Posted on 07/02/2015 9:48:44 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Treat Mexicans the same way they treat us.
Hillary whining will not play well to conservatives but to her base it does not matter. What matters is that any republican dare contradict her, threaten, accuse or interrupt her. The truth is irrelevant. All that matters is Hillary is being picked on my the evil republicans.
IF Ted says something like “Hillary wants to be your president but she breaks the law with respect to state department emails and she can’t even handle the emails she keeps.” This statement will be seen as just politics, just picking on Hillary for political reasons.
Hillary thrives on being notorious and the center of attention. Take away her attempt at being the center of attention, and she starts to fail.
Ted’s smart. He will get the facts out. But I am looking forward to how he will handle her.
On the state level, states would become individual nations if this principle was followed to its logical conclusion. In effect, this would mean secession and likely bloodshed. Revolutions must always be a last resort. No revolution will result in paradise on earth.
And while I'm in favor of drug decriminalization across the board, I would not be in favor of state-nullification, since pot bans aren't intrinsically evil.
OTOH, states would be within their rights to reject homosexual "marriage" legalization, since such laws deprive children of their God-given right to be raised by their natural parents.
As far as civil disobedience goes, that's fine, as long as you're willing to pay the penalty.
Yep, agree.
Perfect, upchuck!!!!
I won't say that's never appropriate, but I also think you are describing a "declaration of Independence" sort of relationship between the governed, and the governor.
Anyway, I'm agreeing with you on that point. My argument was at the OPPOSITE end of the spectrum, where some, few laws are held in disregard. When the civil disobedience can be rationally justified, it is unlikely to result in "anarchy," even if the law was a big social hot-button like homo marriage.
And, it seems we are in agreement, that good order doesn't depend on slavish obedience to the law.
-- As far as civil disobedience goes, that's fine, as long as you're willing to pay the penalty. --
Gandhi submitted, as did Rosa Parks, and MLK. The law poked the stick into its own eye, by punishing people who did nothing wrong, other than break an unjustified law.
I remember a Czech newspaper writing that America can survive Øbama but can it survive an electorate who voted for him, twice.
[[Maybe we should all write to our Reps and Senators and suggest that they use their Cadillac insurance plans to have spinal replacement surgery.]]
Lol- I’d rather they did so under obamacare so they’ll get an idea how horrible Medicaid, medicair, and obummercare really is, and now how grieviously they have betrayed the American people by not putting the supreme court on notice that they had better NOT violate our constitutional rights by voting for this clear violation of our rights-
Just briefly, and the reason I have such contempt for the corrupt SC- NEVER before in our history since becoming a nation, that I am aware of, has our government been allowed to FORCE us to purchase anything against our will- We were ALWAYS free to live entirely independently IF we so chose- in an extreme example, we were free, IF we so chose to do so, live entirely off the land, feeding ourselves, clothing ourselves, walking from state to state if we wanted, NEVER having to purchase anything ever again- We were free, IF we so chose, to never purchase anything we didn’t want to buy=- We could die In the wilderness, and not even have to pay for a funeral or death taxes or anything- Not working for money, thereby owing no taxes- being entirely self sufficient
Granted, that’s extreme, but it showcases how we had the RIGHT to be left alone by our government- then along comes the corrupt SC to take the RIGHJT to be left alone away from us, and forcing us, for the first time, to buy something simply because we are alive- or penalizing us if we refuse
This is a very serious violation of our right- and it needs to be taken sweriously OR ELSE we are going to lose more of our constitutional rights- The ball is now rolling, and it’s gaining steam- and it MUST either be stopped now, or we WILL lose our rights-
Our dear leader has vowed to use the rest of his time in office to squeeze every last ‘fundamental change’ he can before he leaves office- He IS coming for our guns, He IS going to be coming for our freedom of speech, He IS coming for Christians right to practice their religion freely-
The stakes are high- they have never been higher- and we are right now, teetering on the precipice- Which way we fall In the next election will determine whether this country survives as a nation of laws, OR we become a nation where rogue corrupt lawless powers that be rule over us-
Like I said in previous post- the left are no longer playing- they are dead serious- and it’s high time we got just as serious in every legal way we can-
[[After successful surgery, they can start by replacing Boehner and McConnell.]]
