like Timothy McVeigh he responds:
"Z - That's a flat out lie, I never mentioned McVeigh, or Islamic terrorists. I do maintain that the your ideology, and that of your group of fans is a mish mash of fragments of failed social experiments, and most if not all of them are diametrically opposed to Liberty. A term you don't understand. If you do then you are a traitor, and a propagandist with a destructive agenda."
Calling me a liar because he himself has never used McVeigh, or Islamic terrorists, and goes further to call me a traitor! Insisting I am diametrically opposed to liberty, but in all these accusations, he can only claim to have evidence to prove this, of which he will reveal "at a later date" on his terms because he has a schedule he is following.
When I, in my original posts, took the left to task for calling the right war mongers, and pointing out that it was left wing Presidents who presided over the majority of wars fought by the U.S. and that it was Nixon who pulled us out of Vietnam, he responds in typical fashion. That response I will have to post in the next field as I am out of space in this one.
Continued....
[edit on 19-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
And once again the zealot strange refuses to engage in reason! Claiming, incorrectly so, that I started the name calling! Unless of course, he believes my usage of the term zealot is name calling. He claims to be aware of my posts and what I advocate, and if he were then he would know that I consistently advocate the free people should jealously and zealously guard their rights. Thus, when I refer to another as a zealot, I am not offering it up as a pejorative, but merely calling another on their own dogmatism, not passing any judgment on dogmatism itself, simply illustrating that there is a difference between his dogma and my own.
The O.P. insists that I came out of the gate charging in a thread he created, that immediately calls those he opposes liars, deceivers and revisionists. It is more game playing by a user incapable of defending ideas, and only interested in provocations. He claims he will present solutions "when the time is right" and apparently before that time is "right" he needs more time to taunt and engage in childish behavior. He further claims I won't like his solutions, apparently unaware of the fact that if I wont like them, I will not be so inclined to see them as solutions. But the O.P. does not care if the so called "solutions" he has to offer are acceptable to others, as he does not believe in freedom and natural rights.
Indeed, earlier when responding to my posts he asked me why I see the 14th Amendment as arrogant and unfortunate only to then turn around and engage in his own arrogance and answer his own question! Here is what the Ziggy Strange says:
"Z - You start to unravel here JP. Like anything else there are parameters. But let's talk about your characterization of the 14th Amendment. Why arrogant? Why unfortunate. Unfortunate for whom? Whites? Arrogant how? Because it gave Black peolple what they should have had to begin with? Like I said your own words betray you for the depth of your bigotry."
Typical of his debating style, he claims I start to unravel at this point without explaining why. Instead what he attempt to do is characterize me as a racist for declaring the 14th Amendment as arrogant and unfortunate, through the insinuation of questions, asking if I think it is an unfortunate piece of legislation for white people. Well, allow me to answer your question Ziggy. No, it is not unfortunate for just one race of people, it is unfortunate for all races of people. Why? Well, you answer that yourself with your next question. Again, typical of the left, they view you the readers natural born rights as something that can be given by government, and here in lies the arrogance of such a thought.
Rights that can be given can be taken away. This is why the Founders of the United States were careful to declare rights inalienable. What is inalienable is non negotiable and can not be declared a privilege granted by government or other people. The 14th Amendment, much like Ziggy Strange, arrogantly deigns to grant rights to people who all ready had those rights to begin with! The O.P. hopes to frame me as a "bigot" because I have the audacity to assert that those who were unjustly held as slaves possessed the very same inalienable rights as anyone else and did not need an Amendment to grant them rights that their slave owners all ready enjoyed. This is the unfortunate nature and arrogance of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunate because it is used by posters such as Ziggy Strange to imply that rights can be given by government.
Indeed, earlier in his supposed rebuttals that show how I "unravel", he presumes to take me to task over the 13th Amendment. Ignoring the fact, that I had stated that there is nothing at all wrong with the 13th Amendment as it stands today, instead he wishes to smugly declare me ignorant because I have no idea what this ranting and goings on in terms of some "original" 13th Amendment, that Ziggy claims grants titles of nobility. He feels justified in dismissing my own intelligence because I am ignorant to this debate about an "original" 13th Amendment, ignoring all together, that I showed strong support for the 13th Amendment as written!
Why do I fully support the 13th Amendment as it stands today? Because it prohibits the reprehensible act of slavery, plain and simple. Perhaps I should have clarified that in my original post, and perhaps I should not have assumed that Ziggy Strange was civil enough and reasonable enough to understand this, but as it is becoming painfully clear, Ziggy Strange is not at all interested in being reasonable.
In fact, when I ask the O.P., in response to his baiting and taunting over immigration, if he would deny that nations have the right to protect their own borders, I did most diligently clarify that I myself was not an advocate of halting immigration. I went further to state that I loathe this popular phrasing of "illegal immigrant", of which Ziggy himself was comfortable in using. I made it clear, as is consistent with my ideology, that I fail to see how any person can be deemed "illegal" simply by the circumstance of where they reside. Even so, how does the Ziggy Strange respond to my question and assertion? Let's quote the O.P. again:
"Z- Oh! Tthe horror! The calumny I perpetrate by stating the obvious. In the context it is discussed and given the causation mechanism that drives it, it is immoral, and reprehensible what you profess. You are claiming you have no knowledge of the threads and posters that specifically triggered this thread. You truly have no idea how transparent you are. A good thing as it portends how effective your "Fight Club" Jingo fantasy revolution will be."
In what context is Ziggy referring to, even given the causation mechanism that drives it, that it would be "immoral, and reprehensible what I profess?" What have I professed but declaring that people can't be labeled "illegal"? Is it immoral and reprehensible to ask the O.P. if nations have a right to protect their borders? Is it immoral and reprehensible that I myself do not advocate any halting of immigration? What in God's name is this ranter going on about?
Let's be clear here. This O.P. makes wild and bold accusations, declaring that I belong in prison, asserting that he can prove his claims but so far has proven nothing. While he capriciously and willfully lumps all he disagrees with as "right wing" ideology using sweeping generalizations to categorically indict the right, when I do the same and point to how the left loves to use the term "homegrown terrorist" and point to anomalies like Timothy McVeigh he responds:
"Z - That's a flat out lie, I never mentioned McVeigh, or Islamic terrorists. I do maintain that the your ideology, and that of your group of fans is a mish mash of fragments of failed social experiments, and most if not all of them are diametrically opposed to Liberty. A term you don't understand. If you do then you are a traitor, and a propagandist with a destructive agenda."
Calling me a liar because he himself has never used McVeigh, or Islamic terrorists, and goes further to call me a traitor! Insisting I am diametrically opposed to liberty, but in all these accusations, he can only claim to have evidence to prove this, of which he will reveal "at a later date" on his terms because he has a schedule he is following.
When I, in my original posts, took the left to task for calling the right war mongers, and pointing out that it was left wing Presidents who presided over the majority of wars fought by the U.S. and that it was Nixon who pulled us out of Vietnam, he responds in typical fashion. That response I will have to post in the next field as I am out of space in this one.
Continued....
[edit on 19-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
reply to post by ziggystrange
Continuing...
Here then Ziggy's response to my charges:
"Z - Perfect example of bold faced revisionism, and lies. Nixon was forced to pull out, and he was a criminal. The World wars were were forced upon us by Germany and it's allies. I applaud the U.S. and the veterans of those wars. Reagan (right wing) the hero of so called conservatives, and Republicans created and fostered cowboy diplomacy. Reagan, Bush and his minime are the primary fear mongers of the last 30 years. Iraq? Do you have the gall to deny the right wing profit driven nature of this war?"
