Posted on 08/13/2002 9:40:24 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
It's gonna be real interesting to see if the AFers call in and talk about how "nasty" people are to them on FR.
Wimpycat,
Is it shared attitudes that put divergent posters like tpaine and Betty Boop in the same mode of "wait and see"? I think not.
Guys like this cop's killer, convincing themselves that they have found a "simple, hidden, saving truth" have left the rhealm of principle and trod down the path of wild Ideology.
My general distrust of media pap and governmental functionary spin is what led me to this site to begin with. That caution, however, is also applied to the wild-eyed that sometimes share the trenches with us in a battle for limited government of conservative stripe. This shooter appears to have been of that ilk. As the sage said, "Men of intemperate mind can never be free, their passions forge their fetters.
However, what your quote says above, I guess must be also applied (wrongly I think) to me as well. For I, also, despite coming late to the Ohio event's coverage, am also witholding my judgement.
I, however, will tell you that I am doing it for one reason alone: Betty Boop spoke for caution based on her personal acquaintance, albeit limited, with the perp in question. From acquaintance with her character and sincerity, I take pause.
That pause is consistant with the things that brought me to the site as I outline above. To attribute poor motives to those that call for thoughtful consideration, soley due to your outrage at the killing, leaves you, perhaps, "intemperate". No one is about to "run free" or escape justice. Our meager threads typically illuminate the hidden and analyze the undiscovered, not call out the mob.
I thought that was the issue--the meaning of the law (and given that it's usually half pointless to talk about what the law is as opposed to what the law's proper interpretation is, I thought I'd follow on that line).
Yeah, my Hugh disguise was pretty shabby. Mutton chops were too short, and the polyester pants weren't bright enough, right?
...in any event; sure was quick.
Yes, we can change the people, but we cant get those people to obey the constitution, except in mouthing the oath to protect it. That's the fundamental problem.
"The fact that you do not like the choices made by the rest of the nation, doesn't give you the right to advocate the overthrow of a constitutionally elected government."
Here you accuse me falsely and I resent this. What I said was that election of Hillary would cause a reaction that would result in a choosing of sides between a government espousing Marxist ideas and the natural will of the people to be free. And I never said I was advocating or supporting Hillary for President!!!
"The real outcome of any sort of a popular uprising would create nothing but dead bodies."
An uprising doesn't necessarily have to be a violent one, it could take many forms including passive resistance, not paying taxes, using barter in place of cash, etc. You sound rather like a Tory propagandist arguing against those crazy Sons of Liberty to me, who were told they had no chance.
"your notion that we could "...engage the opposition forces out in the open, where we always have the advantage..." while being incredibly romantic, and very swashbuckling, is bunk."
Again you misrepresent me, when I say engage I am talking about the war of ideas and bringing the issues into focus, whereas our elected leaders and their propagandists in the press, are paid to obfuscate the issues, keep us in the dark, and waste our efforts on symbolic battles like the pledge of allegiance and the Flag, while the constitution and bill of rights withers away.
"The reality of it would be a lot more Tiananmen Square, than Bunker Hill. Marxists do not implement their ideology without knowing full and damned well that THEY control the field, and while our Second Amendment protects our rights to bear arms, they will be no match for theirs."
Tianenamen Square happened in a large result because this country has sold out its principles and our President George Bush the first, made a tacit deal with them to do so. He played Pontius Pilate and if you doubt that, go read Seeds of Fire by Gordon Thomas. As for Marxists always controlling the field you are wrong! Marxists when exposed for what they are, are always rejected by the American people and Hillary would succumb to her desires to rule terribly and try to implement such draconian measures that the people would finally say enough and resist, ultimately causing a sea change, in my opinion.
"The concept of killing the patient to save the patient doesn't hold water, and that's what you advocate."
No the patient (freedom, the only thing worth defending) is currently bleeding from every orifice while both parties and their flunkies perform cosmetic surgery.
"Here is the real outcome to your "Hillary for President" fantasy, and the subsequent "uprising"...dead Americans, martial Law, Hillary in charge of the US Army, and using it to police the American people."
No, you are the one engaging in fantasy if you think the Army would follow Hillary into Martial Law to police the American public. More likely the Senior military would revolt and the mass of soldiers would follow it and sack the elitists like Hillary, Teddy K, Chris Dodd, and Trent Lott. A new constitutional convention would be called and regular citizens would have to step up and take over. Of course, the US military might have to first rout the foreign and UN military troops already in this country, which you probably will deny before even trying to investigate, but I'm sure you will just paint a tinfoil hat on me to solve that problem for you.
"No thank you, you're far more dangerous than Hillary."
And I' sure you would include me with such other dangerous types as Alex Jones of Infowars.com and those of yesteryear Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, et al, who would be amazed that you could look at our current country as a "free republic" in any way. We are an Empire, one that confiscates half of personal wealth, monitors and regulates every facet of business, and has turned over the right to coin money to international banksters, and long ago pledged the land and property of the US over to pay for the debts incurred against the USA.
You have misrepresented my points and in turn made WILD accusations against me. I'm not sure you are being an entirely honest debater. Either that, or you knowledge of history is incomplete. The American Revolution was successful because it was based on the natural want of people to be free in their personal lives of controlling an unresponsive government and they produced talking points (Declaration of Indeopendence, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist papers, etc) to guide it. Today we have a government more interested in Afghanistan and Iraq than defending our borders or even the Pentagon, and it only takes half the wealth of the people to do this. It now operates more under the UN charter than US Constitution. The people must demand a rededication to those principles before they are completely extinguished from the people's memories by cultural marxism (PC). And if you will not fight or are afraid of the consequences, you will never be free, because the tyrants never run unless the people are unafraid of them. So I for one say, Hillary "bring it on!"
