McAuliffe thinks Cuccinelli is the bad guy at the Airport

[size=+2]Is This McAuliffe Meme Offensive?[/size]

How would Terry know?

I doubt seriously that he has flown commercial in a very long time. He knows what is best for us lowly peons. I also doubt that the cruise missle pictured was ever a threat to American air safety but hyperbole is his stock and trade.

Seriously???

Like you were actually expecting the truth from Terry???

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

OMG that hurt.

The problem, of course, is that the government school indoctrinated low information voter will swallow that ad without even chewing. And, the number of them is steadily increasing.

I remember the bill seeking to ban guns, when the f$%^ did missiles become part of that equation? Am I forgetting something?

All in all I'm sick of both of their campaigns, I've not seen a single add showing what either has done, only "Look how terrible that guy is, VOTE FOR ME!"

This ad is typical of the democrat's approach to campaigning. Unfortunately, it works for their low-information voter community.

So.....cruise missiles are allowed in Virginia airports? I suppose you never know when there is a terrorist camp that must be destroyed as one is picking up the parents from Dulles.

What kind of license do you need to buy a cruise missiles and where do you purchase one?

Depends on the definition of "missile", too. I believe Virginia law considers anything thrown a missile. There was a case a year or too ago in NoVA where a woman threw a paper cup full of ice at another car in traffic and the charge regarded a "missile".

Still, don't expect any ads from McAwful with any information about himself or his plans / history. Everything will be an attack.

zoom6zoom said:

Depends on the definition of "missile", too. I believe Virginia law considers anything thrown a missile. There was a case a year or too ago in NoVA where a woman threw a paper cup full of ice at another car in traffic and the charge regarded a "missile".

Click to expand...

It actually looks like a model rocket.

jhfc said:

So.....cruise missiles are allowed in Virginia airports? I suppose you never know when there is a terrorist camp that must be destroyed as one is picking up the parents from Dulles.

What kind of license do you need to buy a cruise missiles and where do you purchase one?

Click to expand...

They are tough to get, you need an "exception" license.

But if they were available, now THIS is something I would want to see raffled on Lobby Day!

jhfc said:

So.....cruise missiles are allowed in Virginia airports? I suppose you never know when there is a terrorist camp that must be destroyed as one is picking up the parents from Dulles.

What kind of license do you need to buy a cruise missiles and where do you purchase one?

Click to expand...

Missiles themselves are not restricted. Its the launchers that need a license.

JamesCanby said:

This ad is typical of the democrat's approach to campaigning. Unfortunately, it works for their low-information voter community.

Click to expand...

What I can't quite figure out is how anybody would trust a campaign that puts out that kind of information.

If he'll lie and distort and twist during the campaign, its kind of a given he'll do the same in office, no?

Anyway, if he'll tell those kinds of whoppers, there's no doubt he'll rule you without your consent.

Citizen said:

What I can't quite figure out is how anybody would trust a campaign that puts out that kind of information...

Click to expand...

They depend on unsophisticated voters who believe sound bites without any scrutiny. They pretend to be for the little people, but in fact, their policies ensure that the little people will remain little people in perpetuity.

builtjeep said:

I remember the bill seeking to ban guns, when the f$%^ did missiles become part of that equation? Am I forgetting something?

All in all I'm sick of both of their campaigns, I've not seen a single add showing what either has done, only "Look how terrible that guy is, VOTE FOR ME!"

Click to expand...

Ditto.

I have contacted both campaigns to express my disgust, with no response.

I suppose I'll vote for the unqualified guy, since I refuse to vote for either of these guys.

Tess said:

SNIP I suppose I'll vote for the unqualified guy, since I refuse to vote for either of these guys.

Click to expand...

Why not join me in voting "consent refused".

We're all equals. The only way government can be legitimate is with the genuine consent of the individual being governed. I no longer believe I have standing to govern others merely because I end up on the 51% or better side of the election. And, I darned sure do not consent to be governed by the likes of the current criminals at the local, state, and federal level.

Unfortunately, Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican with no thought to who or what their candidate really is or what they have done or will do for the people.
Bleat after me people, BAAAHHHHH!

Roverhound said:

Unfortunately, Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican with no thought to who or what their candidate really is or what they have done or will do for the people.
Bleat after me people, BAAAHHHHH!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure its totally that bad.

Congress' approval rating has been below twenty percent for some time.

Think about this for a bit:

What if you could get 51% of voters to express that dissatisfaction in the form of refusing consent to be governed by the existing regimes at the federal, state, and local level?

The whole psuedo-legitimacy of the government depends on the lie that it governs by consent of the governed. Personally, I hold that since we are equals, I can only govern another if he individually consents. Government today--since the founding, actually--socializes my idea and governs everybody on the consent of a few. It presumes consent. And, whoever gets 51% or more of the vote, presumes consent of the majority (instead of consent of every single person), considering/claiming themselves legitimate govern-ers.

