Where Is Your Line In The Sand?

I suspect almost all of us have a line beyond which we don’t want to see government “progress”. Clearly we haven’t reached that line for virtually anyone except an occasional fringe kook. Otherwise we’d be in the midst of a civil war or, at the very least, see the rise of violent, radical groups like the Weather Underground or the Symbionese Liberation Army reminiscent of the 60’s and 70’s. And while the number of organized militias has increased 7-fold since Obama was first elected, only a couple have engaged in any activity that’s made the news. More mainstream groups like Oath Keepers are pretty low key, and, unless you’re a member, you’ve probably not seen them mentioned on the news.

So clearly the vast majority of people, while we may complain in letters to the editor, calls to talk radio, and comments on blogs, are apparently not really all that upset with the status quo in the country right now. And yet I believe everyone has a breaking point, a point beyond which they say “no mas” (A little Spanish lingo for those of you in Rio Linda).

So, some questions for our readers: where is your line in the sand? If you have a progression of lines, what is your response at each point? If the line is an action by your state, do you move to another state? Do you try to go “off the grid”? Do you simply move from a city to a rural area? At what point do you openly resist, either as an individual or as part of a group? Is there any principle that is so important to you that you’d risk your life to defend it?  Does anyone think it’s possible that the Progressives’ incremental and gradual approach will continue to succeed until we devolve into totalitarianism? If you’re a Progressive, what is it that you’re “progressing” toward? I’m guessing that even Progressives have a point beyond which they don’t want to see government go.  If history shows us anything, it’s that a progression of power into the hands of a central government always ends the same way.  Are you one of those “this time it will be different” people, or have you not thought that far ahead?

And finally, looking back at the last century of Progressivism, does anyone think it’s possible to reverse some of the lines we’ve already crossed, or is simply not possible to put that toothpaste back in the tube?

I’d like to see some comments from Progressives on this thread, even those who have been banned or routinely have their posts deleted.  You have my word that, as long as you stay on topic and stay civil, your posts will not be deleted.

 

Advertisements

164 thoughts on “Where Is Your Line In The Sand?

  1. neocon01 February 13, 2013 / 11:36 am

    The line was crossed starting with inept,jimmah, pushed further left by the 60’s draft dodger, closet commie, serial pervert KKKlintoon, now right off the cliff by bathouse barry. I believe it would take a General and a couple of divisions to surround the white hut for the Shiite to hit the fan, which I do not see happening in the near future.

    My real belief though the economy will collapse, and the rats will eat their own, burn the citys then come out to the burbs to “get theirs” at this point the Right will engage.

    • Retired Spook February 13, 2013 / 11:56 am

      My real belief though the economy will collapse, and the rats will eat their own, burn the citys then come out to the burbs to “get theirs” at this point the Right will engage.

      That’s an outcome I could live with or risk my life for.

    • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 12:04 pm

      A couple of us had this exact conversation just the other day. While we miss Wyoming and the safety of that location, in a remote valley surrounded by mountains on three sides, with three roads leading in and one of them closed in the winter, occupied for the most part by determined ranchers, we are still far enough outside the city and surrounded by enough open country that we aren’t too worried about urban rioting making it this far.

      And if it does, we are ready.

  2. Norma Stitz February 13, 2013 / 12:05 pm

    Like the proverbial frog in a pot of water, the American people accept the slow chipping-away of basic American standards that otherwise would be well worth fighting for.

    • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 12:25 pm

      HAVE accepted, so far, and even then not all of us have been complacent about it.

      What we are seeing here is the water getting hot enough to attract attention from people who have been looking the other way.

      Even some of the willfully stupid sheeple who voted for Obama AGAIN are starting to see the outcome of their folly.

    • GMB February 13, 2013 / 1:25 pm

      “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” – Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

      A a load hearty HURRAH!! for those “mavericks” and “repub party heavy lifters” that helped along the way.

      HURRAH!!

  3. bardolf2 February 13, 2013 / 12:55 pm

    Is it too much to ask the GOP congress to not go along with Obama’s education initiatives? The verbal gymnastics Barack had to go through to connect free child care today (for parents who quite often are at home anyway) with fu-che-cher (future) great jobs was painful to behold.

    Pick ANY country that the US thinks is ahead in education and follow their strategy 100%. ANY country the Democrats want to use as an example in education would be a BIG savings for the USA. No country gives free breakfasts and free daycare and free sports teams which are extraneous to education in the hopes of getting better educated students.

    I’d keep the free lunch program and add shop classes with real tools back into the schools. Of course the lawyers and other haters of exposing minors to even the smallest of dangers would have to be quarantined. Computer blah-blah-blah BS. The world is made with rivets and bricks not powerpoint presentations and the kids hate powerpoint and love rivets anyway.

    Maybe bring back the lower letter grades for students who don’t study. Give students a chance at university, but if they don’t want to take hard classes seriously show them the exit after a couple semesters.

    One other thing. If a kid from this generation works the same as one from a previous generation he/she shouldn’t expect that his lifestyle will be 100 times better. He’ll still have to cook most of his own meals, do most of his own repairs, wait till he can truly afford the car/home/cruise.

    • neocon01 February 13, 2013 / 1:05 pm

      baldork

      I’d keep the free lunch program

      NOPE,
      nor “free” phones, busing, and of course dump the unions.
      the rest maybe…….except it will take a meltdown to remove these “freebees” for the plantation dwellers.and that will result in what the link is about.

    • GMB February 13, 2013 / 1:28 pm

      “Is it too much to ask the GOP congress to not go along with Obama’s education initiatives?”

      Got to be dumbest question ever asked on this blog.

      One word answer. Yes

      • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 1:53 pm

        GMB, you may have misread the comment. My only complaint about it is that it is too mild.

        We should not “…ask the GOP Congress to not go along with Obama’s education initiatives..” we should DEMAND that the GOP Congress reject Obama’s education intiatives.

      • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 1:57 pm

        I actually agree with dolf on this.

        ” If a kid from this generation works the same as one from a previous generation he/she shouldn’t expect that his lifestyle will be 100 times better.” says something very well, though the 100 times better is a little strong. He should not expect it to be much better at all.