So, while Ziggy claims I am engaging in revisionist history because Nixon was "forced" to pull out of Vietnam, he then turns around and defends those Presidents who presided over wars, and what defense does he offer? Why the very same excuse he dismisses Nixon's actions of pulling out of Vietnam, he defends the others because they were "forced" to go to war. Never paying attention to his own contradictions he continues with the popular sloganeering of the left with the usage of "cowboy diplomacy", using some word I don't know, (Is that Mini-me you are attempting to communicate or minions or what?), as if hurling the image of "cowboy" is some sort of insult to those he is attempting to castigate.
He assumes I am some admirer of Regan and Bush failing to understand that I abhor the expansion of government regardless of which side of the political field those politicians claim to come from. All Presidents in the last century and in this have progressively marched towards a steady expansion of government and I oppose this expansion fiercely. This, of course, is what Ziggy Strange has such a problem with, that I and others like me oppose the expansion of government.
There is no possible way governments can continue to expand without abrogating and derogating the rights of the individual, and it is those rights that I zealously defend and jealously guard. I will continue to argue and fight for those rights using the craft and skill I have endeavored to perfect and which is the facilitation of language. I wholly believe that the pen is mightier than the sword and while I am a staunch advocate of the right to keep and bear arms, I myself was not raised in any "gun culture", have never owned a gun, not even a hunting knife, and have no desire to own these type of weapons.
However, let's look at what Ziggy Strange has to say about this right to keep and bear arms. While I insist that it is the left, and seemingly more and more the right is also embracing the notion of disarming the people, Ziggy responds first by stating:
"Z - You do want to take liberty from the people. Nobody wants to take away your guns. You have chosen to interpret "prudence" as unconstitutional good luck. You use that as a talking point to get support from the paranoid minority, that you panic through your fear mongering. Where are the color coded terror alerts? how come not one single color coded terror alert ever accomplished anything but to scare people into submission and acceptance of Bush's criminal war profiteering, and human rights violations? To call you a hypocrite would be a compliment."
First this zealot strange insist that I want to take liberty away from people, and of course, he has assured us all that he will prove this baseless accusation "at a later date", going on to assert that "Nobody wants to take your guns away." Then he goes on to obfuscate and distract ranting on and on about color coded terror alerts as if these are some sort of governmental policy I cherish. Ziggy, try to understand this, I am in no way an advocate of the expansion of government and the silly color coded terror alerts you erroneously assume are something I advocate, qualify as government expansion. Your presumptions and assumptions are not based on anything other than your own out of control emotions which would explain why you think the term "hypocrite" is a compliment.
Earlier, I took the left to task for referring to JFK's Presidency as Camelot, and often calling John Jr. "America's Prince", and while I made no specific reference to it, the left as well as the right have become quite fond of appointing, (that would be an unelected government official), Czar's to head administrative agencies that presume jurisdiction over the people. Need I define Czar for you Ziggy or do you all ready understand what this title means? If not, do you have the time in your busy schedule to look the word up for yourself, or would you like me to post the definition for you here in this thread? I ask, because when I state that the left, and increasingly the right, are in love with titles of nobility, you respond disingenuously so by asking:
"Z - You mean titles like, Judge, Attorney? Show me the nobility titles we use JP."
Okay, Ziggy I have shown you and even shown a willingness to blame the right for being just as guilty of ignoring the Constitutional prohibition of such titles as Czar a term so lovingly used by the media and politicians on both the left and the right, but ironically it is the left who will use that very same term to describe lawlessness and nepotism when referring to the Russian historical figures who claimed this title of nobility.
The fact of the matter is that no one outside a privileged few inside the government, even know how many of these so called "Czars" there are. While some hold positions created by Congress and have been confirmed by the Senate, there are others who have not at all received conformation from the Senate yet hold these positions. It is a distinct and blatant usurpation of power not at all Constitutional.
Beyond that, when you demand I show you as proof the titles YOU use, you had all ready illustrated your own proclivity to grant titles of nobility by suggesting that judges and attorneys were people who somehow deserved this grant expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
When I accuse the left of blatantly engaging in voter fraud, for some unknown reason you respond with this:
"Z - There you go again. You are xenophobes, isolationists, and segregationists. It has nothing to do with voting fraud. That claim is surely based on the ACORN BS you all tried to pull off during the last election. Another brain fart, that blew up in your faces. Aliens? You have aliens square in your targets, legal and otherwise. Again written by your erudite and prolific co conspirators. I will serve it up for you after I answer your pityful missive."
First you actively engage in calling me a "xenophobe" an "isolationist" and a "segregationist" simply because I pointed to the willingness of the left to encourage undocumented workers to register to vote, blatantly ignoring the fact that there are laws in place prohibiting such an act! You then attempt to dismiss my assertions by claiming or implying that ACORN was not one of those left wing organizations involved in this fraudulent voter registration schemes. You claim this blatant act of voter fraud by ACORN somehow blew up in my face, or the rights face, (Its hard to keep clear from one rant to the next which you are referring to), calling it a "brain fart".
Never mind that officials, (granted they were former officials), from ACORN itself admitted to this crime, claiming that at least half of the groups voter registrations were fraudulent. Typically, current officials of ACORN attempt to downplay this charge by distinguishing between "voter registration fraud" and "voter fraud". However, on August 18th of 2009, a former ACORN official pleaded guilty of voter registration fraud in Las Vegas Nevada. If there is nothing wrong with "voter registration fraud" then why are former officials pleading guilty of the crimes in a court of law?
Continued...
[edit on 19-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
Continuing...
Here then Ziggy's response to my charges:
"Z - Perfect example of bold faced revisionism, and lies. Nixon was forced to pull out, and he was a criminal. The World wars were were forced upon us by Germany and it's allies. I applaud the U.S. and the veterans of those wars. Reagan (right wing) the hero of so called conservatives, and Republicans created and fostered cowboy diplomacy. Reagan, Bush and his minime are the primary fear mongers of the last 30 years. Iraq? Do you have the gall to deny the right wing profit driven nature of this war?"
So, while Ziggy claims I am engaging in revisionist history because Nixon was "forced" to pull out of Vietnam, he then turns around and defends those Presidents who presided over wars, and what defense does he offer? Why the very same excuse he dismisses Nixon's actions of pulling out of Vietnam, he defends the others because they were "forced" to go to war. Never paying attention to his own contradictions he continues with the popular sloganeering of the left with the usage of "cowboy diplomacy", using some word I don't know, (Is that Mini-me you are attempting to communicate or minions or what?), as if hurling the image of "cowboy" is some sort of insult to those he is attempting to castigate.
He assumes I am some admirer of Regan and Bush failing to understand that I abhor the expansion of government regardless of which side of the political field those politicians claim to come from. All Presidents in the last century and in this have progressively marched towards a steady expansion of government and I oppose this expansion fiercely. This, of course, is what Ziggy Strange has such a problem with, that I and others like me oppose the expansion of government.
There is no possible way governments can continue to expand without abrogating and derogating the rights of the individual, and it is those rights that I zealously defend and jealously guard. I will continue to argue and fight for those rights using the craft and skill I have endeavored to perfect and which is the facilitation of language. I wholly believe that the pen is mightier than the sword and while I am a staunch advocate of the right to keep and bear arms, I myself was not raised in any "gun culture", have never owned a gun, not even a hunting knife, and have no desire to own these type of weapons.
