• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

DOI, FP, AFP, The Constition, AOC...I Challenge You!

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I broke out the ole book last week, and started reading the Declaration Of Independence, Federalist Papers, U.S. Constitution, and Articles Of Confederation.

I suppose the question is: What's your point, you freaking Libtard, anti-gun, Constitution-shredding Nihilist?!

Answer: I have reade each a number of times, and gone through a couple of them with a fine-tooth comb.

I would like to start us off with the notion of Armin ourselves, and rising-up against the Government. I will offer an alternative:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (DOI, 1776)

Recently, there was a group of individuals who were plotting--allegedly--to rise-up against the U.S. Government, with arms, and sabotage civilian areas as well (apple crop, dam). What sprung to mind in the wake of this group being busted is the idea that maybe the loudest Declaration of Independence is not made with the firing of any weapon but the pen, the mouth, feet on the ground, and individuals declaring they will not support this System any more.

How can we not support the system?: Not paying taxes, when ticketed, fight it in court (in large numbers), voting Third Party, Making it to public meetings, and confronting our so-called Representatives, etc..--just examples; these things require massive bodies doing the same, and standing their ground.

I hope to see some more quotes.:dude:
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
I'll preempt the indignant objections first: by my principles, the revolutionary colonials were justified in throwing off the yoke of England by armed rebellion.

The Declaration of Independence was, in large part, brazen self-justification. Were the principles enumerated in it so self-apparent, they would bear out in America today, a society with far more causes for objection to our current governance, as well as far more degree of objection with regard to the same causes, as the American Colonies had. Everything they had to bitch about, we have to bitch about to a greater degree, and then some additional things to bitch about on top of that. In other words, if the American Colonials were to observe the state of liberty in America today, they'd think they had it good. The typical thinker, today, doesn't read the Declaration of Independence and confess, "Yeah, fair cop. Good on 'em." The typical thinker (whether Republican or Democrat), today, is adamantly opposed to everything the Declaration of Independence is predicated upon, and gives it a token nod in deference to tradition. The common citizen (whether Republican or Democrat) is far worse: he's never read it, thinks it's fuckin' badass, and let's go nuke some towel-heads.

The Declaration of Independence says, in short, that institutional affront to liberty and denial of self-determination are so anathema to human nature that any human so-offended is intrinsically justified to foment and execute bloody revolution. In fact, it says this right at the beginning, and then the rest of it is just an enumeration of specific offenses and a wrap-up.

In order to endorse the Declaration of Independence, pooh-pooh revolutionary ideology, and maintain any degree of intellectual consistency, one must argue that the Colonials had it worse than we do. That, I think, would be rather difficult.
 

pfries

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
182
Location
East Tennessee
@ ()pen(arry

Although I agree with what you have stated I have to question?

The colonials were in a bit of pickle they were subject to an overbearing monarchy.

I can say that from a stand point of control, and let’s not kid ourselves this is about control,
when my children are out of line I attempt to correct them before the actions needed to make that correction were beyond what I would like to call reasonable.

What it seems you are stating is we should wait for things to get so bad that conflict is the only means to resolution?

I for one would like to head it off at the pass, conflict is an extreme measure. Things have gotten where they are one small step at a time.
A declaration to the government to get back to the roots of what founded this country, backed by citizens even in a minority to start .
This sounds better to me than allowing things to continue until it is as bad as the colonies had it and conflict is inevitable.

This is just my opine

Pat
 
Last edited:

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
What it seems you are stating is we should wait for things to get so bad that conflict is the only means to resolution?

Not at all. Reviewing what I wrote:

Everything they had to bitch about, we have to bitch about to a greater degree, and then some additional things to bitch about on top of that.
*snip*
The Declaration of Independence says, in short, that institutional affront to liberty and denial of self-determination are so anathema to human nature that any human so-offended is intrinsically justified to foment and execute bloody revolution.
*snip*
In order to endorse the Declaration of Independence, pooh-pooh revolutionary ideology, and maintain any degree of intellectual consistency, one must argue that the Colonials had it worse than we do. That, I think, would be rather difficult.

What I'm saying is that, by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, once government becomes oppressive of liberty as a matter of course the governed are not merely justified, but well-nigh obligated, to overthrow that government, which in context means by force. It is, of course, always preferable to head off such an eventuality by correcting the early whisperings of oppression. It is also the case that the current government of the Unites States is undeniably and considerably more oppressive of liberty than was the government of England over the American Colonies.
 

ldsgeek

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
103
Location
New Hampshire
Four boxes

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."

We have been using the first for years, only to be ignored or ridiculed by the media and our elected officials, for the most part.

We try to use the second but due to the media, again, the needed messages don't get the coverage they need.

The third is being denied to us by the current DOJ (black panthers, f&f, suing states for upholding federal laws, and for securing voters rights)

Unfortunately, that leaves the fourth as the next option.

