Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: User insights

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    User insights

    While not an OC issue.....we certainly get a lot of insight from User over firearm cases and in fact, he did give his opinion of the McDonnell case before he was even charged. So it should be worth mentioning here again

    The interesting thing is that many legal scholars with a lot of the alphabet behind their names are just now saying essentially the same thing Dan did in the beginning and that they think the decision will be overturned on appeal.
    Last edited by peter nap; 05-06-2015 at 09:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,612
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    While not an OC issue.....we certainly get a lot of insight from User over firearm cases and in fact, he did give his opinion of the McDonnell case before he was even charged. So it should be worth mentioning here again

    The interesting thing is that many legal scholars with a lot of the alphabet behind their names are just now saying essentially the same thing Dan did in the beginning and that they think the decision will be overturned on appeal.
    It has much to do with politics and the battle for gun rights in the Commonwealth.

    User has been spot on with his analysis and prediction.

    Don't think the Damnocrats/antis cared whether McDonnell was convicted or not - only that he was removed as a viable national figure. That they did accomplish and I do not see McD as being able to recover that.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    And in a manifestation of the Weapons Grade Hypocrisy prevalent among the Democrats, even though it appears that HRH Hillary committed FAR more tangible incidents of selling the influence of the Office of Secretary of State for cold hard cash, I don't think anyone would be willing to give odds that she'll ever be investigated, much less indicted, tried, or convicted.

    Our world is completely upside down right now.

    TFred

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    And in a manifestation of the Weapons Grade Hypocrisy prevalent among the Democrats, even though it appears that HRH Hillary committed FAR more tangible incidents of selling the influence of the Office of Secretary of State for cold hard cash, I don't think anyone would be willing to give odds that she'll ever be investigated, much less indicted, tried, or convicted.

    Our world is completely upside down right now.

    TFred
    Only if a fella has been sucked in by the lies of the rulers: we're here to protect society, etc., etc., etc.

    One of our current members has a great signature line. He says in effect that the system isn't dysfunctional; it is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

    The prosecution of McDonnell has scary parallels to the ancient Roman republic--before the empire. In the final ten or twenty years of the republic, politicians went after each other with criminal charges (for political reasons).
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    And in a manifestation of the Weapons Grade Hypocrisy prevalent among the Democrats, even though it appears that HRH Hillary committed FAR more tangible incidents of selling the influence of the Office of Secretary of State for cold hard cash, I don't think anyone would be willing to give odds that she'll ever be investigated, much less indicted, tried, or convicted.

    Our world is completely upside down right now.

    TFred
    Spot on with this. They usually don't eat their own unless their own turns from them and decides to march to an opposing drum.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    I was talking to a guy recently, a "young fella", who doesn't remember the world prior to 1968, and I became convinced that civilization is gone. The reason I thought that was his attitude towards law and the state. It used to be a point of honor to be a law-abiding citizen who saw himself as a stockholder, a participant. Now, it's an adversarial relationship - this guy's attitude is that he's going to decide whether or not to obey any particular law, and it's only a matter of whether he can get away with it. He thinks the State is a monolithic entity "out there" that has no real relationship to himself. I formed the opinion that those of use who are old enough to remember the last vestiges of civilization "get real" in our thinking. I don't know if it's all the immigration from all these foreigners (people from New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, etc.) or if it's just too many people, period. But attempting to preserve civilization at this point is the dream of a romantic idealist, I think.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  7. #7
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    IMHO that is the failure of the rulers not the ruled.
    When rules are implement without justification to the point they are nearly arbitrary it's pretty hard to respect them just for being "rules".
    I share your "young fella's" attitude.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    The fault goes to both. Rulers that are always encroaching upon the power of the people, and the apathy of the people who do not understand the significance, value, or the cost of this unique form of government.

    TFred

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I was talking to a guy recently, a "young fella", who doesn't remember the world prior to 1968, and I became convinced that civilization is gone. The reason I thought that was his attitude towards law and the state. It used to be a point of honor to be a law-abiding citizen who saw himself as a stockholder, a participant. Now, it's an adversarial relationship - this guy's attitude is that he's going to decide whether or not to obey any particular law, and it's only a matter of whether he can get away with it. He thinks the State is a monolithic entity "out there" that has no real relationship to himself. I formed the opinion that those of use who are old enough to remember the last vestiges of civilization "get real" in our thinking. I don't know if it's all the immigration from all these foreigners (people from New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, etc.) or if it's just too many people, period. But attempting to preserve civilization at this point is the dream of a romantic idealist, I think.
    Funny you and Twoskins mention your points; just today I was learning about the Peasant's Revolt of 1381. We're only a couple weeks away from the anniversary.