However, let's look at what Ziggy Strange has to say about this right to keep and bear arms. While I insist that it is the left, and seemingly more and more the right is also embracing the notion of disarming the people, Ziggy responds first by stating:
"Z - You do want to take liberty from the people. Nobody wants to take away your guns. You have chosen to interpret "prudence" as unconstitutional good luck. You use that as a talking point to get support from the paranoid minority, that you panic through your fear mongering. Where are the color coded terror alerts? how come not one single color coded terror alert ever accomplished anything but to scare people into submission and acceptance of Bush's criminal war profiteering, and human rights violations? To call you a hypocrite would be a compliment."
First this zealot strange insist that I want to take liberty away from people, and of course, he has assured us all that he will prove this baseless accusation "at a later date", going on to assert that "Nobody wants to take your guns away." Then he goes on to obfuscate and distract ranting on and on about color coded terror alerts as if these are some sort of governmental policy I cherish. Ziggy, try to understand this, I am in no way an advocate of the expansion of government and the silly color coded terror alerts you erroneously assume are something I advocate, qualify as government expansion. Your presumptions and assumptions are not based on anything other than your own out of control emotions which would explain why you think the term "hypocrite" is a compliment.
Earlier, I took the left to task for referring to JFK's Presidency as Camelot, and often calling John Jr. "America's Prince", and while I made no specific reference to it, the left as well as the right have become quite fond of appointing, (that would be an unelected government official), Czar's to head administrative agencies that presume jurisdiction over the people. Need I define Czar for you Ziggy or do you all ready understand what this title means? If not, do you have the time in your busy schedule to look the word up for yourself, or would you like me to post the definition for you here in this thread? I ask, because when I state that the left, and increasingly the right, are in love with titles of nobility, you respond disingenuously so by asking:
"Z - You mean titles like, Judge, Attorney? Show me the nobility titles we use JP."
Okay, Ziggy I have shown you and even shown a willingness to blame the right for being just as guilty of ignoring the Constitutional prohibition of such titles as Czar a term so lovingly used by the media and politicians on both the left and the right, but ironically it is the left who will use that very same term to describe lawlessness and nepotism when referring to the Russian historical figures who claimed this title of nobility.
The fact of the matter is that no one outside a privileged few inside the government, even know how many of these so called "Czars" there are. While some hold positions created by Congress and have been confirmed by the Senate, there are others who have not at all received conformation from the Senate yet hold these positions. It is a distinct and blatant usurpation of power not at all Constitutional.
Beyond that, when you demand I show you as proof the titles YOU use, you had all ready illustrated your own proclivity to grant titles of nobility by suggesting that judges and attorneys were people who somehow deserved this grant expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
When I accuse the left of blatantly engaging in voter fraud, for some unknown reason you respond with this:
"Z - There you go again. You are xenophobes, isolationists, and segregationists. It has nothing to do with voting fraud. That claim is surely based on the ACORN BS you all tried to pull off during the last election. Another brain fart, that blew up in your faces. Aliens? You have aliens square in your targets, legal and otherwise. Again written by your erudite and prolific co conspirators. I will serve it up for you after I answer your pityful missive."
First you actively engage in calling me a "xenophobe" an "isolationist" and a "segregationist" simply because I pointed to the willingness of the left to encourage undocumented workers to register to vote, blatantly ignoring the fact that there are laws in place prohibiting such an act! You then attempt to dismiss my assertions by claiming or implying that ACORN was not one of those left wing organizations involved in this fraudulent voter registration schemes. You claim this blatant act of voter fraud by ACORN somehow blew up in my face, or the rights face, (Its hard to keep clear from one rant to the next which you are referring to), calling it a "brain fart".
Never mind that officials, (granted they were former officials), from ACORN itself admitted to this crime, claiming that at least half of the groups voter registrations were fraudulent. Typically, current officials of ACORN attempt to downplay this charge by distinguishing between "voter registration fraud" and "voter fraud". However, on August 18th of 2009, a former ACORN official pleaded guilty of voter registration fraud in Las Vegas Nevada. If there is nothing wrong with "voter registration fraud" then why are former officials pleading guilty of the crimes in a court of law?
Continued...
[edit on 19-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
reply to post by ziggystrange
Continuing...
Ziggy Strange hopes to call the ACORN scandal BS "that blew up" in the faces of those accusing ACORN of fraud, simply because the SEC has declined to file any charges against that organization for the numerous charges that have been brought against them from as far back as at least 2006. That the SEC has failed to act in the manner they were created to act, only further demonstrates the very real and palpable anger so many Americans have with the government today.
Moving on, when I challenge Ziggy's claims that calls for national banks are a distinctly "right wing" fantasy, he dismisses my challenge with even more hyperbole and empty promises of proving it is right wing by posting some comments other members have made in this site in other threads. The ridiculousness of this is that he is only assuming these posters who advocate a national bank are "right wing" when it is not so clear exactly what there politics are.
Indeed, he continually makes reference to a member he calls my "protege" in this site, (why he would assume I, a member who only registered in November of 2009, has protege's all ready, is beyond me), presumably referring to Endisnighe, who has indeed advocated a national bank. If Ziggy believes he will some how expose I as some form of right wing advocate based upon the statements made by Endisnighe, he is woefully mistaken. While I admire Endisinighe's passion and earnestness greatly, if Ziggy fails to post my own words in response to calls for a national bank, which are clearly posted in several threads, then Ziggy will only further reveal his proclivity towards fallacious arguments by stacking the deck and using only those comments, (probably used out of context), that support his own agenda.
Since, unlike the arrogance of Ziggy who thinks I and others should waste our time tracking his posts, I don't expect the readers of this thread to track mine, let me make it perfectly clear, if I all ready haven't, (God knows I've tried), that I in no way advocate a national banking system. That said, we as the United States do all ready have a national banking system in the form of the Federal reserve. I stated this in my original post, also pointing out that prior to the formation of the Federal Reserve, there were two other times in history when the U.S. has formed national banking systems, with the First Bank of the United States, pushed by Alexander Hamilton and the Second Bank of the United States, destroyed by Andrew Jackson. I made the point that Hamilton had pushed the existence of the first because by modern standards, Hamilton is considered to lean towards the left politically while Jackson by modern standards, leaned towards the right. How did Ziggy respond to this?
"Z - Woe is me, you exclaim. If you oppose the idea, why are you here falsely accusing me of inventing it, or misusing it? You know full well what I say is true. Naming Hamilton does nothing but attempt to obfuscate the issue. The idiocy of this idea, is illustrated in a conversation on one of these threads I will index for you after I ram the rest of your lies down your throat."
Of course, it is unclear what Ziggy means when he attempts to put words in my mouth with his own histrionics, but it is a little more clear what he means when he claims that I am falsely accusing him of inventing it, or misusing it. I made no such accusations, and since I hadn't they couldn't be neither true nor false, but that is neither here nor there, since it is just more obfuscation by the man who ironically accuses me of doing the same. Why is naming Hamilton obfuscation? Well, one can only presume Ziggy claims it is because he clearly views the idea of a national bank to be idiotic.