        Sure, some luxuries like television take a smaller proportion of earnings than they did a generation ago, but aside from being able to afford some things now that were out of reach then the overall standard of living ought to be much the same from one generation to another.

    • dbschmidt February 13, 2013 / 5:07 pm

      We need to actually educate our population instead of indoctrinate.I have a suspicion it is due to the fact this this Republic was founded on an educated and engaged population of which little remains. Dumbing down of America has lead the way towards Socialism.

      8th Grade Examination from late 1800’s

      This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, KS, USA. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina Journal. Students were given 5 hours to complete the test.

      Here is just the Orthography section.

      Orthography (Time, one hour)
      1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication?
      2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
      3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, sub vocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
      4. Give four substitutes for caret ‘u! ‘.
      5. Give two rules for spelling words with final ‘e.’ Name two exceptions under each rule.
      6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
      7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup
      8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
      9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane,
      fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
      10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

      http://thinklab.typepad.com/think_lab/2006/03/8th_grade_exami.html

      BTW, my line in the sand will probably start in NY or California–but when the government starts to seize the firearms of law abiding citizens. Government has already chipped away at the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights and there has been little outrage but the physically jack-booted tactics of actual confiscation should awaken enough people for a major blow back.

      • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 6:33 pm

        db, you are a mind reader. In the lunchtime conversation of Monday that I have already referenced, I brought up this test and have been wondering where to find a copy of it. There is another 8th grade test that covers other areas.

        Thanks….

      • bardolf2 February 13, 2013 / 8:08 pm

        IMO, the 8th grade exam above is a rather poor example of worthwhile education. The exam consists of large amounts of memorization about largely irrelevant material. The same would be memorizing world capitals or obtuse number theory facts like how to factor the number 391 into its prime components.

        Chinese students take years and years of communist theory but are still well educated so I don’t even worry about so-called ideology. Also, the typical parochial school student only looks good by comparing with public school nincompoops not versus the world or even the elite schools in the US like Phillips Exeter Academy.

        The problem is not having high standards for critical thinking, either about reading literature or music or science or mathematics … Training students to be good crossword puzzle solvers is no better a goal for education than building self-esteem or providing daycare solutions.

        If growing the economy is a serious purpose to education then things get complicated. Again, my opinion is that the goal of education should be to have students tinker with things. See if anything useful comes out. Provide students with the failures/successes of other tinkerers and an explanation, when possible, for the failures. This goal eliminates many of the social “sciences” as a bonus.

      • Cluster February 13, 2013 / 8:41 pm

        Stool,

        I think you are completely ignoring the fact that the brain needs to be taught to critically think – that just doesn’t happen, and memorization is a very important component to thinking through issues. You need to be able to retain information before you can arrange it in to new ideas.

      • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 9:27 pm

        dolf, what an odd critique of the exam.

        First, much learning involved memorization. It is not only a training process for the brain, a discipline necessary for other forms of learning, it is also a way to learn important things.

        You dismiss the elements discussed in the exam as “…largely irrelevant material…” yet one of the pressing problems in this country is the sloppiness with which we communicate—or fail to communicate.

        “Chinese students take years and years of communist theory but are still well educated so I don’t even worry about so-called ideology”

        This is one of the most bizarre of years of bizarre statements from you. Yes, Chinese students take years and years of communist theory—-and they grow up believing communism is the best way to govern their nation and the world. Fortunately, while YOU “…don’t even worry about so-called ideology…” there are some who do, and who understand that indoctrination will produce followers of the system they are taught.

        “…the typical parochial school student only looks good by comparing with public school nincompoops not versus the world or even the elite schools in the US like Phillips Exeter Academy. ”

        But aren’t we talking about the fact that our public schools turn out uneducated nincompoops? Personally, I am glad we have parochial schools and schools like Phillips Exeter, as they are still better than what our kids would be stuck with without them, and they still offer more than the public school system.

        I guess I missed the part about “(t)raining students to be good crossword puzzle solvers…” True, it’s not a marketable skill, but it does develop a thinking process, it does demand a good knowledge of our language, it does train critical thinking when the puzzle clues are not obvious, and it would be a better thing to teach than AGW or Leftist cant.

        “Provide students with the failures/successes of other tinkerers and an explanation, when possible, for the failures. ”

        Does this apply to analysis of the “tinkering” with notions of national governance, and study and explanation of the failures of such? Because such studies would certainly undermine the mindless acceptance of Leftist theories of both governance and economics.

      • dbschmidt February 13, 2013 / 9:43 pm

        Bardolf is displaying what I call the “McDonald’s approach” which is too lengthy to repeat here but very basically it goes something like “Why do I have to learn math when I have a calculator?” You see, all of the rote learning and other critical thinking skills are obviously imparted automagically when you buy a calculator.

      • bardolf2 February 14, 2013 / 3:51 pm

        I never said that memorization is a bad thing. I said memorization of useless facts and thinking it is education is a bad thing. Of course one has to memorize the multiplication table, the scales in music, the parts of speech, the basic historical facts and parts of important documents. I’d also say one should memorize parts of the bible and literature to be reasonably educated. From the 8th grade exam above maybe #7 and #9 are relevant.

        My point can be illustrated as follows:

        I give you an input string that looks like 5*x^3+ 7*x^2 + 13*x^1 and tell you the output is 5*3*x^2 + 7*2*x^1 + 13 or using 3rd grade
        15*x^2 + 14*x^1 +13. I even tell you that one decreases the ^3 to ^2 … unless one arrives at ^0 whereby one would drop the letter x.

        I next give you 5*x^4 + 13*x^2 – 21*x^1 and you produce
        20*x^3 + 26*x^1 -21.

        Do you know calculus?

        @DB

        I discourage McDonald’s math at every go. That is the kind of thing that Obama wants to fund and why I think the GOP should deny the education initiatives.