    The short story: Fourteen year-old Richard II was king of England. His hated advisers were Archbishop of Canterbury Sudbury, and The Lord High Treasurer Hales. The feudal system still existed. You were almost owned by the lord of the manor. The Hundred Years War with France was very expensive. New taxes were laid. It was hated. Lots of people dodged it. The government noticed the balance sheets look a bit short. Sudbury and Hales sent tax commissioners across the country to collect. The commissioners were highly abusive.

    Finally, the people had had it! Within just a few days large swathes of countryside rose up in rebellion. Tax commissioners were beheaded. Thousands of peasants marched on London. The professional army being in France, the peasants almost succeeded. Archbishop Sudbury was beheaded (eight chops to complete), and Hales, too, by the rebels.

    The people rose up because they were not participants in system; the system treated them quite badly. The government and the owners of the economic system were their adversaries, sucking life, produce, and opportunity out of them. No wonder they felt an adversarial relationship.


    Couple interesting historical notes.

    The man who started the rebellion Thomas the Baker, was caught, hanged, drawn, and quartered on July 4.

    This one is for User especially. One of the rebels, Thomas Wooten, denied his involvement, and opted for trial by combat. (He lost). So, trial by combat was still available as late as 1381 even though Henry II had started the jury system in the second half of the 1100's.*


    *When I say started the jury system, I mean planted the seed. Wanting to extend his royal power, he sent royal judges into the countryside. The judges would order the local shire reeve (sheriff) to find 12 good men and true. These men, the beginnings of a jury, told the judge what they knew of the case, rather than heard testimony themselves.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-16-2015 at 08:47 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I was talking to a guy recently, a "young fella", who doesn't remember the world prior to 1968, and I became convinced that civilization is gone. The reason I thought that was his attitude towards law and the state. It used to be a point of honor to be a law-abiding citizen who saw himself as a stockholder, a participant. Now, it's an adversarial relationship - this guy's attitude is that he's going to decide whether or not to obey any particular law, and it's only a matter of whether he can get away with it. He thinks the State is a monolithic entity "out there" that has no real relationship to himself. I formed the opinion that those of use who are old enough to remember the last vestiges of civilization "get real" in our thinking. I don't know if it's all the immigration from all these foreigners (people from New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, etc.) or if it's just too many people, period. But attempting to preserve civilization at this point is the dream of a romantic idealist, I think.
    There's a very difficult balance to be maintained Dan.
    Yes, I well remember pre 68 and there are some good memories, but also some of the lawlessness. CWPS were impossible to get most places but otherwise law abiding citizens still carried. There wasn't a high tech witch hunt for them either. Coffee was a quarter with free refills and that's gone also.
    While many of us here try to change bad laws within the system...some are written in stone and virtually impossible to obey. They're nothing but a hidden land mine waiting to be stepped on.
    Many LEO'S actually prefer the adversiall approach which requires an equal response or complete surrender.
    I can understand how younger people feel the way they do.

    The times they are a changing...and I think for the worse.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    The fault goes to both. Rulers that are always encroaching upon the power of the people, and the apathy of the people who do not understand the significance, value, or the cost of this unique form of government.

    TFred
    I used to feel the same way.

    Then I realized I don't have to object or take counter-action to deserve to be left alone or to not deserve being treated the nasty, threatening, expropriating, over-regulating way government treats others and I.

    Probably some readers have seen me take issue with the attitude, "if you don't vote, you've no right to complain." In the same vein, I point out that there is a 1A right to petition for redress of grievances (complaints), and the Bill of Rights is not limited to voters. Its really the same idea, just targeted to a specific right.

    As given in the Declaration of Independence: "...To secure these [inalienable] rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The only legitimate reason for government to exist at all is to secure our rights. We deserve a government that adheres to those limitations.

