GOP: Confusing Tyranny with Losing?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by ExpectantlyIronic, May 9, 2009.

  1. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    First: A Video!

    With all the smoke blown about secession, it seems like fringe conservatives are being sore losers. Fringe liberals had their own freak-outs over Bush, but I don't recall secession ever being mentioned. Yet people who opposed the Patriot Act and the war with Iraq were being called anti-American by those who now don't want even want to be part of America. And let's be serious: this is about Obama. How much have gun laws changed since he was elected, that secession suddenly seems necessary whereas it wasn't a few years ago?

    Granted, nobody thinks the representatives talking secession are doing anything other than saying what their base wants to hear. Perhaps they could be making such threats to try to get their way, but nobody seems to be listening except their base. The only way any representative is going to be taken seriously about this, is if officials from that state attack federal officials to prevent them from carrying out their jobs, and that isn't going to happen. Making statements and signing papers does not get you out of the union.

    So it all seems like a tantrum thrown by folks who decisively lost an election, and now find themselves impotent and unrepresented in the government. To those wrapped up in it: remember how silly those liberals were when having hissy fits over Bush? Yeah. Now you're them.
     

  2. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    Yeah, succession seems a lot like moving to Canada/Mexico. It's more ambitious but less realistic.
     
  3. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    :shake:

    You really don't understand this do you? Everything is Republican/Democrat to you guys on the left.

    This has nothing to do with that, this has everything to do with the federal government telling me as an INDIVIDUAL citizen when I can and can't wipe my ass. I'm tired of it, and so is the majority of America.

    These movements have been on the books for the last decade at least. Also please explain to me where I ever said Bush did everything perfect? I have stated on numerous occasions that I did not fully support everything he did. Nor for that matter did I fully support the Patriot act.

    What you fail to see (blinded by party politics) is that Obama is doing the same crap Bush did. Spending worse then Bush, and using the Patriot Act in favor of his liberal agenda. Like I said in a previous thread, I was labeled a "right wing extremist" by my own government. Now maybe you can see how the liberals can use the Patriot Act to further their agenda?

    In addition any and all gun laws are unconstitutional on a federal level. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" was added for a reason.... that means DO NOT TOUCH. Montana has had enough of the infringements and knows full well that Obama will try to further the infringement. What Montana and other states are passing or soon will pass is basically saying "We as a state will not comply with what you as the federal government passes legislatively, if it does not clearly state in the Constitution that you can do it".

    The states have rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments as well... go read them.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2009
  4. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I'm not going to even bother pointing out the irony of that statement. Or did I? Also, the left raised cries over many things Clinton did, and many things Obama is doing. I get it. Obama says and does a lot of stuff you're ideologically opposed to, just as Bush said and did stuff I'm ideologically opposed to. In fact, the government in general does not operate as either one of us would have it, but that's because there are so many people tugging it in so many different directions. Democracy is about compromise, though, and ever since the Athenian democracy was established, the opposite of a democracy has been called a "tyranny".
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2009
    Mirage likes this.
  5. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    And that is the problem, we are not a Democracy. There is a VAST difference between a Democracy and a Representative Republic.
     
  6. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    If America were to operate how you want it to, Obama and other representatives wouldn't be able to do the things you oppose. Since they can, and have, it seems we are a democracy. You just don't think we should be. Am I right?
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2009
  7. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    It's not how I want it to, it's how it says to in the Constitution. They shouldn't be allowed to do anything that opposes the Constitution... they have reached far past that. Do you think your rep gives a shit what you think?

    The Constitution was meant to be an obstacle for a reason. To keep the power int he hands of the citizen, and not of the Feds. That's how it was intended.
     
  8. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Under the Articles of Confederation the federal government had the power, "to declare war, to set weights and measures (including coins), and for Congress to serve as a final court for disputes between states." That's it. The Constitution vastly expanded the power of the federal government, and set it up to where neither the president, the senate, nor supreme court judges were directly elected. The intention of the Constitution was to make a government resistant to grassroots efforts, particularly as they pertained to demands by citizens for state governments to print money.

    That's neither here nor there, though. You're thinking of the Bill of Rights, which was intended to limit the power of the federal government. Albeit, it was only necessary because the Constitution vastly expanded those powers. Look up the "Necessary and Proper Clause", and read about the debates of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over it, including Hamilton's using it to justify certain actions by congress. The Constitution and it's proper interpretation has always been controversial, but what isn't controversial is that it established a federal government that has become exactly what it is.

    If the Constitution was supposed to set up a government and political system very different from what we have now, and prevent the current state of affairs from happening via how it set up the government, then it failed.

    Edit: Now I'm all about the Bill of Rights, but once again, I happen to have different ideas then you on exactly what it involves for the government to act within the powers provided it by the Constitution. You think your interpretation of it is obviously the way it should be interpreted, and I think the same of my interpretation. So where does that leave us?
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2009

Share This Page