We were much more effective fighting for freedom with Clinton in office than Bush! Patriots have gone to sleep! Wake up!
Super post DrLiberty. Sure wish we had a few million more like you out there.
The right's tendency to eat its own is no different than that of the left. As on the left, there is a spectrum: from rigid conservatives resisting anything smacking of change to Reagan democracts to "former" radicals such as Horowitz who entertain the right with leftist circuses in their honor in his old haunt Academia.Unfortunately, upon the advice former radicals such as Horowitz … hawking his "Progressive Vision for the Party" … the right has made two grievous mistakes.
First, they've refused to use any of the Left's winning tactics.
There are no litmus test issues on which the "I'm personally opposed, BUT … " party can unify.
Instead, they repeatedly compromise -- and thereby render meaningless -- their personal convictions as they invoke the spell of "pragmatism" to explain why they traded the family cow for a couple of magic beans or used our money to purchase already-been-killed "Excess Human Lives" for their "hopeful humanitarian research".
Second, the right has ensured its own destruction from within by adopting wholesale the textbook Bolshevik tactics that are:
In other words, as we have compromised and even abandoned wholesale the enduring, self-evident truths on which this nation was founded, we have lost the touchstone of our true unity despite our rich and lively diversity of opinion.
- The art of the personal smear and the invoking of Slogans instead of sound, reasoned, factual rebuttal,
- The Cult of Personality by which they place their faith in politicians instead of holding their statesmen and leaders accountable in action and word; and in an effort to homogenize their own ranks and ostracize the independent-minded among them rather than go the Rainbow-Coalition-as-Scythe route …
- They pigeonhole individuals as groups or factions to be judged, attacked, blamed, wooed, appeased or silenced en masse rather than recognizing and preserving always the individual as a person … weighing his arguments; not his appearance, his friends, his sex, race or his reading material as do academia's deconstructionists.
We are following the left into a "democratized" world of utter subjectivity where truth is determined by majority rule.
Where are the Sons of Liberty? Where are the Whiskey Boys?
Once upon a time I thought I'd found them here.
On July 15th, 1794, local Marshall, David Lennox, and General John Neville, excise inspector for the western region were attacked by about forty men. Shots were fired, but no one was hurt. The next day one hundred men unsuccessfully attacked the General's luxurious house, and on the third day five hundred rebels returned and burnt the mansion to the ground. Two weeks later they marched through Pittsburgh and peacefully dispersed. The Whisky Rebellion was over.
So why was the federal army, two months later, marching on Pittsburgh? Why were the mainly Scots and Irish settlers of this frontier area singled out for the massive show of force by the federal government? Whiskey Boys made violent protests in Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, the Ohio Territory, and the Northwest, and their more powerful cousins, the large distillers in the Eastern cities were also against the tax. Yet only the Western Pennsylvanians had to deal with an army. Was the Union ready to collapse, as the Federalists insisted, or was George Washington acting like George III, riding roughshod over the civil liberties of his subjects. Is the Whisky Rebellion the story of a strong government restoring law and order, or is it the tale of an oppressed minority fighting for freedom?
The rights and wrongs are unclear, but what happened in the years after the rebellion says a great deal about this country today. The government of 1794 assembled a large army, and spent a great deal of money to subdue a few frontiersmen, deploying overwhelming force against a ragtag rabble of farmers and laborers. The administration made its point, and took some of the rebels on a tour through the justice system. Court cases dragged on, but the only two men convicted of treason were pardoned, albeit on most unflattering grounds.
Having established its authority the government was seemingly incapable of carrying out what it had been attempting since 1791. Hamilton watched in frustration as local courts, lawyers, and sympathetic judges thwarted his excise men. Of fifty criminal charges brought between December 1796 and November 1800, not one resulted in the imposition of the full penalty laid down by the law. Many of the cases were thrown out. Evasion of the taxes continued.
So the significance of the Whisky Rebellion does not lie in the character of the protagonists. It lies in the fact that, where other societies seem to fly apart in the face of change and rebellion, America flourishes in a state of constant ferment. Americans challenge the restraints of any authority that they have freely elected to judiciously restrain them. American society is routinely stressed by violent change. Other societies, more in awe of presidents and kings, less inclined to irritate the powers that be, might be destroyed. America thrives.
Or at least it did at one time ... before we were cowed, left and right, by the Cult of Personality and PATRIOT became a dirty word and apt acronym for the fine print of the State's abandoning the Constitution in the name of Prosperity, Security and War without End or Objective.
What's it cost him to be honest for a change?
He's a huckster and opportunist.
Any of his former friends with brains enough to see what he's doing likely are delighted with his "former" radical status. He gets much more accomplished on their behalf by working the Inside Job.
Yes, indeed they are... but are they really?? Anyway, quick is best when it comes to bringing a nasty issue to a head.
so few americans have had any clue about this. thank the lord for the internet, though. people are finally learning the truth.
If there was an armed insurrection first? Wrong-o, me boy. They'd put down the insurrection, just like they did from 1861 to 1865.
More likely the Senior military would revolt and the mass of soldiers would follow it and sack the elitists like Hillary, Teddy K, Chris Dodd, and Trent Lott.
Yup, they'll sack the people who appointed them. Sure. Right.
A new constitutional convention would be called and regular citizens would have to step up and take over.
The history of military coups in the world do not support your rosy scenario. What would be more likely to happen is that any officers who did overthrow the duly elected civil authorities would "temporarily" assume "emergency powers" for the next 25-50 years or so.
Of course, the US military might have to first rout the foreign and UN military troops already in this country, which you probably will deny before even trying to investigate, but I'm sure you will just paint a tinfoil hat on me to solve that problem for you.
How many troops? Where are they stationed?
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.