    If a fella feels apathetic about being able to influence meaningful change, I don't fault him. He's up against an entrenched group of highly intelligent shifty people who will use every trick in the book to maintain themselves in power and/or their grip on his economic throat.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member scouser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    [snip] ...
    If a fella feels apathetic about being able to influence meaningful change, I don't fault him. He's up against an entrenched group of highly intelligent shifty people who will use every trick in the book to maintain themselves in power and/or their grip on his economic throat.
    Driving along Rt 54 between Ashland and Montpelier there is one of those yellow Tea Party signs .. it says "Never underestimate the stupidity of people who's only goal is to get re-elected"
    Last edited by scouser; 05-16-2015 at 09:57 PM.
    JFT 96

    I'm sorry, did I offend you with my opinion?
    You should hear the ones I keep to myself.

    Porthos, Athos, and Aramis = peter nap, skidmark and Grapeshot, d'Artagnan = ?

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I used to feel the same way.


    Probably some readers have seen me take issue with the attitude, "if you don't vote, you've no right to complain." In the same vein, I point out that there is a 1A right to petition for redress of grievances (complaints), and the Bill of Rights is not limited to voters. Its really the same idea, just targeted to a specific right.

    .
    I'm guessing that you never figured out the difference between petitioning for the redress of grievances and the unearned privilege to biotch about who won an election and brought certain policies into office with them.

    Just as I'm guessing that many of those that utter the "If you didn't vote ...." phrase do not understand the difference.

    Vote and you can whinge about your guy not getting elected. Not voting means you did not have a dog in the fight, and still don't after the election is over. The guy(s) that got elected do something official that is illegal, immoral, fattening, or unconstitutional and you have a right to seek redress of your grievance about that.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Not voting means you did not have a dog in the fight, and still don't after the election is over.
    In your mind, prior to the 19th amendment, women didn't count, huh?

    What about those who go into combat and the draft (when it was happening), who had to fight but were too young to vote?

    Of course we have ballot box stuffing, voting fraud, and the like.

    So buy into a flawed system or shut up?

  15. #15
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    User has been spot on with his analysis and prediction.
    Since when is it kosher to discuss specific Members and their opinions?
    Last edited by Maverick9; 05-17-2015 at 08:02 AM.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Since when is it kosher to discuss specific Members and their opinions?
    Since when is it not...?

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    Since when is it kosher to discuss specific Members and their opinions?
    Well here it began with the introduction of the keyboard.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    In your mind, prior to the 19th amendment, women didn't count, huh?

    What about those who go into combat and the draft (when it was happening), who had to fight but were too young to vote?

    Of course we have ballot box stuffing, voting fraud, and the like.

    So buy into a flawed system or shut up?
    I would pay good money to ride the thought process that brought you to the above. The leaps leaped and hoops jumped through, by themselves, ought to be amazing. But the totality of the spectacle? It's got to be better than a 3-ring circus running all the acts simultaneously in the center ring.

    But in answer to your question - officially, legally, women did not count. Were you laboring under some impression that one fine morning all the men who could vote just upped and said "Hey, why don't we let women vote too?" because before that fine morning the men who could vote had never considered the issue and when they did that fine morning they all realized it was unfair and set about that very fine morning to remedy the situation?

    Here in the United States of America voting is a right reserved for adults (now that the pesky 19th Amendment has been dealt with). Adulthood is a legal concept. Just as men who could vote woke up and decided to give (yes, give!) women the franchise one fine afternoon all the men and women who could vote must have suddenly realized that children (anybody not an adult is a child, right?) should not be sent off to war without having some voice in that, so they upped and lowered the voting age to 18 - but kept the age for drinking anything more than weak beer, or purchasing cigarettes by themself, to 21.

    And speaking of voter fraud and bakllot box stuffing, along with giving children the vote - have you looked at the two most recent national elections in Scotland where they allowed anybody 13 or older to vote? Some folks (me included) suggest that the results illustrate why the right to vote should only be conferred on adults. Full disclosure - personally I believe that having lived to the age of 21 does not make one an adult and therefore eligible to vote. I would like to require an anti-stupid test, but realize tat with the apparent majority of voters falling into what I would consider as stupid they would turn that around on me and I would be disenfranchised. So I settle for the best of all possible worlds as opposed to demanding the best world.

    While you are pondering that, I am going to be asking my Congressman and Senators to introduce a new law - bucosal battery - the unwanted putting of words into one's mouth. It's going to be a felony with a mandatory punishment of being voted off the island.

    :-*
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    1. I'm guessing that you never figured out the difference between petitioning for the redress of grievances and the unearned privilege to biotch about who won an election and brought certain policies into office with them.

