Nothing I read there indicates that a tyrant has taken over the govt.
-
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.
-
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.
Republican candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table' DallasNew
- Thread starter Doug Huffman
- Start date
- Status
Nothing I read there indicates that a tyrant has taken over the govt.
.
He won the popular vote. You know...the will of the people. Unlike GW who won as the result of a supreme court ruling.
riverrat10k
Regular Member
Dig a little deeper
Just another quote from bank analyst whalen
In each case the substance of the transaction is to falsify the financial statements of the participants. And in each case, the acts are arguably criminal fraud. And in the case of the zombie banks, the GSEs and the MIs, the fraud is being actively concealed by Congress, the White House and agencies of the U.S. government led by the Federal Reserve Board. Is this not tyranny?
I'll repeat Whalen's comment. "Is this not tyranny?"
We are not talking about A tyrant, bobby. We are talking about a fraudulent and tyrannical system, intended to steal, for the benefit of the Fed and it's member banks. The politicians are just tools or pawns of the bankers. Dem, Rep, Tea Party, do you hear any of them talking about possibly TRILLIONS of dollars in fraudulent securities, enough to bankrupt our entire country? I urge you to follow some of those links and dig a little deeper. If you still don't think it is a tyranical system, well we can agree to disagree, and I can draw my own conclusions about your motives for your posts.
Just another quote from bank analyst whalen
In each case the substance of the transaction is to falsify the financial statements of the participants. And in each case, the acts are arguably criminal fraud. And in the case of the zombie banks, the GSEs and the MIs, the fraud is being actively concealed by Congress, the White House and agencies of the U.S. government led by the Federal Reserve Board. Is this not tyranny?
I'll repeat Whalen's comment. "Is this not tyranny?"
We are not talking about A tyrant, bobby. We are talking about a fraudulent and tyrannical system, intended to steal, for the benefit of the Fed and it's member banks. The politicians are just tools or pawns of the bankers. Dem, Rep, Tea Party, do you hear any of them talking about possibly TRILLIONS of dollars in fraudulent securities, enough to bankrupt our entire country? I urge you to follow some of those links and dig a little deeper. If you still don't think it is a tyranical system, well we can agree to disagree, and I can draw my own conclusions about your motives for your posts.
Looks like maybe you should advocate an overthrow of the banking system.
riverrat10k
Regular Member
Maybe so, bobby
I have a hard time coming to grips with being a wage slave to a private banking cartel.
I have a hard time coming to grips with being a wage slave to a private banking cartel.
riverrat10k
Regular Member
Quote from Damon Silver,
..testifying before the Congressional Oversight Panel:
"We can either have a rational solution to this foreclosure crisis, or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. Which should we do?"
The banks may very well have dug their own grave on this.
..testifying before the Congressional Oversight Panel:
"We can either have a rational solution to this foreclosure crisis, or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. Which should we do?"
The banks may very well have dug their own grave on this.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
Three Boxes
We have three political boxes
1 The Soap Box
2. The Ballot Box
3. The Cartridge Box (in the event the first two fail to protect and defend/restore the Constitution)
The founders understood this concept quite well.
We have three political boxes
1 The Soap Box
2. The Ballot Box
3. The Cartridge Box (in the event the first two fail to protect and defend/restore the Constitution)
The founders understood this concept quite well.
oak1971
Regular Member
Revolutionary Socialism? Guess those guys will steal a slogan from anyone. Did they ever have a new idea?
frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
Real simple..
A revolutionary overthrow of the government has always been on the table, that is the exact reason why the founders ensured our 2A right. They wanted an armed populous that could form up into militia and fight a tyranical sytem if required.
However, they also framed the government with checks/balances and created a Republic in the hopes that small federal government, strong states, and localized government would mitigate tyranny. If people managed to vote good representatives into office who actually represent the needs and desires of their constituents, then the system works just fine. Regulations were put in place to ensure everyone had a voice, and every citizen got the right to vote.
Now, over the years the system has been changed, but that was the beauty of it all, as long as we can elect good people into office we can change it back. The founders have given us a revolution- a way to fundamentally change government- without bloodshed. When representatives refuse to listen to the people they represent, we vote them out.