Again, he smugly thinks he will vilify me, by using the quotes of some other member who advocated a national bank, which accomplishes nothing since, and I repeat, the U.S. is currently operating with a national banking system under the guise of the Federal Reserve! Is it at all possible that Ziggy actually agrees with me that the Federal Reserve System is an idiotic notion? I doubt it, but perhaps, when Ziggy's schedule will allow him to, he will speak to this himself. Who knows when or what this strange ranter is inclined to do?
Of course, typical of Ziggy he makes his assertions with out backing them up and claims that economics is not a subject I should endeavor to take up with the likes of he. Why? I'm not exactly sure, but here is what he has to say about the matter:
"Z - Typical of your ilk. You don't do your homework. Banking and Economics is not the subject you should pick to mount a BS argument with me. Again I have already answered this idiotic accusation in a thread just a couple of days ago. You are the ignoramus JP, you talk of things you don't understand, and speak as if you do it for a living. Just another worthless mendacious tactic prevalent among the Neo Patriots."
Precariously placing me with my "ilk", he asserts I didn't do my homework. Why does he make such an accusation? Who knows? He thinks he backs this up by claiming that banking and economics is not the subject I should pick to mount a "BS" argument with by stating he has all ready answered some unknown accusation I made in an unnamed thread he assumes I am aware of. While Ziggy has proudly stated that he has waited for me to enter this thread so that he could play his fallacious game with me, he apparently assumes I have been waiting to play this game as well, but in truth I hardly know who this member is, only aware of him from another thread he started of which I posted in there as well. I know little of this member and saw this thread with its compelling title and entered in to see what it was all about and he declares I have been lurking like a "predator" just waiting for a chance to argue with him!
Indeed, I would prefer not to argue with anyone, but that is not the way the world works and there are a myriad of belief systems and various people who hold them. It is rare to find anyone I can completely agree with, and even still, there are some of whom I will agree with more than others. While it is hard to know just how much I agree or disagree with Ziggy since he is less concerned with openly and reasonably discussing his own ideology, more concerned with attacking others of whom he disagrees with. It is always difficult to understand what another person believes when all he or she will do is attack your own beliefs with fallacious arguments.
Earlier, and I have quoted him in a post right above this one, Ziggy claims that "no one is trying to take your guns away". Yet, when I accuse the left of tirelessly endeavoring to eliminate gun ownership in the U.S. by responding to his own outrage of other members advocating compulsory gun ownership and suggesting it is the tireless efforts of the left to ban guns that is most likely the source of the rights reactionary advocacy of compulsory gun ownership, he responds as such:
"Z - The right to bear arms as intended, did not mean to have citizens owning/bearing what would have been considered weapons of mass destruction in 1776. You bet I don't want yahoos with assault rifles and machine pistols driving around in pick up trucks drunk, and or tweaked into maniacs. Take your guns, never. Stop you from mass murder, and idiopathic acts, and acts of terror, absolutely I'm for limiting the ability of felons. and mentally impaired people to get their hands on combat weapons."
Our brother Ziggy deigns to explain to us the reader what the Founders intended when they acknowledged the right of an individual to keep and bear arms by asserting what they did not intend. He then goes on to, (finally), make clear his own beliefs which is a quote I will have to make clear and discuss in the next post.
Continued...
[edit on 19-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
Continuing...
Ziggy Strange hopes to call the ACORN scandal BS "that blew up" in the faces of those accusing ACORN of fraud, simply because the SEC has declined to file any charges against that organization for the numerous charges that have been brought against them from as far back as at least 2006. That the SEC has failed to act in the manner they were created to act, only further demonstrates the very real and palpable anger so many Americans have with the government today.
Moving on, when I challenge Ziggy's claims that calls for national banks are a distinctly "right wing" fantasy, he dismisses my challenge with even more hyperbole and empty promises of proving it is right wing by posting some comments other members have made in this site in other threads. The ridiculousness of this is that he is only assuming these posters who advocate a national bank are "right wing" when it is not so clear exactly what there politics are.
Indeed, he continually makes reference to a member he calls my "protege" in this site, (why he would assume I, a member who only registered in November of 2009, has protege's all ready, is beyond me), presumably referring to Endisnighe, who has indeed advocated a national bank. If Ziggy believes he will some how expose I as some form of right wing advocate based upon the statements made by Endisnighe, he is woefully mistaken. While I admire Endisinighe's passion and earnestness greatly, if Ziggy fails to post my own words in response to calls for a national bank, which are clearly posted in several threads, then Ziggy will only further reveal his proclivity towards fallacious arguments by stacking the deck and using only those comments, (probably used out of context), that support his own agenda.
Since, unlike the arrogance of Ziggy who thinks I and others should waste our time tracking his posts, I don't expect the readers of this thread to track mine, let me make it perfectly clear, if I all ready haven't, (God knows I've tried), that I in no way advocate a national banking system. That said, we as the United States do all ready have a national banking system in the form of the Federal reserve. I stated this in my original post, also pointing out that prior to the formation of the Federal Reserve, there were two other times in history when the U.S. has formed national banking systems, with the First Bank of the United States, pushed by Alexander Hamilton and the Second Bank of the United States, destroyed by Andrew Jackson. I made the point that Hamilton had pushed the existence of the first because by modern standards, Hamilton is considered to lean towards the left politically while Jackson by modern standards, leaned towards the right. How did Ziggy respond to this?
"Z - Woe is me, you exclaim. If you oppose the idea, why are you here falsely accusing me of inventing it, or misusing it? You know full well what I say is true. Naming Hamilton does nothing but attempt to obfuscate the issue. The idiocy of this idea, is illustrated in a conversation on one of these threads I will index for you after I ram the rest of your lies down your throat."
Of course, it is unclear what Ziggy means when he attempts to put words in my mouth with his own histrionics, but it is a little more clear what he means when he claims that I am falsely accusing him of inventing it, or misusing it. I made no such accusations, and since I hadn't they couldn't be neither true nor false, but that is neither here nor there, since it is just more obfuscation by the man who ironically accuses me of doing the same. Why is naming Hamilton obfuscation? Well, one can only presume Ziggy claims it is because he clearly views the idea of a national bank to be idiotic.
Again, he smugly thinks he will vilify me, by using the quotes of some other member who advocated a national bank, which accomplishes nothing since, and I repeat, the U.S. is currently operating with a national banking system under the guise of the Federal Reserve! Is it at all possible that Ziggy actually agrees with me that the Federal Reserve System is an idiotic notion? I doubt it, but perhaps, when Ziggy's schedule will allow him to, he will speak to this himself. Who knows when or what this strange ranter is inclined to do?
Of course, typical of Ziggy he makes his assertions with out backing them up and claims that economics is not a subject I should endeavor to take up with the likes of he. Why? I'm not exactly sure, but here is what he has to say about the matter:
"Z - Typical of your ilk. You don't do your homework. Banking and Economics is not the subject you should pick to mount a BS argument with me. Again I have already answered this idiotic accusation in a thread just a couple of days ago. You are the ignoramus JP, you talk of things you don't understand, and speak as if you do it for a living. Just another worthless mendacious tactic prevalent among the Neo Patriots."
Precariously placing me with my "ilk", he asserts I didn't do my homework. Why does he make such an accusation? Who knows? He thinks he backs this up by claiming that banking and economics is not the subject I should pick to mount a "BS" argument with by stating he has all ready answered some unknown accusation I made in an unnamed thread he assumes I am aware of. While Ziggy has proudly stated that he has waited for me to enter this thread so that he could play his fallacious game with me, he apparently assumes I have been waiting to play this game as well, but in truth I hardly know who this member is, only aware of him from another thread he started of which I posted in there as well. I know little of this member and saw this thread with its compelling title and entered in to see what it was all about and he declares I have been lurking like a "predator" just waiting for a chance to argue with him!