        On a side note, my daughter is graduating from a public school this year which sends few students to good colleges. The biggest ‘indoctrination’ I have come up against is that it is more important to be to class on time than to have done your HW and be prepared to learn. The 2nd biggest ‘indoctrination’ is that one can become an engineer or scientist even if you didn’t try at math/science in high school or the equivalent in music or languages. The 3rd biggest ‘indoctrination’ is that sports are the most important thing about high school. She never talked about climate change and actually memorized much of the constitution for her AP government class.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 4:03 pm

        dolf, I don’t know calculus, but I did murmur an impressed “oooh!” at your example, which I assume was what you were aiming for.

        Note:
        1: Your daughter went to school in a small city in New Mexico, far from the corrupting influence of the glitterati in Santa Fe (assuming she lives with or near you) and other urban school districts, and

        2: “her AP class” where one might receive a better education, otherwise why have one.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 4:05 pm

        And I will take this opportunity to point out that the Liberal justices on the Supreme Court have also, presumably, “..memorized much of the constitution..” yet don’t seem to understand it, or at least think (as Justice Ginsberg commented) it is a very good template for government.

        Memorizing is hardly the same as understanding.

  4. M. Noonan February 13, 2013 / 4:19 pm

    If government were to attempt to compel me to do something in violation of my conscience that would require my resistance, even to death. Now whether this would involve me engaging in armed struggle or meekly accepting becoming a martyr depends on the circumstances. Either is entirely possible, depending on how things go, because it must be remembered that when Obama and his liberals demonize us, it is ultimately in preparation for some sort of repeat of Stalin’s “de-kulakization” of the 1930’s…first you propagandize to make the target odious (without clearly defining who is part of the target), then you strike…and those not hit are at least partially willing to believe that there was something nefarious about those struck down (and, of course, a lot of people who are struck down are quite surprised by it, never imagining when they were idiotically nodding their heads at the demonization that they were part of the targeted group). It might be that those of us who are headed for the chopping block are so isolated and despised by our fellows that armed resistance is futile – but it might also come out that there are sufficient resisters to gin up a civil war. Ultimately, this depends on not just how far and fast the left goes, but whether or not we on our side are retreating to strongholds or attempting to fight it out in the general population.

    And, of course, it is to be hoped that by fighting it out in the general population that we’ll win without anything desperate having to happen.

    • neocon01 February 13, 2013 / 4:35 pm

      Either is entirely possible, depending on how things go, because it must be remembered that when Obama and his liberals demonize us, it is ultimately in preparation for some sort of repeat of bathouse barrys Stalin’s “de-kulakization” of the 1930′s… RUBY RIDGE, WACO,

      first you propagandize to make the target odious (without clearly defining who is part of the target), then you strike…and those not hit are at least partially willing to believe that there was something nefarious about those struck down (and, of course, a lot of people who are struck down are quite surprised by it, never imagining when they were idiotically nodding their heads at the demonization that they were part of the targeted group).
      It might be that those of us who are headed for the chopping block are so isolated and despised by our fellows that armed resistance is futile

      • neocon01 February 13, 2013 / 5:55 pm

        waspstooge

        “I was a registered Republican

        Soooooooo after this “devine awakening” you suddenly became a proponent of unions, abortion, partial birth abortion, unbridled sodomy, rejection of God, hatred of Israel, destruction of the constitution, anti 2nd amendment, pro-huge deficits, huge entitlements, OWS, NOI, NBPP, the CPUSA (donk party) alinsky, marx….and on and on..

        ROTFLMAO….

        Ssssssstttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

  5. watsonthethird February 13, 2013 / 5:04 pm

    Mark said, “If government were to attempt to compel me to do something in violation of my conscience that would require my resistance, even to death.” That’s a good answer, I think. However, as we saw in the twentieth century, a lot of people will do a lot of things that presumably violate their conscience. Why?

    Spook, I don’t generally think in the terms you outlined, but let me suggest that for most people the line is an existential threat. That is, when one’s life or livelihood is directly affected, then you will find people moved to real action. From what I can see, while many conservatives rail ad naseum about the evils of President Obama and “liberals,” these same conservatives aren’t directly threatened in any meaningful way. In fact, they’re comfortable. So it’s all talk from the comfort of one’s couch. Not to pick on you, but you still receive your government pension check, and your health care is essentially ensured by the American people. If those two things were to disappear overnight, you might be moved to take more drastic action. Hungry people are capable of doing a lot of things they wouldn’t do otherwise. Perhaps this is the same reason that the Tea Party has largely run out of steam, by your own admission.

    As for taking steps, I can give you a small example that caused me to do something I wouldn’t have done otherwise: The botched occupation of Iraq. Up to the 2004 presidential election, I was a registered Republican but I typically voted for third party candidates because I didn’t think either party “got it.” It was my small form of protest against them both. But I viewed 2004 a bit differently because I felt that the handling of the Iraq occupation was appalling. Not only was I not willing to reward it, but simply voting third party (and knowing it would have no effect on President Bush’s reelection) wasn’t good enough. So I voted for Kerry. That Bush won re-election, in spite of handling of Iraq, was what caused me to become politically active.

    Amazona said:

    Sure, some luxuries like television take a smaller proportion of earnings than they did a generation ago, but aside from being able to afford some things now that were out of reach then the overall standard of living ought to be much the same from one generation to another.

    I don’t agree with that. I’m pretty sure most parents want their children to have a better life than they had themselves. If we really believe that the standard of living ought to remain the same from generation to generation, then we should have no problem with our children working twelve hour days, six or seven days a week, as many of our grandparents and great grandparents did. Most of us want something better for our children and grandchildren.

    • dbschmidt February 13, 2013 / 5:17 pm

      Watson,

      Ford, of Ford Motor company, made the 40 hour work week and minimum wages part of his factory standard in, IIRC, 1906, Not government, not the unions.

      But be careful what you wish for because ObamaCare is the major factor in what I can perceive as “the new normal” of survival being holding down 2 x 29 hour jobs with no health insurance. Instead of 40 hours and even crappy health insurance–58 hours and no insurance. So much better than our parents and grandparents.

      • watsonthethird February 13, 2013 / 5:23 pm

        db, it didn’t start with Ford Motor Company. But my point was not whether the 40 hour work week became the norm through government mandate or otherwise. I was merely stating that I do not agree with the premise that “the overall standard of living ought to be much the same from one generation to another.”