I don't want to see it happen, civil war/revolution is an ugly thing, but if this November leaves us with another 4 years of this (lack of) leadership it may come sooner than we would like. When the DHS, SSA, even NOAA, are arming up (google ammunition purchases federal agencies) we need to wonder what the government has planned for us. I can't help but think that it isn't a nice vacation at the beach for each American.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Federalist, Number 6, Para 2:

"...A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighbourhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages...."

This section can be reduced to the individual drive of Man; that although Ambitious, he is also Vindictive, and Rapacious; hence: Social Man.--all the more reason for a potent Federal Government. And who is to assure the Federal Government does not get out of control, as the States are assured not?; nothing...I suppose the so-called People.

Interestingly, the Founding Father's agree with my assertion, that Man is a beast which requires taming, and that taming comes in the form of many things, one is the formulation of Society, and for the sake of Common Order, Coercion.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Interestingly, the Founding Father's agree with my assertion, that Man is a beast which requires taming, and that taming comes in the form of many things, one is the formulation of Society, and for the sake of Common Order, Coercion.

Paraphrasing what you just said:
"The Founding Fathers agreed that two plus red equals penis, and that wild unicorn stew can cure cancer, and that everyone needs a kick in the teeth from time to time to prevent inflation.

What? Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Federalist, Number 6, Para 2:



This section can be reduced to the individual drive of Man; that although Ambitious, he is also Vindictive, and Rapacious; hence: Social Man.--all the more reason for a potent Federal Government. And who is to assure the Federal Government does not get out of control, as the States are assured not?; nothing...I suppose the so-called People.

Interestingly, the Founding Father's agree with my assertion, that Man is a beast which requires taming, and that taming comes in the form of many things, one is the formulation of Society, and for the sake of Common Order, Coercion.

Taking a bit of "artistic license", eh?

No..I think it could be reduced more to be that different people think and act differently (sometimes violently therefore) unless there is something they have in common...in our case, Freedom. Nothing about a "beast" needing to be tamed. The Founders believed that the best defense against a large government getting out of control, is a educated citizenry that has some "skin in the game", the freedom to speak their minds and the weapons (speech and firearms) to make a difference.

Now...if you want to discuss how we have strayed from what was intended...that's another discussion. :)
 
Last edited:

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
Have a look at Federalists 9 and 10. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the best defense against the growth and power of factions that exercise power against the interests of the common good is to promote the proliferation of factions. The way this works is that the more people are focusing on their pet issues, and the more factions there are, the less relative power any given faction has, as the special interests are fragmented and sub-divided.

What we have in America today is one massive faction: federal government, which answers to the basest, most self-serving whims of the populace, and continues to do so by paying political and economic capital to those interests that form symbiotic relationships with it. Our current model is precisely what Madison argued to prevent in F10. It is also the model you so enthusiastically endorse.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Have a look at Federalists 9 and 10. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the best defense against the growth and power of factions that exercise power against the interests of the common good is to promote the proliferation of factions. The way this works is that the more people are focusing on their pet issues, and the more factions there are, the less relative power any given faction has, as the special interests are fragmented and sub-divided.

What we have in America today is one massive faction: federal government, which answers to the basest, most self-serving whims of the populace, and continues to do so by paying political and economic capital to those interests that form symbiotic relationships with it. Our current model is precisely what Madison argued to prevent in F10. It is also the model you so enthusiastically endorse.

You are correct...factions, united. That is the States and Federal government. But...people...especially VOTING citizens were supposed to understand this, as well as know when a law was unconstitutional and IGNORE it. An unconstitutional law is void.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
You are correct...factions, united. That is the States and Federal government. But...people...especially VOTING citizens were supposed to understand this, as well as know when a law was unconstitutional and IGNORE it. An unconstitutional law is void.

Oh sure. I meant that for B92FL. Sorry for not being clear.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The Declaration of Independence says, in short, that institutional affront to liberty and denial of self-determination are so anathema to human nature that any human so-offended is intrinsically justified to foment and execute bloody revolution. In fact, it says this right at the beginning, and then the rest of it is just an enumeration of specific offenses and a wrap-up.

Those specific offenses are an eye-opener. Obama's efforts, particularly with his impressive (puke) list of Constitution and Congressional-defying Executive Orders make some similar inroads as the offenses detailed in our Declaration of Independence, yet they pale on comparison to the widespread and nearly total misgovernance of the crown as listed therein.

Wait until term two. As Doc said in Back to the Future, "You're going to see some serious s***."

In order to endorse the Declaration of Independence, pooh-pooh revolutionary ideology, and maintain any degree of intellectual consistency, one must argue that the Colonials had it worse than we do. That, I think, would be rather difficult.

Au, contraire! I think it would be exceedingly difficult to argue to the contrary. Just wait, though - elect him again, and see for yourselves just how much worse things will get.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
I'm not connecting here with what your stating. Please, elaborate.

You are quoting a historical document, and declaring that the quoted words support your views, without explaining the connection. However, not only is the connection not self-evident, but everyone who has responded to your claim has denied correlation. In other words, you've engaged in nonsensical non sequitur.

EDIT: Let's just make this super clear.

the Founding Father's agree with my assertion

Like hell they do. Nothing in that quote suggests anything of the kind.
 
Last edited:
Top