Indeed, I would prefer not to argue with anyone, but that is not the way the world works and there are a myriad of belief systems and various people who hold them. It is rare to find anyone I can completely agree with, and even still, there are some of whom I will agree with more than others. While it is hard to know just how much I agree or disagree with Ziggy since he is less concerned with openly and reasonably discussing his own ideology, more concerned with attacking others of whom he disagrees with. It is always difficult to understand what another person believes when all he or she will do is attack your own beliefs with fallacious arguments.
Earlier, and I have quoted him in a post right above this one, Ziggy claims that "no one is trying to take your guns away". Yet, when I accuse the left of tirelessly endeavoring to eliminate gun ownership in the U.S. by responding to his own outrage of other members advocating compulsory gun ownership and suggesting it is the tireless efforts of the left to ban guns that is most likely the source of the rights reactionary advocacy of compulsory gun ownership, he responds as such:
"Z - The right to bear arms as intended, did not mean to have citizens owning/bearing what would have been considered weapons of mass destruction in 1776. You bet I don't want yahoos with assault rifles and machine pistols driving around in pick up trucks drunk, and or tweaked into maniacs. Take your guns, never. Stop you from mass murder, and idiopathic acts, and acts of terror, absolutely I'm for limiting the ability of felons. and mentally impaired people to get their hands on combat weapons."
Our brother Ziggy deigns to explain to us the reader what the Founders intended when they acknowledged the right of an individual to keep and bear arms by asserting what they did not intend. He then goes on to, (finally), make clear his own beliefs which is a quote I will have to make clear and discuss in the next post.
Continued...
[edit on 19-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
reply to post by ziggystrange
Continuing...
Ziggy makes clear his politics on gun laws by stating: "You bet I don't want yahoos with assault rifles and machine pistols driving around in pick up trucks drunk, and or tweaked into maniacs. Take your guns, never. Stop you from mass murder, and idiopathic acts, and acts of terror, absolutely I'm for limiting the ability of felons. and mentally impaired people to get their hands on combat weapons." Apparently when Ziggy claims he would never take the peoples guns away, only qualifying it with a ban on "assault rifles" for felons, and "mentally impaired" people, he is unaware of the 1994 federal ban on "assault weapons" that existed for a decade before expiring due to its "sunset provision". Did Ziggy disagree with this federal ban? Who knows since he uses the attributive adjective "your" and pronoun "you" to discuss who's guns he thinks should be taken away.
It is this undeniable arrogance that compelled me to post in Ziggy's thread to begin with. Perhaps that was part of his devious and brilliant strategy to encourage me to post, as he has stated was an intention of his, to willingly engage in words of arrogance just to attract little old me. I suppose it can be reasonably assumed that Ziggy presumes I own guns, since he is inclined to lump me with my "ilk", but again, I make clear that I have never owned a gun, nor do I come from a family who has, but this is secondary to Ziggy's arrogant assertion that the Founders never intended for people to own "what would have been considered weapons of mass destruction in 1776."
It is unclear how Ziggy knows what weapons the Founders would have considered "weapons of mass destruction" since it is unclear that Ziggy even knows the etymology of the phrase. It is doubtful that the Founders would have used the term "weapons of mass destruction" and more than likely would have relied upon the term pernicious, which saw much more usage in 1776 than it does today in peoples vocabulary. The etymology of "weapons of mass destruction" or "WMD's", can be traced back to as early as the 1920's when this term was coined by J.W. Burns, a school teacher who taught on a reservation in Chehalis, of British Columbia, and ironically had nothing to do with the description of weapons such as firearms or bombs and rockets, but instead was coined to describe tribal legends of a "hairy creature said to live in the wilds".
For the sake of argument, let us all agree that it is more than likely that a great many of our founders would have considered "assault rifles" tanks, bombs and especially nuclear bombs to be pernicious. Clearing up the usage of words we can now consider what Ziggy means by the Founder's intent in terms of the right to keep and bear arms. It should be obvious and quite clear by the wording of the 2nd Amendment that the Founders felt no need to make a distinction between guns and other weapons in terms of what they meant by arms. Cannons, and other such pernicious weapons were considered to be arms in that day, and the Founders saw no need to restrict a persons right to keep and bear arms to just guns, and presumably swords and knives.
What exactly was the Founder's intent regarding the 2nd Amendment? Well we can rely upon Ziggy's interpretations, or we can actually consult the writings of the Founders themselves on the matter. Let's first consult the most obvious document in terms of what the Founders intended, that being The Federalist Papers. In Federalist Number 46 James Madison wrote:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate government, to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be albe to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
In Federalist Number 28, Alexander Hamilton has this to say:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is parmount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpation's of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultiously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in thier courage and despair.
Now consider the language from these two Founders alone. Where Madison speaks to the dangers the tyrants would face if they were confronted with and armed citizenry, Hamilton speaks to the citizens of the U.S. insisting that they should "rush tumultuously, (Hamilton and others of 1776 spelled differently then), to arms, without concert, without resource; except in their courage and despair"! My, my, my, how remarkably similar that language sounds to some of the members in this site who Ziggy so self righteously calls "liars" and "deceivers" and "revisionists". Indeed, while I continue to advocate peaceful change, Ziggy would have me imprisoned for doing so!
Continuing, in Federalist Number 29 Hamilton states:
"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national governments is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution...Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Here Hamilton is speaking to what is meant by "a well regulated militia" first explaining that such a task is unforeseeable and imprudent in terms of strategy, and that the best the government can do is make sure the people are well armed and equipped and then assemble them once or twice a year to ensure they are prepared to defend the country. Almost sounds like a call for compulsory arming. However, let me be clear. I in no way advocate any compulsory law that would regulate a right of an individual and demanding that people exercise their rights is hardly an advocacy of freedom. That said, thus far, by relying solely on the Federalist Papers, we are able to discern two of the Founders understanding of the intent of the 2nd Amendment and it certainly doesn't sound at all like what Ziggy is claiming that intent was.
Even so, let's keep looking to more of what the Founders intent was by reading some thoughts of jurists of American jurisprudence throughout history in the next post.
Continuing...
[edit on 19-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
Continuing...
Ziggy makes clear his politics on gun laws by stating: "You bet I don't want yahoos with assault rifles and machine pistols driving around in pick up trucks drunk, and or tweaked into maniacs. Take your guns, never. Stop you from mass murder, and idiopathic acts, and acts of terror, absolutely I'm for limiting the ability of felons. and mentally impaired people to get their hands on combat weapons." Apparently when Ziggy claims he would never take the peoples guns away, only qualifying it with a ban on "assault rifles" for felons, and "mentally impaired" people, he is unaware of the 1994 federal ban on "assault weapons" that existed for a decade before expiring due to its "sunset provision". Did Ziggy disagree with this federal ban? Who knows since he uses the attributive adjective "your" and pronoun "you" to discuss who's guns he thinks should be taken away.