      • dbschmidt February 13, 2013 / 6:25 pm

        I have it easier than my parents who have it easier than my grandparents even though both generations served in a war and lived through 4. What I am saying is Obama’s Keynesian economic policies are sending America into a tailspin to include the standard of living.

        His more taxes / revenues position (which has already been spent) has lead to more and more layoffs with Verizon, Walmart / Sam’s, and GM leading the way in January reporting 13,000, 11,200, & 8,300 respectively.

        Requesting a new minimum wage of $9 / hr from the bully pulpit while real unemployment is 14.4 percent but even higher for minorities that can not find other work. Now you have 3,000 to over 10,000 applications for each available position but fewer positions–kind of like California and not enough doctors to treat people under Obamacare–we will just call LPN’s “doctors” as a band aid.

        The new normal will be 2 x 29 hour minimum wage jobs for the fortunate few with higher unemployment and welfare roles for everyone else. Until this exorbitant spending by 535 idiots in Washington is corrected–the only path out there is downward and well past what our parents and grandparents had to deal with. Ask almost anyone graduating from college with little or no job prospects, a huge student loan bill and “their fair share” of this national debt.

    • neocon01 February 13, 2013 / 5:43 pm

      waspstooge

      I felt that the handling of the Iraq ***occupation***

      guess you missed the memo stooge…..

    • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 6:07 pm

      wattie, first you have to find someone who said as a stand-alone statement “… “the overall standard of living ought to be much the same from one generation to another.”..”

      See, when you pluck a part of a sentence out and pretend it is really the complete thought of the sentence, you end up looking either stupid or dishonest.

      What I said was an agreement with what dolf said. Let’s go back to that, OK? Don’t be scared—I will guide you through it.

      dolf said: ” If a kid from this generation works the same as one from a previous generation he/she shouldn’t expect that his lifestyle will be 100 times better.”

      With us so far? It is not a statement that a kid now should expect to have the same standard of life as someone from the last generation. It IS a statement that if a kid today is doing a job that was done by someone else 25 years ago, he should expect his standard of living to be pretty similar to that of the guy from the last generation.

      OK. Next: I teased dolf about the exaggeration of the “100 times better” part of his comment, and went on to say that aside from the fact that certain luxuries now represent a smaller proportion of take-home pay than they did 25 years ago (a generation, roughly) so someone in the same job could have SOME improvement in the standard of living, “the overall standard of living ought to be much the same from one generation to another.”..” FOR PEOPLE DOING THE SAME JOB.

      There is simply no way that what he said, or what I said, could possibly be construed to mean that people should not STRIVE to improve their standards of living, or that they should not want their children to improve upon their own.

      It merely states that improvement in the quality of life depends not on the mere passage of time but on improvement of the work done. Accountants fall into roughly the same economic demographic no matter when they work, so it doesn’t make sense for an accountant in 2013 to think he should be able to live in a mansion and have three cars if his father the accountant led a middle class life.

    • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 6:23 pm

      wattie, if you switched parties because of an event, this is proof that your political orientation was quite shallow and not based on actual political philosophy.

      If you have a commitment to a Constitutional model of government, and the party which supposedly represents that model happens to participate in something you find wrong, it is beyond foolish to then stomp off and vote for the party that represents the opposite of the Constitutional model.

      Think about what you just told us: To paraphrase, first you called yourself a Republican but you threw away your vote on splinter candidates as a “small form of protest”. This seemed to make sense to you.

      Then you got mad about an event and in yet another protest voted for a man whose party represents the antithesis of the party you claim you belonged to for years (though you seldom supported it) which means you voted for a system that is not based on our Constitutional model.

      And you claim to have “become politically active” yet all we see here is a lot of sniping at people just because the represent a system you evidently do not understand but which you have never understood, in support of a system you probably don’t understand either.

      The Republican Party pisses me off, but I can’t see a single justification in voting for a third party just to indulge in petty “protest”. This is about as smart as poking myself in the eye with a sharp stick to let someone know I am mad at him.

      I can hardly move over to the Dems because my political philosophy is antithetical to the philosophy of unrestricted expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal government. So all I can do is work within the party that allegedly DOES support the Constitutional model of governance, and try to replace those who only pay lip service to it with those who will fight for it.

      But then my political philosophy is objective, coherent, easily defined and described, and deeply held, supported by more than two centuries of proofs that it is the best form of government there is. Oh, and by the way, the ONLY legal form of government for this nation.

      I might get ticked off, disappointed, discouraged, but I never lose track of my political compass, and when I hear of people switching parties without any awareness of the fact that they have done a lot more than just register a “protest” against some thing or some one they don’t like they have offered very real support to a system that goes against everything this country was founded upon I just wonder how people can be so clueless and so superficial.

      • watsonthethird February 13, 2013 / 7:06 pm

        Amy, you’re just a better person than I am. No doubt about it.

      • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 9:14 pm

        Evidently so.

    • M. Noonan February 13, 2013 / 11:34 pm

      Watson,

      Ah, but we are not comfortable – all of us on the right, I think, are looking over our shoulder and wondering what is next. When a film maker can be arrested simply because the President wants it – and then locked away until it is convenient for his case to be heard – then we do wonder what is to stop the President from doing it again. Perhaps we all should have been more awake to it in the past, but we are certainly wide awake, now. Essentially, the government of the United States can prosecute anyone it wishes and fighting it off is almost impossible unless you have vast resources to hire first class counsel…and even then, its no sure thing and, often, just to get it over with, its easier to cop a plea. Have I been entirely on the right side of the law? Therein lies the problem: I don’t know. We have so many arcane laws and prosecutorial discretion is so wide that I could be tripped up at any moment…any moment, that is, when I offend the President enough that he sets Holder to digging through my life to see if there’s anything I can be charged with.

      This, by the way, has nothing to do with Obama, per se – he being President is the source of the threat right now, but whomever takes over on January 20th, 2017 will be just as great a threat. Essentially, we are at the capricious mercy of whomever wields the power of the Presidency…Congress is atrophied, the Courts can only help if you’ve got bags of money. If the President decides to persecute, there is nothing to stop him except the end of his term and any worries which arise from the possibility of a successor who is hostile. Government is too large and has too many fingers in too many pies. Big government must go if liberty is to survive.

