Sweet!
:-)
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 10/19/2009 7:41:42 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
“It would be nice if the author could spell ‘martial’ correctly.”
Yes, sweety, it would be “nice.” It should have been “marital.”
Buzz off!
Hank
Anytime, Hank. Glad to be of assistance.
Don't you think so?
Otherwise the author looks sloppy and ignorant putting into jeopardy the excellent points he or she made.
Better sweety?
One, and only one, of those things is specifically within the purview of Congress, under the name by which it was known at the time.
I leave you to discover which one.
Other than that, I agree entirely with the content and spirit of your post.
Excellent. Perhaps you are not a thug, but just a very enthusiastic lover of liberty. I appreciate that. More than you know.
Hank
Well, no. A very busy producer knows that there are countless individuals who will edit his work for free, just by posting it on FR. See, you are an example.
Plese to not think it is not appreciated.
Hank
Ahhhh, I see. A idealist.
The next time someone robs you at gunpoint, or the next time some woman you know gets raped and busted up and you have to visit her in the hospital, or the next time there is a Pearl Harbor, or a Malmedy, or a Belleau Woods or an Antietam and your family’s as well as your country’s ass is on the line, let me know how far the philosophy of “why” gets you.
Why? Because sometimes reality intrudes on our carefully constructed philosophies, and we are forced to act. We fought alongside our ALLIES during WWI because they asked us to, lest they be pushed into the Atlantic. Your suggestion that the South was ready to “evolve” its way out of slavery would be laughable were it not so absurd. How would the government buying all the slaves end the institution of slavery?
Why, then, can you not see it at play with the Obama administration. Don't forget who his mentors and influencers are. They have "doubled down" in an attempt to push the ball irretrievably over their goal line.
The whole thing has been and continues to be put over with a lie and a huge theft. The lie is that the government can provide people something, anything, like healthcare.
As always, par for the course! They could do nothing were they to be honest.
But the government cannot provide anything. All it can do is steal what other’s produce and redistribute it.
Exactly! We are talking about a distribution system and the government is the big dog on top of the pile. The purpose of the Constitution was to limit those areas over which the government had control, or what they could distribute. The Constitution did not place them atop the pile but as only a booth on the main toll road. They could collect a toll but had limited, or no, power over what went where.
The government promises to deliver health-care, but the Doctors know the government cannot deliver anything, and certainly cannot deliver health-care without them. So they are going to quit, and how will Obama-n-company deliver health care then.
How did they do it in the USSR? How do they do it in Cuba? North Korea? China?
You have a very valid point but you are playing their game. The Communists are usually the ones who call strikes to bring a country, or government, down? You are attempting the same game with the wrong people. They will simply crush you.
I am reminded that a passive approach only works with honorable and compassionate people. Had Ghandi tried passive resistance with Mao or Stalin rather than with the British he wouldn't have even been a footnote in history. The brutes always encourage passiveness in their opponents.
Sweet!
:-)
“It means, simply, if a nation’s only means of defence against an invasion is to go to war, and the war successfully repulses the invasion, things would have been worse if the war had not been fought, probably. However it would have been better if there were no invasion, and therefore no necessity of war at all.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I thought that was what the writer was attempting to say but the sentence is a classic example of someone having failed to read what he has just written and ask himself if he has actually said what he meant. The whole problem could have been avoided by adding two words, need for.
What kind of government we actually have is debatable. It is certainly moving toward an oligarchical dictatorship if not there already, we will know by the end of 2010 whether we are past the point of no return, I suspect that we are. It is certainly NOT the constitutional republic we are promised in the now forgotten constitution, everything the congress is trying so hard to pass is in violation of the constitution and should never have even come up for discussion. It is NOT a democracy because that implies majority rule and the current power grabbers care not at all what the majority wants, they only want what suits their power grabbing purpose.
Is it wrong to refuse to fight for your country’s government? Not necessarily morally wrong certainly but it may involve criminal penalties depending on what country and what time period. Of course we all know that what is wrong and what is criminal are two different subjects.
Does it matter what kind of government it is? I would say yes, a just government would only go to war to defend liberty, it may be morally wrong to enjoy the fruits of liberty while expecting others to take all the risks of defending it for you. Of course there probably has never been a case of a nation going to war with unanimous approval of the citizens. Some will always say it is unjustified.
I like your style, Sweety.
“Otherwise the author looks sloppy and ignorant putting into jeopardy the excellent points he or she made.”
Of course. But even the best editors miss things, occasionally, and usually have the opportunity to correct things that were missed. Have a look at the original article, and you’ll see it was corrected before all the criticism, rightly deserved.
How would you suggest an honest error be corrected on FR, I do not care how careful a writer or poster is, inadvertent mistakes make it under the wire, and FR makes no provision for correcting those kinds of mistakes.
Anyway, please know I understand your criticism, and appreciate them.
Hank
My reading sort of ground to a halt at “marshal” law ...
There will no doubt be violence in the future, but it will not be a revolution
This has been in the back of my brain for some time now. I'm concerned that if/when the government gravy train slows, there will be urban unrest. They will get MSM coverage, and the government will not replay the firehosings of the 60's. It took cities decades to rebuild after the civil unrest of that era, and then only after the Reagan revolution. There are plenty of slums in the world that have survived for many years, at a cost of immense human suffering and indignity. Not sure we'd be able to pull out of such a mess.
I'm of the opinion that the one-worlders would not bemoan the loss of the middle class.
TY for the ping.
“I’m of the opinion that the one-worlders would not bemoan the loss of the middle class.”
They would not only not “bemoan” it, but applaud it. It’s exactly what they are aiming at.
Hank
Neither could Albert Einstein.
Well it could be done the way I do it professionally. I look at it one day and forward it to a co-worker for review. That co-worker looks at it, and then returns it to me. I then let it sit for at least 24 hours.
Then I look at it again and forward it to the boss. He looks at it and sends it back to me where I read it a final time word for word as if I've never seen it before.
You see Hank, we write things like this for a living. People actually pay us for sh** like this. If we write crap, that's what we get in return.
If we write well and better than our competition, we are rewarded
Please accept this in the spirit in which it's offered. This kind of thing is too important to be done in a slipshod manner.
Best,
L
You know, you just wrote something similar to what John Adams said! Someone up the thread quoted him saying something (paraphrase)about the real revolution occurring already in the people’s minds or hearts. I remember reading it myself in “John Adams” (by D. McCullough)a few weeks ago!
It seemed to have something to do with the people not tolerating things anymore. The people were getting tired of being overtaxed without representation, of course. But there were other issues too! The people were beginning to feel like they didn’t have to automatically do something or give something they shouldn’t have to do or give, as much or at all, I think. That they were beginning to feel that way, was a rebellion. Though at first it was not violent.
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.