It is this undeniable arrogance that compelled me to post in Ziggy's thread to begin with. Perhaps that was part of his devious and brilliant strategy to encourage me to post, as he has stated was an intention of his, to willingly engage in words of arrogance just to attract little old me. I suppose it can be reasonably assumed that Ziggy presumes I own guns, since he is inclined to lump me with my "ilk", but again, I make clear that I have never owned a gun, nor do I come from a family who has, but this is secondary to Ziggy's arrogant assertion that the Founders never intended for people to own "what would have been considered weapons of mass destruction in 1776."
It is unclear how Ziggy knows what weapons the Founders would have considered "weapons of mass destruction" since it is unclear that Ziggy even knows the etymology of the phrase. It is doubtful that the Founders would have used the term "weapons of mass destruction" and more than likely would have relied upon the term pernicious, which saw much more usage in 1776 than it does today in peoples vocabulary. The etymology of "weapons of mass destruction" or "WMD's", can be traced back to as early as the 1920's when this term was coined by J.W. Burns, a school teacher who taught on a reservation in Chehalis, of British Columbia, and ironically had nothing to do with the description of weapons such as firearms or bombs and rockets, but instead was coined to describe tribal legends of a "hairy creature said to live in the wilds".
For the sake of argument, let us all agree that it is more than likely that a great many of our founders would have considered "assault rifles" tanks, bombs and especially nuclear bombs to be pernicious. Clearing up the usage of words we can now consider what Ziggy means by the Founder's intent in terms of the right to keep and bear arms. It should be obvious and quite clear by the wording of the 2nd Amendment that the Founders felt no need to make a distinction between guns and other weapons in terms of what they meant by arms. Cannons, and other such pernicious weapons were considered to be arms in that day, and the Founders saw no need to restrict a persons right to keep and bear arms to just guns, and presumably swords and knives.
What exactly was the Founder's intent regarding the 2nd Amendment? Well we can rely upon Ziggy's interpretations, or we can actually consult the writings of the Founders themselves on the matter. Let's first consult the most obvious document in terms of what the Founders intended, that being The Federalist Papers. In Federalist Number 46 James Madison wrote:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate government, to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be albe to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
In Federalist Number 28, Alexander Hamilton has this to say:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is parmount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpation's of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultiously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in thier courage and despair.
Now consider the language from these two Founders alone. Where Madison speaks to the dangers the tyrants would face if they were confronted with and armed citizenry, Hamilton speaks to the citizens of the U.S. insisting that they should "rush tumultuously, (Hamilton and others of 1776 spelled differently then), to arms, without concert, without resource; except in their courage and despair"! My, my, my, how remarkably similar that language sounds to some of the members in this site who Ziggy so self righteously calls "liars" and "deceivers" and "revisionists". Indeed, while I continue to advocate peaceful change, Ziggy would have me imprisoned for doing so!
Continuing, in Federalist Number 29 Hamilton states:
"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national governments is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution...Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Here Hamilton is speaking to what is meant by "a well regulated militia" first explaining that such a task is unforeseeable and imprudent in terms of strategy, and that the best the government can do is make sure the people are well armed and equipped and then assemble them once or twice a year to ensure they are prepared to defend the country. Almost sounds like a call for compulsory arming. However, let me be clear. I in no way advocate any compulsory law that would regulate a right of an individual and demanding that people exercise their rights is hardly an advocacy of freedom. That said, thus far, by relying solely on the Federalist Papers, we are able to discern two of the Founders understanding of the intent of the 2nd Amendment and it certainly doesn't sound at all like what Ziggy is claiming that intent was.
Even so, let's keep looking to more of what the Founders intent was by reading some thoughts of jurists of American jurisprudence throughout history in the next post.
Continuing...
[edit on 19-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]
reply to post by ziggystrange
In his well known and often cited, (by American jurists), Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, (1803), St. George Tucker, an American lawyer, judge and veteran of the Revolution of 1776, wrote:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."
So, where Ziggy would sanctimoniously qualify who can and can not have guns, or at the very least "assault rifles", Tucker declares that in American jurisprudence no such qualification is intended by the 2nd Amendment. Considering that one of Ziggy's qualifications was to keep guns away from the "mentally impaired" of which he failed to define, and given his proclivity towards insisting those he opposes are "simpletons", it is reasonable to suggest that Ziggy would like to keep guns out of many peoples hands. However, the Founders in their intent of the right of the people to keep and bear arms vehemently disagree with Ziggy.
Continuing, Tucker further states:
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty...The rigth of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and hte right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to penalty."
Here Tucker makes clear the problem with Ziggy's notions of qualifying who can and can not have guns, and speaks directly to what England's own restrictions created in terms of how many wound up denied the right to keep and bear arms, claiming that 499 out of every one person who has a gun, were denied that very same right. Where I advocate an equality of law where all people regardless of race, creed or code are afforded the same consideration, Ziggy advocates an inequality of law declaring that certain people should not be afforded the same rights he no doubt believes he should have. Even so, Ziggy would have me imprisoned for my beliefs!
In 1829 another Founder William Rawle, who was appointed by George Washington as United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania, wrote the book A View of the Constitution of the United States of America and in chapter 10 states:
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
So, here Rawle is making clear that in no way can Congress in any fashion prohibit arms from the people, he does concede that the Constitution is rather silent on the matter of a states right to prohibit arms but argues that in such an event, the people can rely upon the 2nd Amendment as authority to their right, to rebut the states assertion they have such a right.
There are numerous citations by a number of the Founders that only support and voice in similar fashion what I have all ready cited in the past few posts. There is no point in endlessly citing the Founders on the intent of the right to keep and bear arms as it is clear that Ziggy has no idea what the Founders intended.
Indeed, Ziggy has made perfectly clear by his wild eyed comments and baseless accusations that he is vehemently opposed to freedom if speech if that speech is of the nature to which he disagrees with, would gladly restrict and keep from those people he deems to be "mentally impaired" the right to keep and bear arms, and has no respect what so ever for the notion of equality under the law. This is why he would have me in prison! He doesn't want to see me imprisoned because he genuinely believes I want to take his liberties away, he wants me in prison because it is he who wishes to take peoples liberty away.
In his well known and often cited, (by American jurists), Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, (1803), St. George Tucker, an American lawyer, judge and veteran of the Revolution of 1776, wrote:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."
So, where Ziggy would sanctimoniously qualify who can and can not have guns, or at the very least "assault rifles", Tucker declares that in American jurisprudence no such qualification is intended by the 2nd Amendment. Considering that one of Ziggy's qualifications was to keep guns away from the "mentally impaired" of which he failed to define, and given his proclivity towards insisting those he opposes are "simpletons", it is reasonable to suggest that Ziggy would like to keep guns out of many peoples hands. However, the Founders in their intent of the right of the people to keep and bear arms vehemently disagree with Ziggy.
Continuing, Tucker further states:
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty...The rigth of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and hte right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to penalty."
Here Tucker makes clear the problem with Ziggy's notions of qualifying who can and can not have guns, and speaks directly to what England's own restrictions created in terms of how many wound up denied the right to keep and bear arms, claiming that 499 out of every one person who has a gun, were denied that very same right. Where I advocate an equality of law where all people regardless of race, creed or code are afforded the same consideration, Ziggy advocates an inequality of law declaring that certain people should not be afforded the same rights he no doubt believes he should have. Even so, Ziggy would have me imprisoned for my beliefs!
In 1829 another Founder William Rawle, who was appointed by George Washington as United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania, wrote the book A View of the Constitution of the United States of America and in chapter 10 states:
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
So, here Rawle is making clear that in no way can Congress in any fashion prohibit arms from the people, he does concede that the Constitution is rather silent on the matter of a states right to prohibit arms but argues that in such an event, the people can rely upon the 2nd Amendment as authority to their right, to rebut the states assertion they have such a right.
There are numerous citations by a number of the Founders that only support and voice in similar fashion what I have all ready cited in the past few posts. There is no point in endlessly citing the Founders on the intent of the right to keep and bear arms as it is clear that Ziggy has no idea what the Founders intended.
Indeed, Ziggy has made perfectly clear by his wild eyed comments and baseless accusations that he is vehemently opposed to freedom if speech if that speech is of the nature to which he disagrees with, would gladly restrict and keep from those people he deems to be "mentally impaired" the right to keep and bear arms, and has no respect what so ever for the notion of equality under the law. This is why he would have me in prison! He doesn't want to see me imprisoned because he genuinely believes I want to take his liberties away, he wants me in prison because it is he who wishes to take peoples liberty away.
reply to post by ziggystrange
I'm sorry my friend, and I know it has probably been stated a couple times in the replies, but you are a bit off. First, BOTH sides do this crap.
Part of the problem though is people like you. I don't mean this is a bad way. What I mean is that you are falling into the same trap that you are accusing the 'right' of. You are being the 'left' mouthpiece to spew forth propaganda just like you say the 'right' does.
Plus, half of the accusations you are making about what the 'right' want to do with this nation is either hearsay or just plain made up.
Last, you need to distinguish between the 'right' and the 'far right'. Because yes, I can agree that some on the extremely 'far right' may want some of the looney things you have claimed done. But the general 'right' populace would not go for more than half of what you are claiming 'they' want.
I'm sorry my friend, and I know it has probably been stated a couple times in the replies, but you are a bit off. First, BOTH sides do this crap.
Part of the problem though is people like you. I don't mean this is a bad way. What I mean is that you are falling into the same trap that you are accusing the 'right' of. You are being the 'left' mouthpiece to spew forth propaganda just like you say the 'right' does.
Plus, half of the accusations you are making about what the 'right' want to do with this nation is either hearsay or just plain made up.
Last, you need to distinguish between the 'right' and the 'far right'. Because yes, I can agree that some on the extremely 'far right' may want some of the looney things you have claimed done. But the general 'right' populace would not go for more than half of what you are claiming 'they' want.
reply to post by ziggystrange
I have followed most of the threads you have posted as well as the ones you have listed. I understand what you are getting at. But I think you are missing the point here in a big way.
Why does ANY revolution ever start? Sure, there will be some people that will step forth to provide leadership if it happens. Hopefully they have a 'plan' if it does happen.
I agree, many of the things getting floated about will result in utter catastrophe.
But you are removing one important factor. The passion and the heat of the moment that usually leads to these kind of events. That breaking point in the populace when their leadership appears to be screwing them over.
People don't think rationally like you are asking them to. You are trying to reason with unreasonable people. Not because they're ignorant but because they are fed up. You see, just because you fear catastrophe doesn't mean that you should sit back and accept the broken system that you are living in.
So, although I agree with the points that a revolution would be devastating and not wise, I fear that it will not come down to logical debate. It will come down to emotion and capital hill.
I have followed most of the threads you have posted as well as the ones you have listed. I understand what you are getting at. But I think you are missing the point here in a big way.
Why does ANY revolution ever start? Sure, there will be some people that will step forth to provide leadership if it happens. Hopefully they have a 'plan' if it does happen.
I agree, many of the things getting floated about will result in utter catastrophe.
But you are removing one important factor. The passion and the heat of the moment that usually leads to these kind of events. That breaking point in the populace when their leadership appears to be screwing them over.
People don't think rationally like you are asking them to. You are trying to reason with unreasonable people. Not because they're ignorant but because they are fed up. You see, just because you fear catastrophe doesn't mean that you should sit back and accept the broken system that you are living in.
So, although I agree with the points that a revolution would be devastating and not wise, I fear that it will not come down to logical debate. It will come down to emotion and capital hill.
reply to post by dariousg
Hi Dariousg,
Thanks for the rational response. I see you point, and agree it does not portend a happy ending.
I understand anger, and frustration. I agree it will be settled by the people, and the actions of the Government.
I agree that my type of activism, is not the most compelling. Like you I feel my job is to do what I can. I attempt to appeal to reason, and logic, to get a chance to post my variations on the ideas that are proposed.
I don't expect to win over people, just lay it all out.
As you can see from my last round of postings, I fully intend to lay out the rationale, analysis, and my input ultimately.
I appreciate your reading the threads and speaking with me before you see me as the enemy, or a propagandist.
In the end something will prevail. If it's the type of structure I see proposed, it will not go well for me, that's the way it goes.
If my version of America came to be, some would feel as I would, if theirs is the model we implement. So not everyone will be happy.
Like many have suggested, I have the option to leave, and probably would rather than become oppressed. I understand how my opponents, and those who see me as an enemy feel.
There is one thing many here miss, like I may miss the point you make. If the country goes into full blown revolt. The people like me, will have to pick a side. So far there is only one set of ideologies that want a 180. The other side born from the eventuality of a revolt, will be just as rabid, and dangerous, as the other.
This would not be a good thing. When logic, and reason fails, it's the last straw and the # will hit the fan. I hope it does nto come to that.
Time will tell.
Thanks
Ziggy Strange
Hi Dariousg,
Thanks for the rational response. I see you point, and agree it does not portend a happy ending.
I understand anger, and frustration. I agree it will be settled by the people, and the actions of the Government.
I agree that my type of activism, is not the most compelling. Like you I feel my job is to do what I can. I attempt to appeal to reason, and logic, to get a chance to post my variations on the ideas that are proposed.
I don't expect to win over people, just lay it all out.
As you can see from my last round of postings, I fully intend to lay out the rationale, analysis, and my input ultimately.
I appreciate your reading the threads and speaking with me before you see me as the enemy, or a propagandist.
In the end something will prevail. If it's the type of structure I see proposed, it will not go well for me, that's the way it goes.
If my version of America came to be, some would feel as I would, if theirs is the model we implement. So not everyone will be happy.
Like many have suggested, I have the option to leave, and probably would rather than become oppressed. I understand how my opponents, and those who see me as an enemy feel.
There is one thing many here miss, like I may miss the point you make. If the country goes into full blown revolt. The people like me, will have to pick a side. So far there is only one set of ideologies that want a 180. The other side born from the eventuality of a revolt, will be just as rabid, and dangerous, as the other.
This would not be a good thing. When logic, and reason fails, it's the last straw and the # will hit the fan. I hope it does nto come to that.
Time will tell.
Thanks
Ziggy Strange
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Jean Paul,
I will be addressing your latest rant after I post the specific links that make my case. Thanks for all the material. I will go over it and respond.
You may be well served by checking the links, and conversations I provided so far. You jumped the gun but it's ok.
My so called promised answers were partially up before you posted your rant. No problem. I'm still putting together answers to the specific points you claim are baseless lies on my part.
You can keep on screaming that I did not respond as I'm responding. But it will not lend any credibility to you, or your cause.
For a guy that claims to want civility, you spend a lot of time trying to be cleverly nasty. Like I said before, I worry for your emotional state.
Intellectual discourse, and hizzy fits are not exactly consistent with a sound mind. Once more, you are throwing stones, expect to get your noggin peppered in return. pick one, civil, or not, I may change my tactics.