      As for why so many people have gone along with things as they shouldn’t – fear and greed cover 99% of it. Fear of being lumped in with those persecuted and/or greed to profit from the misfortune of the persecuted. Stalin and Hitler showed how its done – with Stalin actually being the better at it. You pick something bad about society, blame it on a baleful – and necessarily shadowy and ill-defined class – and get people worked up against it…and then you strike. I believe the first time I worried along these lines was then in California an initiative was passed to use taxpayer dollars to propagandize against smoking – more specifically, against the tobacco industry. Industry exec were portrayed as heartless bastards laughing about how their customers die and how they can hoodwink new generations of suckers in to smoking. It was real Propaganda Ministry garbage…but people ate it up and, hey, smoking is bad, right? So its good we attack…but the attack, once used, can be turned against any target. And what will be the next target?

      Well, I don’t know for sure – but as I’ve seen it in Europe and Canada, I expect to eventually see it here…assertions that teaching Catholic truth is a hate crime and that those who teach it should be prosecuted. If that happens here…

  6. Amazona February 13, 2013 / 6:39 pm

    Another line to be drawn:

    “In a scathing expose, Jillian Kay Melchior uncovers the lawlessness with which unions dominate Philadelphia and cost businesses millions in labor and additional security as they wage a war of fear against the people and police in the City of Brotherly Love. In the three-part series, “Goon City,” Melchior uncovers the damage done to numerous properties in and about Philadelphia that chose not to use labor workers, often incurring expenses and beatings without any legal recourse.”

    A must read, this series is exclusively on National Review this week in three parts.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/

  7. Cluster February 13, 2013 / 7:30 pm

    Classic short sighted liberal:

    ….but you still receive your government pension check, and your health care is essentially ensured by the American people. If those two things were to disappear overnight, you might be moved to take more drastic action. Hungry people are capable of doing a lot of things they wouldn’t do otherwise. Perhaps this is the same reason that the Tea Party has largely run out of steam, by your own admission. – Watson

    All is well today, so why worry about tomorrow – right Watson. You know of those with just a little more common sense than a liberal, which includes tree frogs, know that the current path we are on is unsustainable, and it doesn’t take a complete collapse to motivate us. Just saying.

    • Cluster February 13, 2013 / 7:32 pm

      Oh and I almost forgot the classic “I use to be a republican” cliche. Watson trotted out all the liberal retreads in one post – congrats. I think the only thing was missing was – “balanced approach”

    • watsonthethird February 13, 2013 / 8:22 pm

      Cluster, Spook said:

      So clearly the vast majority of people, while we may complain in letters to the editor, calls to talk radio, and comments on blogs, are apparently not really all that upset with the status quo in the country right now.

      His fundamental question then was, “where is your line in the sand?” In other words, what will it take for people to do more than comment on blogs? I suggested that for many people the line is an existential threat. If one is comfortable and well fed, one is less likely to take drastic action than if he is miserable and hungry. I suspect that most conservatives are in fact relatively comfortable and well fed, and this could explain why “the vast majority of people, while we may complain in letters to the editor, calls to talk radio, and comments on blogs, are apparently not really all that upset with the status quo in the country right now.”

      Do you agree with what Spook said above? Do you have any response to the questions he raised in his post? Or are you here simply to take potshots at other posters?

      • Cluster February 13, 2013 / 8:31 pm

        Watson, you pointed out the classic short sightedness of liberals and too many other people. I think the line in the sand has already been crossed, and I think many others believe that too, hence the tea party. But outside of donating to conservative politicians, donating to worthy causes and voting our beliefs, what in the hell can we do? I am not really into armed revolution. But, the line HAS been crossed for me – there are too many stupid people, too many dishonest politicians, too much debt, too much self interest, too many entitlements, too many taxes, etc, etc.

      • watsonthethird February 13, 2013 / 8:42 pm

        Cluster said, “But outside of donating to conservative politicians, donating to worthy causes and voting our beliefs, what in the hell can we do?”

        That’s a question for Spook, since he brought up the whole idea of lines and what to do about them when they are crossed. Maybe instead of denigrating me, you should ask him what he’s talking about. Ah, but more fun to snipe at people you don’t know, I guess.

      • Cluster February 13, 2013 / 9:12 pm

        Watson,

        You are the sensitive one aren’t you? I know where Spook is coming from, so no need to ask. He is more active than I am, and his question here is aimed at those who are less active and not engaged. What will it take for those who sit and complain to actually donate and vote? Many conservatives sat home once again last November and handed the election to the dumbest POS I have ever known.

      • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 9:13 pm

        “Ah, but more fun to snipe at people you don’t know, I guess.” says one who knows—one who prowls the Internet looking for self-identified conservatives so he can barge into at least one of their blogs to throw snot-nuggets at them just because they think differently than he does.

        We have talked about this pathology before—the compulsion to seek out strangers to attack and insult, merely because they have a differing point of view on how to govern the nation.

        It is even sicker when the attacker doesn’t even have a clear idea of how HE thinks we should govern the nation, just has a cartoonish concept of The Other that he uses to validate his hostility.

        It is also telling that he finds being “…relatively comfortable and well fed,…” to be all that concerns Americans, and that as long as they are, they won’t bother with existential concerns such as whether or not the nation is governed according to its rule of law, or if the current trend in expansion of government will lead to even further decline and eventual failure of the nation.

        I think this is a peek into his own concerns and motivations, projected onto this Other he despises and disdains and seeks out to attack and insult.

      • watsonthethird February 13, 2013 / 9:28 pm

        There’s just no conversing with you, is there Amy? Spook asked what I assume was a sincere set of questions. I assume he was sincere when he invited folks from all political persuasions to respond. I did. I was polite. It wasn’t snarky. I didn’t attack. I didn’t insult. You did.

      • Cluster February 13, 2013 / 9:35 pm

        Again with the sensitivity Watson? Amazona is simply pointing out that you DO come here to mock others who have a different political ideology, but ironically accused me of taking shots at you when I pointed out that you were being short sighted. I will admit that you can be civil but eventually resort to the same old same old on nearly ever occasion.

      • Amazona February 13, 2013 / 9:42 pm

        wattie, do try to get a grip.

        YOU snarled ““Ah, but more fun to snipe at people you don’t know, I guess.” ” and I merely pointed out the irony in someone like you whining about this, when the only reason you come here is to snipe at people you don’t know.

        I am sorry that having your comments analyzed throws you into such a shrill tizzy. Perhaps you might take a look at what you say to see why and how your comments come across the way they do.

        I don’t write what you say. I merely tell you what I think about what you say. I didn’t attack you, I merely stated my reaction to your comments.

        If you can’t handle that, if you can’t back up what you say, then you need to stop posting where people can read what you say.

        It’s kind of sweet that you think you and Spook have a special connection, that you can have cozy chats just between the two of you. I get the impression that if the blog format would let you, you would dot your i’s with little hearts when you talk to him. But you really need to get over the fantasy that no one else can chime in.

        And you need to realize that it has been quite clear in nearly every, if not every, post you write here that the only reason you have barged into a blog designed for self-identified conservatives is to insult us, attack us, sneer at us, and dispense your little snot-nuggets. Too bad you freak out when you get called on it.

        But it’s not too late to actually contribute. Why don’t you tell us if you think the United States should be governed according to its Constitution, which mandates a central government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, or if you favor a government in which there is essentially no restriction on the expansion of size, or scope, or power of the federal government?

        If you were to take a position, explain it, define it, defend it, and do so civilly, you would start to pull yourself out of the identity of wannabe blog vandal and speed bump you have, so far, created for yourself.

      • watsonthethird February 13, 2013 / 10:12 pm

        Amazona said, “But it’s not too late to actually contribute.”

        Too funny. I responded to the topic of this post, not the topic you wish it had been. As for Spook, I just responded to his post. He’s the one that assured us that all were welcome to comment.

        Blog vandal? Go back to the “The Odd Reaction to Christopher Dorner” thread and read your posts. Pretty much all you did was insult other commenters.

        As for Cluster complaining that I eventually “the same old same old on nearly ever occasion,” pot meet kettle.

      • Retired Spook February 14, 2013 / 12:30 am

        Too funny. I responded to the topic of this post, not the topic you wish it had been. As for Spook, I just responded to his post. He’s the one that assured us that all were welcome to comment.

        You did, Watson, and I’m sorry I disappeared for most of the day — just lots of distractions today, although mostly good distractions. Earlier in the thread you said:

        Spook, I don’t generally think in the terms you outlined, but let me suggest that for most people the line is an existential threat. That is, when one’s life or livelihood is directly affected, then you will find people moved to real action. From what I can see, while many conservatives rail ad naseum about the evils of President Obama and “liberals,” these same conservatives aren’t directly threatened in any meaningful way. In fact, they’re comfortable. So it’s all talk from the comfort of one’s couch. Not to pick on you, but you still receive your government pension check, and your health care is essentially ensured by the American people. If those two things were to disappear overnight, you might be moved to take more drastic action.

        I don’t disagree with your take, but I’m curious as to what you think might occur that could take away my navy pension and healthcare benefits overnight. Are you saying I might be specifically targeted because of my political views, or that the fiscal condition of our government might become so insolvent that it would be unable to meet its basic obligations to retired veterans? Clearly you must have had something in mind to have made that statement.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 1:15 am

        wattie, your hypersensitivity knows no bounds.

        I did read my comments on the other thread, as you suggested, and I find your take on them quite exaggerated. I stood up for bozo and chastised a poster for homophobic commentary, both of which seem to have upset you.

        I understand that you don’t like me and the feeling is mutual, as I truly see no value in your posts. You whine and you complain and you pull your Church Lady act, you criticize and you judge, but somehow in the midst of all this you never seem to actually discuss politics.

        I see you ignored my suggested on how you might actually start to talk about politics, in favor of more complaining and whining.

        I wonder why you even come here.

      • watsonthethird February 14, 2013 / 2:19 am

        Spook said:

        I don’t disagree with your take, but I’m curious as to what you think might occur that could take away my navy pension and healthcare benefits overnight. Are you saying I might be specifically targeted because of my political views, or that the fiscal condition of our government might become so insolvent that it would be unable to meet its basic obligations to retired veterans? Clearly you must have had something in mind to have made that statement.

        I wasn’t using that as an example to suggest that you would be targeted because of your political views. I think the chances of that happening are almost non-existent. Your pension and Medicare are about as secure as possible. I’d be hard pressed to come up with any other retirement income that is more secure.

        The point is that when people are not threatened existentially, as I put it, then as you said, they “may complain in letters to the editor, calls to talk radio, and comments on blogs, are apparently not really all that upset with the status quo in the country right now.”

        If things became so bad that government pensions were suspended, or Medicare was simply ended, then you would see the former recipients resorting to much more extreme measures. But I think the chances of that occurring are just about zero. So those people will continue to mostly be comfortable with the status quo.

        Maybe a question to ask is, what segment of the American populace is most likely to face a serious threat to themselves first? It’s not the rich. It’s not the powerful. It’s not people receiving government retirement checks.

      • watsonthethird February 14, 2013 / 2:20 am

        Amazona said, “I see you ignored my suggested on how you might actually start to talk about politics, in favor of more complaining and whining.”

        Ah, too bad, but I’m going to continue to ignore you. But please, write another thousands words about how I’m such a bad person for ignoring you. It always brings a smile to my face when you do.

      • tiredoflibbs February 14, 2013 / 6:21 am

        wattie the drone: “but I’m going to continue to ignore you.”

        just like you always do when confronted with facts that debunk your mindless posts.

        Amazona was spot on when she accurately labeled you a “blog vandal”. You come here and post your pathetic little gotchas (if you still don’t understand then seek explanation in earlier post) and then run away and hide when the questions get tough and it is too hard for you to counter our facts.

        Again, pathetic.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 11:19 am

        tired, I don’t know wattie’s chronological age, but s/he writes like one of the kids who grew up in the trophy-just-for-showing-up generation, unused to any kind of critical evaluation of what s/he says, and ready to throw a wall-kicking temper tantrum if any of the shallow “ideas” are questioned in any way. You may have noticed that my comments on the content of the wattle’s posts have been spun into claims they say he is a bad person—typical personalization of objective observations, what we see in people who have never been exposed to objective analysis of what they say or do.

        Of course anything I ask will be ignored, under the pretense that it is just because of ME and not because the wattle simply cannot answer them. There won’t be a discussion of how best to govern the nation, because that is not the kind of thing the wattles find interesting, or about which they have the slightest bit of information.

        There will be some posturing, in the form of asking questions to try to create the illusion of actually participating in a discussion, but no real content. The questions are designed (rather clumsily) to elicit answers that can be used as the basis for later sneering and sniping—not gathering information or ideas, but just gathering ammunition for the ongoing attack on strangers who merely represent a political system s/he does not understand, in support of another s/he understands even less.

        I find these people very tiresome.

      • watsonthethird February 14, 2013 / 11:57 am

        tired said, “just like you always do when confronted with facts that debunk your mindless posts.”

        Yeah, right, tired. As we saw in the previous thread, attempting to make a simple correction of falsehoods written by your pals is deemed a gotcha by you.

      • tiredoflibbs February 14, 2013 / 9:54 pm

        With every response watty, you prove my point time and again!!!

        Once again, you ignore what is actually said and post your twisted little version of what you think will make you look better. I was very clear in my response as to why your post was a pathetic little gotcha. Again, we can add “illiterate” to your growing list of faults.

        Amazona, among others, runs circles around your short-sighted posts. You, again, ignore them and respond in the most pathetic attempt at deflection and dodging.

        After all this time, you still do not know the first rule of holes.

    • watsonthethird February 14, 2013 / 2:24 am

      And Spook, we haven’t really heard your views. You threw out a lot of questions in your posts, but not a lot of answers. You must have had some answers in mind.

      • Cluster February 14, 2013 / 9:31 am

        If things became so bad that government pensions were suspended, or Medicare was simply ended, then you would see the former recipients resorting to much more extreme measures. But I think the chances of that occurring are just about zero – Watson

        Ok hold on Watson, I am not attacking you. Just as I did in my earlier post, I am just commenting on your statement.

        What makes you think the chances are zero? This is what I mean by short sighted. Granted Spook’s benefits are probably secured, but benefits even for someone like me in my early 50’s are not. And this reality is what concerns many clear thinking conservatives. Our debt now exceeds our GDP for the first time in our history. We have grown the debt from $4 trillion to almost $17 trillion in 10 years and you don’t see a problem with that???

        Liberals like to consider themselves a reality based community, however they are anything but that. The decline Obama has us spiraling into is dangerous.

      • Retired Spook February 14, 2013 / 9:42 am

        So those people will continue to mostly be comfortable with the status quo.

        They will until they won’t. The Jews were comfortable until Kristallnacht. They were still complacent until they were herded onto the trains to Auschwitz. They thought they were going to take a shower when they were gassed to death. If they were still alive, I’m guessing they finally saw their line in the sand when they were shoved into the ovens. I have no doubt history will repeat itself. It always does. An undercover FBI agent is on record saying the Weather Underground thought it might be necessary, when they came to power, to kill as many as 25 million Americans. And now people like Bill Ayers are in positions of power to influence legislation and policy and are looked upon favorably by many on the Left.

        Maybe a question to ask is, what segment of the American populace is most likely to face a serious threat to themselves first?

        I don’t think there’s any doubt that it will be the underclass when the free stuff runs out, hence Neocon’s and my exchange at the beginning of this thread. The uber-rich won’t fight back; they’ll just leave. I think the line in the sand for folks like me will be when someone stops getting free stuff and decides to take my stuff, or the government runs out of money and decides that those who still have something are not “paying their fair share”.

        And Spook, we haven’t really heard your views. You threw out a lot of questions in your posts, but not a lot of answers. You must have had some answers in mind.

        As I said, I had some distractions yesterday. I had fully intended to be an active participant in this thread because how society reacts to the continuing expansion of the power and scope of the federal government is going to define whether we survive as a nation of laws.

        I already live where I would want to move to if I lived in a major metro area when the sh*t hit the fan. I have all the tools and resources to survive most likely scenarios. So my personal line in the sand is likely to be either (a) like Mark, being forced to violate matters of conscience, or (b) having my 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment rights violated by government. For me it’s more about protecting the future for my kids and grand kids. My life is pretty inconsequential in the overall scheme of things.

        Where is your line in the sand, Watson? What right/s would you absolutely lay down your life to defend?

      • Cluster February 14, 2013 / 9:44 am

        Watson,

        As usual, Charles Krauthammer has a pretty good take on your pal Obama:

        You say it was a poverty of ideas. I think it was a throwback to mid-twentieth century liberalism. It was a pre-Clintonian tax-and-spend. We have a program for every human ill and the reason it won’t increase the deficit is cause we will tax accordingly.
        Charles Krauthammer then goes on to point out that Obama can only claim that the centerpiece of his overall progressive agenda, ObamaCare, can only claim to not impact the deficit because of the massive tax hikes within in — not out of actual and effective cost controls. We are certainly discovering that in its subsidy program. The baseline average subsidy has increased by 38.7%, according to the CBO, adding almost a quarter-trillion dollars to the cost of the program’s first ten years. It’s almost the epitome of tax-and-spendonomics, with an unhealthy dash of regulatory adventurism thrown into the stew.