    Just as I'm guessing that many of those that utter the "If you didn't vote ...." phrase do not understand the difference.

    2. Vote and you can whinge about your guy not getting elected. Not voting means you did not have a dog in the fight, and still don't after the election is over. The guy(s) that got elected do something official that is illegal, immoral, fattening, or unconstitutional and you have a right to seek redress of your grievance about that.

    stay safe.

    1. Ummm. Yes, I did figure out the difference (your word). The enumerated right derives from the fundamental human right to complain/object. One could not possibly have a right to petition without first having the right to complain/object. Of course, it is fallacious reasoning to turn part of a fundamental human right into an "earned privilege."


    2. Claiming I did not have a dog in the fight arbitrarily circumscribes the argument. I certainly did have a dog in the fight: me. And, my family, and my friends, and... Whether I vote or not, I and the rest are still going to receive the expropriating, over-regulating, and economic destruction. I and everybody else deserve a government that actually adheres to founding principles, whether we voted or not. Nobody loses their right to complain about mistreatment by government just because they didn't vote.

    ---------------

    For myelf, I decided a few years ago that there is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to afflict him with government.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    SNIP So buy into a flawed system or shut up?
    Worse.

    With the looting, over-regulating, and economic destruction, Skidmark is essentially saying you must knowingly vote to visit that on your fellow man, or shut up.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-17-2015 at 03:48 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Worse.

    With the looting, over-regulating, and economic destruction, Skidmark is essentially saying you must knowingly vote to visit that on your fellow man, or shut up.
    Skidmark said neither - you attribute him falsely.

    What he said was if you do not vote, you remove any influence you might have on the outcome AND he never told anybody to "shut up."

    When someone doesn't vote, it's as if they did not exist.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    The fault goes to both. Rulers that are always encroaching upon the power of the people, and the apathy of the people who do not understand the significance, value, or the cost of this unique form of government.

    TFred
    I don't think it's apathy but disdain. It's also a bit condescending to say it is because people just don't understand the value of the oppressive rules.
    On the other hand maybe these young punks just don't realize all the character-building you get from oppressive, draconian, unjustifiable prohibitions on their freedom.
    I just thank the good lord at least a handful of states had the good sense to ban powdered alcohol before it was even available for sale for our own good.

    BTW I teach my kid only a mindless fool does what he is told for no other reason than someone told him to. So I'm trying to spread the disease into the next generation.
    Good reasons to do or not do:
    #1 Is it right.
    #2 What are the consequences.
    Bad reasons:
    #1 I was told to.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Skidmark said neither - you attribute him falsely.

    What he said was if you do not vote, you remove any influence you might have on the outcome AND he never told anybody to "shut up."

    When someone doesn't vote, it's as if they did not exist.
    Hence my use of the word "essentially".

    And, while he did not say literally "shut up", the import of his post clearly supports a denial that I have a right to complain without voting. See also his asserted distinction between the 1A right to petition and the right to complain without voting.

    However, you accuse me of a serious journalistic offense--false attribution. Its one thing if you want to argue "he didn't say that" meaning "he didn't mean that"; its something else to expressly accuse me of a serious, underhanded, sneaky tactic. Please refrain.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-17-2015 at 04:46 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I never did get all those rules straight.
    What if the guy you voted for wins, but then does stuff contrary to what he said he would do? Can you whine then?
    What if your vote was an absentee ballot and was never counted because it was lost in the mail or your signature wasn't a close enough match? Can you whine then?
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I'm guessing that you never figured out the difference between petitioning for the redress of grievances and the unearned privilege to biotch about who won an election and brought certain policies into office with them.
    Enlighten us please show us where it is a privilege granted by the state to b!tch about who won an election?

    Just as I'm guessing that many of those that utter the "If you didn't vote ...." phrase do not understand the difference.
    Interesting line considering your very next line.....

    Vote and you can whinge about your guy not getting elected. Not voting means you did not have a dog in the fight, and still don't after the election is over. The guy(s) that got elected do something official that is illegal, immoral, fattening, or unconstitutional and you have a right to seek redress of your grievance about that.
    Patently false. Not voting does not equate we don't have a dog in the fight, before or after the election.

    Seems to me the constitution at the time of the writing granted a privilege to a select few to vote, yet the document itself recognizes the rights of the people even those who may not be able to vote.

    By the way there are other ways of influencing the rulers other than with a rigged election between two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 05-17-2015 at 05:56 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •