McAuliffe thinks Cuccinelli is the bad guy at the Airport

Tess said:

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.

Click to expand...

Great observation.

And, its been a lie since day one---the crucial element is equality. If all are equals, the only possible way to legitimately govern your equals is with their consent. If any single human being anywhere on the planet can govern me without my personal consent, against my personal refused consent, then he has elevated himself above me.

Some say consent is presumed under majority-rule. Presuming my consent because of majority-rule is just a specious justification to rule everybody, including those equals who don't wanta be ruled by the current regime or the one that wins. The proof is in the alternative: no presumption is necessary--I'm right here and available to declare my refused consent. Many readers here have already read my express refused consent. No presumption is necessary when I can be asked or have already made it publicly known, meaning no presumption is necessary when it is too easy to find out for sure. If the government wanted to know, they require me to file taxes every year. But, somehow there is not even so much as a check box for me to check off whether I consent to be governed by the current criminal rabble.

Regarding "consent" being given by election, the best that can be said is that consent is given by the voters for themselves to be governed. Fine. If they want to be governed by the candidates they elect, I have no problem with that. The trouble starts when they slop their criminal rabble over onto me and anybody else.

One could even stretch the point and say that loser voters consented by participating in the system. But, unless they are individually asked and individually consent to play by that rule, then we're back to a specious, justifying presumption.

As an alternative to "a lie", the best we can say is that the founders set up a system closer to an ideal, much like a constitution that still tolerated slavery and counted some men as only 3/5 of a man. So, instead of a lie, we could say they came closer to an ideal and gave us clue about which direction to evolve and progress.

And, its way past time to evolve on this point.

Regarding consent and equality, we are in the perfect season to discuss it. A very important date in history for this subject is less than a week away.


John Locke's Second Treatise on Government 1689

Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

"I have a dream!" MLK Aug. 28, 1963

Citizen said:

Great observation.

And, its been a lie since day one---the crucial element is equality. If all are equals, the only possible way to legitimately govern your equals is with their consent. If any single human being anywhere on the planet can govern me without my personal consent, against my personal refused consent, then he has elevated himself above me.

Some say consent is presumed under majority-rule. Presuming my consent because of majority-rule is just a specious justification to rule everybody, including those equals who don't wanta be ruled by the current regime or the one that wins. The proof is in the alternative: no presumption is necessary--I'm right here and available to declare my refused consent. Many readers here have already read my express refused consent. No presumption is necessary when I can be asked or have already made it publicly known, meaning no presumption is necessary when it is too easy to find out for sure. If the government wanted to know, they require me to file taxes every year. But, somehow there is not even so much as a check box for me to check off whether I consent to be governed by the current criminal rabble.

Regarding "consent" being given by election, the best that can be said is that consent is given by the voters for themselves to be governed. Fine. If they want to be governed by the candidates they elect, I have no problem with that. The trouble starts when they slop their criminal rabble over onto me and anybody else.

One could even stretch the point and say that loser voters consented by participating in the system. But, unless they are individually asked and individually consent to play by that rule, then we're back to a specious, justifying presumption.

As an alternative to "a lie", the best we can say is that the founders set up a system closer to an ideal, much like a constitution that still tolerated slavery and counted some men as only 3/5 of a man. So, instead of a lie, we could say they came closer to an ideal and gave us clue about which direction to evolve and progress.

And, its way past time to evolve on this point.

Click to expand...

So.... if you revoke or deny your consent to be governed by those elected, then how do you justify being able to benefit from what "their" government does? Have a medical emergency? Ooops, no ambulance for you -- you opted out. House on fire? Oooops, better get out your own garden hose. The fire department will protect the houses on either side of you (if they did not opt out), but you're on your own.

The reality of the situation is that elections have consequences and once the election dust has settled, we are ALL saddled for the duration of the term with the representatives who won -- including their policies, beliefs and programs ... often based on the interests of who have funded their campaigns.

We ARE the government. WE elect our representatives. If we are not successful in getting "our guys" into office, we cannot opt out, pick up our ball and go home. What we CAN do is to work even harder for the next election to correct the "mistakes" that got the other guys elected. And, in the interim, work hard to change the election system to rid it of "special interests" that pollute the process with massive doses of money from outside the jurisdiction of the candidate they are supporting.

In order to facilitate your concept, perhaps all ballots should have the slate of candidates plus one more option: None Of The Above. If we could get to that point where 51% said none of the choices are valid -- that we do not consent to be governed by ANY of the choices -- then you might achieve your goal. Don't hold your breath.

JamesCanby said:

...What we CAN do is to work even harder for the next election to correct the "mistakes" that got the other guys elected...

Click to expand...

That is why we should support the one candidate over the other candidate. I believe that the other candidate would restrict our OC and CC rights if given the chance. While that chance may or may not arise, that is all I need to know.

JamesCanby said:

So.... if you revoke or deny your consent to be governed by those elected, then how do you justify being able to benefit from what "their" government does? Have a medical emergency? Ooops, no ambulance for you -- you opted out. House on fire? Oooops, better get out your own garden hose. The fire department will protect the houses on either side of you (if they did not opt out), but you're on your own.

The reality of the situation is that elections have consequences and once the election dust has settled, we are ALL saddled for the duration of the term with the representatives who won -- including their policies, beliefs and programs ... often based on the interests of who have funded their campaigns.

We ARE the government. WE elect our representatives. If we are not successful in getting "our guys" into office, we cannot opt out, pick up our ball and go home. What we CAN do is to work even harder for the next election to correct the "mistakes" that got the other guys elected. And, in the interim, work hard to change the election system to rid it of "special interests" that pollute the process with massive doses of money from outside the jurisdiction of the candidate they are supporting.

In order to facilitate your concept, perhaps all ballots should have the slate of candidates plus one more option: None Of The Above. If we could get to that point where 51% said none of the choices are valid -- that we do not consent to be governed by ANY of the choices -- then you might achieve your goal. Don't hold your breath.

Click to expand...

Just let me get one thing off my chest, first. Regarding we are the government. I'm sure you didn't mean it as a high insult, but don't nobody include me in that we. Do not include me in the rapacious, murderous, selfish, expropriating, rights-violating group of criminals called government. I am not part of that. I want nothing to do with it. I would not wish that group of thieves on my worst enemy, much less my fellow Americans and fellow Virginians. I object, I object, I OBJECT!!!

Regarding benefitting. Just because the government has co-opted certain services does not mean that is the only option. It simply means the criminals have forbidden or prevented other options. Another false premise: that I should consent to tax rape and the whole litany of other abuses just so I can receive a few benefits. And, I should consent to perpetrating government on others. Forget it. I'll take my chances even in the absence of anybody else providing those services.

You're welcome to set up any mutual aid/protection body (government) you want by your own consent and the consent of like-minded people. But, you cannot legitimately require my participation without my consent.

Regarding facilitating my concept--I did not say one needs to vote in order to move this along. And, I already cleared up the one reference to voting. So, refused consent would not need to be on a ballot. All we'd need is 51% of voters to expressly refuse consent, and the system becomes blatantly illegitimate by its very own rules. You could simply print out the voter rolls and get each to sign by his name door to door, or have them mail it in, or...

And, lets say you do consent to the current system. And, lets say 51% of the voters also consent. Its not too much to ask for government to come off its lie--that it intends to rule everybody, not just the people who do consent: government of all by the consent of some.

So, back to one of my earlier points. It would expose the current system as illegitimate in the sense that lots more people would recognize it. It would certainly strengthen the hand of those who want to roll back government, especially as refused consent spread and more and more people saw the lie for a lie instead of a glossy, cool-sounding-but-empty justification.

I got the date wrong for MLK's speech in a post above.

While correcting it, I decided to listen again to his speech. It is as powerful today as it was then.

I'm reminded that Mark Twain remarked he was glad for the end of slavery because it "freed the white race, as well as the African American." Rev. King doesn't mention it explicitly in his speech, but he could just as easily be talking about all Americans today, white and black.

He touches on some of the very same things we're discussing these last several posts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs


ETA: You know, its pretty effed up when the forum software won't let me quote Mark Twain, changing his words from n e g r o to African American. I can tell its pretty effed because Dr. Martin Luther King himself used the word n e g r o numerous times in the speech linked above. I know because I just finished listening to the speech a few minutes ago.

Political correctness in this case is pathetic. It demands a symbol of equality instead of actual equality.

Forty-five said:

That is why we should support the one candidate over the other candidate. I believe that the other candidate would restrict our OC and CC rights if given the chance. While that chance may or may not arise, that is all I need to know.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but there are three candidates in the race. Two abhorrent, a third who's at least not abhorrent.

I believe both the major-party candidates would restrict our carry rights if it served their political careers.

With properly empowered juries taken purely by lot, "consent of the governed" seems to be less a fantasy. It becomes impossible for government to enforce any laws simply with majority approval. Such a system gives absolute veto power to any minority viewpoint significant enough to be statistically likely to be represented in a jury.

It doesn't get all the way to individual consent. But, of course, at some level government may be nothing more than a system for reprisal against crimes, and any such system will always have criminals who refuse consent, but yet by virtue of their crimes are rightfully subject to some degree of non-censensual force. Therefore, I suppose, absolute consent of every individual isn't possible if government is to have any power at all. (That's not to say government should forcibly tax those who refuse to consent, but then I suspect a proper jury is likely to have at least one member who agrees with me on that. )

Perhaps proper jury trials are... good enough for government work? (Har har har.)

Tess said:

Excuse me, but there are three candidates in the race. Two abhorrent, a third who's at least not abhorrent.

I believe both the major-party candidates would restrict our carry rights if it served their political careers.

Click to expand...

However, only one of the major-parties has made restricting our rights an issue-Gov., Lt. Gov., AG. A vote for a third party will only help them.

PolitiFact correctly describes 'Missile'

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".

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

Click to expand...

Golly, the leftist-oriented PolitiFact Virginia agrees with you:

McAuliffe says Cuccinelli fought law banning missile launchers in airports

In Republican Ken Cuccinelli’s Virginia, people could walk through airports with loaded missile launchers. So says Terry McAuliffe, Cuccinelli’s Democratic opponent for governor.

...

Another point: The sign in McAuliffe’s tweet implies that state law defines "missile" as a warhead that’s fired from a rocket launcher. But Virginia’s code offers no definition of the term. State laws ban shooting or throwing missiles at vehicles, at or inside buildings and pointing or holding a weapon, including missiles, to induce fear. It also illegal to carry weapons, including missiles, into courthouses unless the person is a law enforcement official on duty.

In 2007, Jessica Hall of Jacksonville, N.C. spent two months in a Virginia jail after angrily hurling a large McDonald’s cup filled with ice into the open window of another car in stalled traffic on I-95. Although no one was hurt, a Stafford County jury convicted Hall of maliciously throwing a missile into an occupied vehicle. According to an article in The Washington Post, the jury was instructed that "any physical object can be considered a missile. A missile can be propelled by force, including throwing."

...

Our ruling

McAuliffe’s tweet focuses on the term "missile" and suggests that the bill’s purpose was to ban warheads from airports. But the term "missile" is undefined in state law and could mean bullets, rocks, or even a cup of soda if it’s thrown maliciously.

So there’s a trace of truth to a deeply distorted and inflamed statement by McAuliffe. We rate his claim Mostly False.

Click to expand...

Tess said:

Excuse me, but there are three candidates in the race. Two abhorrent, a third who's at least not abhorrent.

I believe both the major-party candidates would restrict our carry rights if it served their political careers.

Click to expand...

+1,000,000 Tess

We need to keep both of the Negative, anti-liberty, anti gun liars from becoming the Commander in Chief of the Commonwealth.

The Pro Gun candidate is gaining.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...51495398,d.d2k

Here is what happened with the VCDL Survey:

Candidates for Statewide Office


Office .......Party ....Answered Survey ? .....How Survey was Answered .......Candidate Name
Governor ...D ............ N ........................... ignored.... ............................Terry McAuliffe
Governor ...L . ...........Y ........................... Very Pro-Gun .......................Robert C Sarvis
Governor ...R .............Y ........................... So-So ..................................Ken Cuccinelli


Link: http://www.vcdl.org/Candidates_2013_General

Robert Sarvis - Open Minded and Open for Business

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

Forty-five said:

However, only one of the major-parties has made restricting our rights an issue-Gov., Lt. Gov., AG. A vote for a third party will only help them.

Click to expand...

A major party vote is a vote against liberty. Why do you hate liberty?

I'm voting libertarian. This time we've got an especially great candidate.

Forty-five said:

However, only one of the major-parties has made restricting our rights an issue-Gov., Lt. Gov., AG. A vote for a third party will only help them.

Click to expand...

Ok wait,

1) the Libertarian Party does not have a LT Gov or AG candidate.

2) are you saying the Cooch is a PRO- Liberty candidate? After what he has done as Attorney General? Please make some quaint lesser of two evils argument or 3rd party candidates can't win argument, but please don't try to tell us that the Cooch is PRO-Liberty.

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

Thundar said:

2) are you saying the Cooch is a PRO- Liberty candidate? After what he has done as Attorney General? Please make some quaint lesser of two evils argument or 3rd party candidates can't win argument, but please don't try to tell us that the Cooch is PRO-Liberty.

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

Click to expand...

Do Ask! See today's RTD:

Cuccinelli's office won't defend McDonnell's school takeover measure

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says his office will not defend one of Gov. Bob McDonnell’s signature K-12 measures in an anticipated legal challenge, citing “constitutional issues involved.”

...

“I write to certify to you that, given an analysis of the constitutional issues involved, my office cannot defend this lawsuit,” Cuccinelli writes in the letter. He said McDonnell may employ special counsel or other assistance as necessary to represent the named defendants.

Click to expand...

So, can anyone reasonably explain why Cuccinelli would say this now, but would not say this when defending GMU?

Is the Second Amendment not a "constitutional issue" worth defending over GMU's hoplophobia issues?

Read Ken's letter.

Tess said:

Excuse me, but there are three candidates in the race. Two abhorrent, a third who's at least not abhorrent.

I believe both the major-party candidates would restrict our carry rights if it served their political careers.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, only one of the candidates (i.e., the (D)) has reportedly met with Bloomberg.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/terry-mcauliffe-michael-bloomberg-meeting-96217.html

McAuliffe thinks Bloomberg is a great guy

Apparently, so; he met with him recently to solicit support:

Terry McAuliffe meets with Michael Bloomberg

Democratic Virginia gubernatorial hopeful Terry McAuliffe recently met with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in an effort to get support from the billionaire politician, two sources familiar with the meeting told POLITICO.

Click to expand...

Keep Bloomers and his pet idiots out of Virginia

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/terry-mcauliffe-michael-bloomberg-meeting-96217.html

The last thing Virginia needs is to have Bloomers pet idiots ruining Virginia.

Terry should go screw up New York. (If that is possible after Bloomers screw ups)

va_tazdad said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/terry-mcauliffe-michael-bloomberg-meeting-96217.html

The last thing Virginia needs is to have Bloomers pet idiots ruining Virginia.

Terry should go screw up New York. (If that is possible after Bloomers screw ups)

Click to expand...

Indeed. I was concerned that the (D) would try to turn Virginia into Maryland. Now I am concerned that he will try to turn Virginia into New York.

Some OC advocates may not be too thrilled about voting for the (R) due to issues unrelated to OC. Their right. Just a thought.

Forty-five said:

Some OC advocates may not be too thrilled about voting for the (R) due to issues unrelated to OC. Their right. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Issues unrelated to OC? What planet have you been living on?

Forty-five said:

Indeed. I was concerned that the (D) would try to turn Virginia into Maryland. Now I am concerned that he will try to turn Virginia into New York.

Some OC advocates may not be too thrilled about voting for the (R) due to issues unrelated to OC. Their right. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

We do have another choice. A pro-gun choice.