So, by the rulers' own lie, if 51% were to refuse consent to be governed by them, at that instant the entire government would be illegitimate by their own rules. They would be forced to either govern illegitimately, or dramatically reduce government until a common-ground was reached whereby at least 51% again consented to be governed.

This could be an entirely non-violent way of forcing the government back into its box. Or, it would force government to rule illegitimately--stripping away the lies and symbols of freedom that are not freedom itself. Take away the lies, take away the veils people use to avoid looking at how bad the government is, and a lot more people will be angry about the government.

Just think it over.

Citizen said:

I'm not sure its totally that bad.

Congress' approval rating has been below twenty percent for some time.

Think about this for a bit:

What if you could get 51% of voters to express that dissatisfaction in the form of refusing consent to be governed by the existing regimes at the federal, state, and local level?

The whole psuedo-legitimacy of the government depends on the lie that it governs by consent of the governed. Personally, I hold that since we are equals, I can only govern another if he individually consents. Government today--since the founding, actually--socializes my idea and governs everybody on the consent of a few. It presumes consent. And, whoever gets 51% or more of the vote, presumes consent of the majority (instead of consent of every single person), considering/claiming themselves legitimate govern-ers.

So, by the rulers' own lie, if 51% were to refuse consent to be governed by them, at that instant the entire government would be illegitimate by their own rules. They would be forced to either govern illegitimately, or dramatically reduce government until a common-ground was reached whereby at least 51% again consented to be governed.

This would be an entirely non-violent way of forcing the government back into its box.

Click to expand...

It reads as if you were recommending a plebiscite instead of a representative democracy. We express our consent by electing people to represent us. The only effective way to revoke consent would be to successfully recall a representative who no longer reflected our consent on issues, or to replace that person at the next election -- and both options are available to us. Unfortunately, that supposes an informed, active and educated electorate, and that is something we are sorely lacking. We have reached a tipping point where the "takers" will continue to vote for those who promise the most freebies, regardless of rights or Constitutionality.

The national polls are showing that a majority of those polled think our government is on the wrong path, and the approval rating of the Congress and the President is well below 50% in each case. So what? We do not govern by polls, nor should we.

Election and voting reform at all levels, with strict rules regarding voter ID, donation-ability and representation are the answer ... but it will take action by that same incumbent-self-serving government to which we have currently given consent ... and please don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

JamesCanby said:

It reads as if you were recommending a plebiscite instead of a representative democracy. We express our consent by electing people to represent us. The only effective way to revoke consent would be to successfully recall a representative who no longer reflected our consent on issues, or to replace that person at the next election -- and both options are available to us. Unfortunately, that supposes an informed, active and educated electorate, and that is something we are sorely lacking. We have reached a tipping point where the "takers" will continue to vote for those who promise the most freebies, regardless of rights or Constitutionality.

The national polls are showing that a majority of those polled think our government is on the wrong path, and the approval rating of the Congress and the President is well below 50% in each case. So what? We do not govern by polls, nor should we.

Election and voting reform at all levels, with strict rules regarding voter ID, donation-ability and representation are the answer ... but it will take action by that same incumbent-self-serving government to which we have currently given consent ... and please don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Click to expand...

Bear with me for a moment. Read it for what it says, rather than as if.

I have to go in just a moment, so I'm gonna hit just the highest high points.

The American Revolution was either legitimate, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, the Queen of England is our rightful sovereign. If the revolution was legitimate, then in order to maintain their legitimacy, the governments since then must adhere to the revolutions justifications. Those justifications are found in the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence.

All men are equal. Governments are established to protect inalienable rights. Governments derive their just powers (legitimacy) from the consent of the governed.

If we are all equal, the only way I can govern you is if you personally consent. This is a crucial point. Mull it around, hold it out and examine it from all directions until you are totally certain about it one way or the other.

Gotta go. I'll try to come back later and finish the rest.

ETA: I'm back.

When we say that we express our consent by voting, we're covering up a falsehood: we're still going to govern those who don't consent. The idea includes a false generalization: "we consent". The best that can be said is that the actual voters who won are the ones that consented, not some generalized we. The other side of the coin is that those who didn't vote, and those voters who lost, are still going to be governed without their consent, and quite possibly in spite of nonconsent.

In the earlier post I invited Tess to vote with me "consent refused". That was just a manner of speaking, the context of the conversation being her voting for a certain candidate. Consent is more a matter of who is governed than how who is determined. Do it by vote, do it by survey, do it by legal contract (my favorite). The point is less how to do it, than against who the crime of current-government is perpetrated.

In American society, under the system created by our Founders, "consent" is given by election of those who represent us, under the majority-rule concept. I seriously doubt our Founders accounted for people who just didn't bother, or didn't care, but the fact remains our consent is not individual - as things are now.