I'm on my schedule not yours.
Post away.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
Jean Paul,
I will be addressing your latest rant after I post the specific links that make my case. Thanks for all the material. I will go over it and respond.
You may be well served by checking the links, and conversations I provided so far. You jumped the gun but it's ok.
My so called promised answers were partially up before you posted your rant. No problem. I'm still putting together answers to the specific points you claim are baseless lies on my part.
You can keep on screaming that I did not respond as I'm responding. But it will not lend any credibility to you, or your cause.
For a guy that claims to want civility, you spend a lot of time trying to be cleverly nasty. Like I said before, I worry for your emotional state.
Intellectual discourse, and hizzy fits are not exactly consistent with a sound mind. Once more, you are throwing stones, expect to get your noggin peppered in return. pick one, civil, or not, I may change my tactics.
I'm on my schedule not yours.
Post away.
Ziggy Strange
[edit on 19-1-2010 by ziggystrange]
Well kiddies,
What say you today?
Was today a first shot in your new movement? Conservative, Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian, Truthers, Birthers, Patriots?
Will you just close your eyes, cover your ears, and remain silent?
Where is the outrage at the actions taken today by the 5 conservative Supreme Court Justices? 100 years of Corporate regulation gone in an instant, like your credibility.
If you are not a hypocrite you should be demanding a reversal right now.
Congratulations, now your worst nightmare came true, and you did it. Not one single liberal, or left justice voted yes.
The tread is in my signature.
I'd love to hear what you all think about this gem.
Seriously are you all going to sit there and say nothing?
If this had been decided by the left I would close my account here and hide in shame.
You may not want to hear it, you may not want to admit it, or acknowledge it but it's true, "YOU" did it to this country.
Now you are going to find out how real Americans do it. You will sit here and do nothing but try to think of a way to blame it on Obama and the left.
Not going to happen.
Like death, this my dear confused friends, is the real thing.
Starts tomorrow, if people sit back, by November you will see the new Corporate face of America. You think we had problems today?
You will now see what happens when a Nation steps on a land mine.
You can thank whatever you believe in that there is a Centrist in office, your freaking future now depends on your favorite scapegoat.
Get off your pompous butts and do something.
You have been here for years warning about doom.
DOOM IS HERE BUBBA
This is it. The problem is your NWO, is the NUCS New United Corporate States, ala Rollerball.
It was not provided by the left. It was the right, and every one of you is complicit. You own it.
Are you going to help reverse it?
Will you now at least wake up and fight the real enemy?
Will you now desist from your bigotry, racism, and intolerance long enough to actually do something for your Country?
Will you spend any energy on the real thing? or is that no fun anymore?
Come out and say something. Shout it out like you bellow about Obama.
Where is all the Founding Father rhetoric now?
Were did freedom go? Is this new Liberty acceptable to you?
I went to the thread about this, some genius was saying this is the kind of thing Obama sent Sotomayor there to do.
I don't see any of the Patriots I know here saying squat.
Shame on you all.
Cowards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ziggy Strange
What say you today?
Was today a first shot in your new movement? Conservative, Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian, Truthers, Birthers, Patriots?
Will you just close your eyes, cover your ears, and remain silent?
Where is the outrage at the actions taken today by the 5 conservative Supreme Court Justices? 100 years of Corporate regulation gone in an instant, like your credibility.
If you are not a hypocrite you should be demanding a reversal right now.
Congratulations, now your worst nightmare came true, and you did it. Not one single liberal, or left justice voted yes.
The tread is in my signature.
I'd love to hear what you all think about this gem.
Seriously are you all going to sit there and say nothing?
If this had been decided by the left I would close my account here and hide in shame.
You may not want to hear it, you may not want to admit it, or acknowledge it but it's true, "YOU" did it to this country.
Now you are going to find out how real Americans do it. You will sit here and do nothing but try to think of a way to blame it on Obama and the left.
Not going to happen.
Like death, this my dear confused friends, is the real thing.
Starts tomorrow, if people sit back, by November you will see the new Corporate face of America. You think we had problems today?
You will now see what happens when a Nation steps on a land mine.
You can thank whatever you believe in that there is a Centrist in office, your freaking future now depends on your favorite scapegoat.
Get off your pompous butts and do something.
You have been here for years warning about doom.
DOOM IS HERE BUBBA
This is it. The problem is your NWO, is the NUCS New United Corporate States, ala Rollerball.
It was not provided by the left. It was the right, and every one of you is complicit. You own it.
Are you going to help reverse it?
Will you now at least wake up and fight the real enemy?
Will you now desist from your bigotry, racism, and intolerance long enough to actually do something for your Country?
Will you spend any energy on the real thing? or is that no fun anymore?
Come out and say something. Shout it out like you bellow about Obama.
Where is all the Founding Father rhetoric now?
Were did freedom go? Is this new Liberty acceptable to you?
I went to the thread about this, some genius was saying this is the kind of thing Obama sent Sotomayor there to do.
I don't see any of the Patriots I know here saying squat.
Shame on you all.
Cowards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ziggy Strange
new topics
-
Any one suspicious of fever promotions events, card only.
The Gray Area: 14 minutes ago -
God's Righteousness is Greater than Our Wrath
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 4 hours ago -
Electrical tricks for saving money
Education and Media: 7 hours ago -
VP's Secret Service agent brawls with other agents at Andrews
Mainstream News: 9 hours ago -
Sunak spinning the sickness figures
Other Current Events: 9 hours ago -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues: 10 hours ago -
Late Night with the Devil - a really good unusual modern horror film.
Movies: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
VP's Secret Service agent brawls with other agents at Andrews
Mainstream News: 9 hours ago, 9 flags -
Cats Used as Live Bait to Train Ferocious Pitbulls in Illegal NYC Dogfighting
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 8 flags -
Electrical tricks for saving money
Education and Media: 7 hours ago, 4 flags -
HORRIBLE !! Russian Soldier Drinking Own Urine To Survive In Battle
World War Three: 17 hours ago, 3 flags -
Sunak spinning the sickness figures
Other Current Events: 9 hours ago, 3 flags -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues: 10 hours ago, 3 flags -
Late Night with the Devil - a really good unusual modern horror film.
Movies: 11 hours ago, 2 flags -
The Good News According to Jesus - Episode 1
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 15 hours ago, 1 flags -
Any one suspicious of fever promotions events, card only.
The Gray Area: 14 minutes ago, 1 flags -
God's Righteousness is Greater than Our Wrath
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 4 hours ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have'
Aliens and UFOs • 50 • : andy06shake -
Any one suspicious of fever promotions events, card only.
The Gray Area • 0 • : Cavemannick -
God's Righteousness is Greater than Our Wrath
Religion, Faith, And Theology • 1 • : andy06shake -
Sunak spinning the sickness figures
Other Current Events • 7 • : xWorldxGonexMadx -
HORRIBLE !! Russian Soldier Drinking Own Urine To Survive In Battle
World War Three • 33 • : Degradation33 -
How ageing is" immune deficiency"
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 34 • : angelchemuel -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues • 13 • : Freeborn -
Mood Music Part VI
Music • 3101 • : ThatSmellsStrange -
VP's Secret Service agent brawls with other agents at Andrews
Mainstream News • 41 • : ThatSmellsStrange -
New whistleblower Jason Sands speaks on Twitter Spaces last night.
Aliens and UFOs • 55 • : baablacksheep1