There’ plenty more that need removing too- My one hope is that America has had enough of spineless politicians and will continue to vote these worthless polticians out of office-
[[I remember a Czech newspaper writing that America can survive Øbama but can it survive an electorate who voted for him, twice.]]
Exactly- I’ve been saying it for al ong time now- having him as president for 2 terms was bad, but what has been even worse is the FACT that America is becoming a ‘gimmedat’ society and THEY are the reason we had to endure 2 terms of evil
A Russian or soviet leader once remarked that there was no need to bring force from outside America in order to overthrow us and defeat us, because we were going to defeat ourselves from within
Sadly that prediction has begun to come true thanks to Anti-American leftist enemies in positions of power
I don’t trust anyone but Cruz to really push for the repeal of Obamacare.
I hope the “gimmedats” stay home this election.
Thank you.
“He should be demanding that they ignore it- and getting other states to join him in civil disobedience.”
Please explain to me how a USA Senator can ‘demand’ anything of local court clerks.
[[Did Rosa Parks violation of the law create anarchy? Gandhi, anarchy? And Gandhi was a radical application of civil disobedience, about as radical as it gets.]]
I ran across it a few yers ago, and wish I had kept the l ink, but in then ot too distant past, the federal government tried to pass a law requiring states to do something, can’t remember what now but many of the states said “NO!” and formed a coalition in which they all agreed NOT to enforce the federal law I ntheir respective states- The federa government was forced to back down and repeal the law because there was no way the government could enforce it
We could, and SHOULD do the same dang thing with both the gay marriage AND the health care law, and states should pass laws forbidding the government from enforcing it I n their states- the problem is however that states are too dependent on government handouts and so are too cowardly to take such a stand
Any government action outside its legitimate authority is intrinsically evil - pot pot bans aren't evil enough to justify secession and likely bloodshed.
you’re right -brain fart- I was thinking he was governor- totally spaced it there- Passing a stone right now, and not thinjkign clearly- good catch
Ditto that:)
I just had an idea.
By being direct and truthful, what if Ted simply takes the victim card away from her at the beginning?
When it’s his chance to speak or to start off, he need only mention that “my opponent often plays the victim when she is confronted about these matters; we can’t have a president that plays the victim on these kind of important matters.”
This can force Hillary to either abandon her victim tactics or defend her long history of acting like a victim when confronted about her corruption and lawbreaking. For example, how is it that Hillary and her husband are worth tens of millions and her daughter gets six-figure nonsensical speaking engagements while at the same time she complains how she and Bill were penniless after they left the White House? If she’s already been told she always plays the victim, she can’t brush it off to those who play politics.
Then Ted can proceed to lay out the truth about her. She and her base could be tied up with no victim card to play.
I got this idea after watching Ted’s interview with Couric who tried from the getgo to pin him on his being born in Canada and he immediately jumped on the Birther issue ahead of Couric’s development and slammed her that it was Hillary that originated the Birther movement about Obama in 2008. She was left devastated as there was nowhere to go with it.
“Sigh
Ted, they’re illegal aliens not immigrants...
stop calling them immigrants
what they do to enter our country illegally and stay here illegally has nothing to do with immigration...
no part of their progress after going through our borders illegally is remotely connected to immigration..
don’t let their enablers continue to cloud the issue and make the rules and nomenclature..”
Something that is against the law is illegal. Persons are not illegal, they commit crimes. They are criminals. Criminal trespassers seems appropriate. Yes, words mean something.
I like it! Disarming the enemy before engagement, very good strategy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.