Having said that, the founders understood that a group of senators could be just as tyranical as a mad king. The system has changed a lot in 200+ years since its inception, and citizens should always be wary of tyrants in whatever form. Armed revolution comes into play when political solutions are no longer possible.
A revolutionary overthrow of the government has always been on the table, that is the exact reason why the founders ensured our 2A right. They wanted an armed populous that could form up into militia and fight a tyranical sytem if required.
However, they also framed the government with checks/balances and created a Republic in the hopes that small federal government, strong states, and localized government would mitigate tyranny. If people managed to vote good representatives into office who actually represent the needs and desires of their constituents, then the system works just fine. Regulations were put in place to ensure everyone had a voice, and every citizen got the right to vote.
Now, over the years the system has been changed, but that was the beauty of it all, as long as we can elect good people into office we can change it back. The founders have given us a revolution- a way to fundamentally change government- without bloodshed. When representatives refuse to listen to the people they represent, we vote them out.
Having said that, the founders understood that a group of senators could be just as tyranical as a mad king. The system has changed a lot in 200+ years since its inception, and citizens should always be wary of tyrants in whatever form. Armed revolution comes into play when political solutions are no longer possible.
oak1971
Regular Member
My favorite line from "The Patriot", "Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?"
frommycolddeadhands
Regular Member
LOL, I was actually trying to remember that particular line earlier. Sums things up rather nicely.
My response was to this:
"The Declaration of Independence does not mention, is not limited to overthrow of kings, monarchs or tyrants."
I don't believe we have a king or monarch or tyrant.
Doug Huffman
Banned
Compare and contrast what "we have" with king and monarch and tyrant, regardless of what you believe. Some "believe" in poltergeists and some believe in the toothfairy with equal justification.
I don't agee with some of what Obama had supported, but to compare with the last administration, he pales in comparison to what was foisted on us before. Unfunded, undeclared war, Patriot Act, etc. Those are pretty big deals that don't just cost jobs, but lives. I don't think Obamas constitutional infringements come close to the damage that GW did. If we weren't talking about a "2nd amendment solution" before 2009, we shouldn't be talking about it now.
I'm honestly rather tired of the fact that hardly anyone can make an argument in favor of the current adminstration without using the Bush adminstration as an excuse. "I don't think Obama's constitutional infringements come close to the damage that GW did"... so does that make constitutional infringements acceptable, because you didn't agree with the preceding adminstration?
"But Bush did this...." "Bush said this..." "The previous adminstration was much worse..."
Those are the statments you hear coming from people who have no idea of what is really going on, or simply don't care.
I have an excellent idea of what's going on, I just don't think you can ignore historical facts because you don't like the current administration. It sounds like you feel that all the problems we are facing started in Jan. of 2009 when Obama took office and should have been fixed by now, regardless of the legislative process.
I do not think that this country's problems should be fixed by now, I don't think anything I said implied that, however with the current administration in place they won't be properly fixed.
You, however, conveniently did not address my question... Do you feel that a previous administration's actions justify constitutional infringements by the current administration? Because that's what I gathered from your statement.
You, however, conveniently did not address my question... Do you feel that a previous administration's actions justify constitutional infringements by the current administration? Because that's what I gathered from your statement.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
The old adage, "You shall be known by the company you keep" comes to mind when considering the current white house resident. But then again, that little piece of prose should be tantamount whenever considering someone for a position of public trust and power. Whether or not one is disposed to favor or despise this man, one would have to admit that the moves made over the last nearly two years are in the direction of a more socialistic, wealth distributing genre. If someone still supports this administration in these moves, then in reality, they probably also favor a move towards more socialism and less free market enterprise. There are two little questions you should always ask yourself when the government is telling you that they are here to help and that they can do more:
o What is it going to cost?
o What am I going to lose?
o What is it going to cost?
o What am I going to lose?
"I don't think Obama's constitutional infringements come close to the damage that GW did" <<< was your statement, not mine.
A little thing called Healthcare comes to mind...
Amendment 10 Ratified 12/15/1791
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, can you show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows the government to control healthcare and REQUIRE me to purchase it? And fine me if I do not purchase it? Tax the company I work for a ridiculous amount of money PER EMPLOYEE that they offer private healthcare insurance to, forcing them to take away that private healthcare option from their employees because they can't afford it?
Last edited:
- Status