      • watsonthethird February 14, 2013 / 11:48 am

        Cluster said, “What makes you think the chances are zero? This is what I mean by short sighted.” The short answer is because I think your apocalyptic scenarios amount to a lot of over-the-top fear-mongering.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 11:52 am

        Spook, I think that your references to Kristallnacht and even the gas chamber “showers” will go right over the heads of most younger Americans, because in our public school system if the Holocaust was studied at all it was a superficial examination without much in the way of background—the reasons the Socialists were able to gain so much ground so quickly in Germany, the changes in the nation as the National Socialist Party gained power and then became all-powerful, the erosion of personal freedom in Germany until resistance was impossible to imagine. What young people learn today about the Holocaust is that an evil Right-wing dictator tried to take over the world and killed a bunch of Jews in the process—we see here on the blog the sputtering outrage when it is pointed out that fascism is a Leftist construct, firmly on the Left end of the political spectrum, and that the word “Nazi” is a term meaning “National Socialist”, the party of Hitler.

        The brainwashing of the past two generations of Americans regarding WW II is pretty complete, going so far as to teach students that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor out of self-defense against an insatiable imperial United States.

        So none of the lessons we should have learned from that era will resonate today, and of those lessons I think one of the most important is that of the infiltration of our government at the highest levels by enemies of the state. The hero who pointed this out, at great personal cost, has been vilified so thoroughly that now even ignorant conservatives use the term “McCarthyism” as a pejorative.

        We are faced not with just toppling the visible edifice of 21st Century Leftist influence in this country, but with having to undermine the foundation upon which it is built, which goes nearly to bedrock.

        Tell a younger American that our current complacency is reminiscent of that of the Jews before Kristallnacht and all you will get is a quizzical look. Today the word “Jew” is so firmly tied to the popular and carefully constructed animosity toward Israel that it is hard for some of these people to care too much about the idea of six million of them being systematically slaughtered by a Leftist tyrant.

        Supporters of the 21st Century American Left, as we have seen here, are totally, 100%, ignorant of the true history of Leftist governance, and what has happened in countries where it has been allowed to flourish and take over. They blatantly dismiss history as irrelevant. So historical references won’t have much impact.

      • watsonthethird February 14, 2013 / 11:55 am

        Spook said, “Where is your line in the sand, Watson? What right/s would you absolutely lay down your life to defend?”

        It is a good question. I can’t really disagree with your personal line. But I think most of us, even you, will put up with a lot so long as we’re well fed. To that end, a question that I posed yesterday that went unanswered:

        Mark said, “If government were to attempt to compel me to do something in violation of my conscience that would require my resistance, even to death.” That’s a good answer, I think. However, as we saw in the twentieth century, a lot of people will do a lot of things that presumably violate their conscience. Why?

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 12:12 pm

        And here is one of those I mention, proving my point, by dismissing legitimate concerns as mere “…over-the-top fear-mongering…”

        Let’s take a look at what concerns us.

        Note: In my scenario, I want it made clear that my questions are not directed toward wattie. So there is no reason to smirk about “ignoring” them.

        There is such a thing as financial collapse. Historically (there’s that pesky word again) when you owe more than you earn and can possibly repay, this is what causes financial collapse.

        Let’s say you owe this money, as an individual, to various companies—credit card companies, automobile finance companies, on mortgages, etc. When you default, there isn’t a physical backlash. You might get kicked out of your house, have your cars repossessed, get dunned by debtors, but you are physically safe.

        But what if you are in a position where your debts are not to companies which can probably absorb your default, but to PEOPLE? What if you have committed to feed and house and provide for PEOPLE and then you default, and they find themselves with no rent money, no heat, no food, and no toys. At this point you face the panic, and wrath, of desperate and pissed-off people, who have had what is essential to them taken away from them because YOU could no longer provide it.

        Do you really think these people are going to quietly sit there and starve? That there is not going to be a violent explosion of anger, fed by fear and a sense of betrayal?

        There is no reason to view this as a hypothetical, and no need to look back into that irrelevant HISTORY for examples. We can go back just a few weeks, and look at what has happened when other countries have broken promises to feed and house and provide for PEOPLE and how they have reacted to having the government renege on those promises.

        Conservatives point out the Magical Thinking that drives Leftist support—that although Leftist governance has never succeeded, THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFERENT. And now we point out the Magical Thinking that allows Leftist heads to be buried in ……..the sand……:-) and pretend that just because people in other countries have reacted with violence when their support systems were removed that will not happen here.

        Pointing out that x+x+x+x=y in Greece and will also equal y in the United States, if we have much the same x’s to work with, is now just casually dismissed as “…over-the-top fear-mongering…”

        That is much easier than acknowledging the problem, working on solutions to the problem, and then going back to the root of the problem and fixing it at that level so it doesn’t happen again.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 12:27 pm

        I see most conservatives state a willingness to do what has to be done, if push comes to shove. I see some exhibiting bravado and acting eager for the chance to go out and kick some Lefty butt, but I dismiss this as posturing, and I find it distasteful.

        I do not see conservatives initiating action against the government, except through the elective and legislative process. I do, however, see a definite possibility, or probability, of societal upheaval in the cities, as people become scared, desperate, and angry at having their support systems taken away.

        (I say “in the cities” because I believe that people in the less populated areas of the country, who have a legitimate need for financial aid, can and probably will turn to local support, such as churches and civic organizations. It is my perception that most of the multi-generational government support is in urban areas. And if you and your family are on Welfare in Farmtown, Iowa, and it gets cut off, you are not likely to go on a rampage in an area where you are so outnumbered. It takes numbers to make up a mob.)

        The Left has very consciously worked at establishing mob rule in this country, and I think the Left is counting on these mobs accomplishing a Leftist takeover. Their problem is that these mobs are for the most part unorganized, unruly, undiscipllned and unfocused, and would be easy pickin’s for an armed populace fighting in defense of themselves, their families, their way of life, and THEIR COUNTRY.

        We are seeing the latest efforts of the Left to disarm this populace, but it simply will not happen. It will not happen legislatively, and it for darned sure won’t happen physically.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 12:32 pm

        At this point I do not see resistance to efforts to force people to act against their consciences to be a life-or-death matter. In the future, possibly, but not now.

        We are still at a level of law, and if someone wants to force me to pay for abortions, for example, there is civil disobedience which would result in actions such as confiscation of property or even jail but which would also end up in the courts.

        I think we are far from having defenders of religious freedom lined up against a wall and shot, or even “disappeared” into oblivion.

      • Retired Spook February 14, 2013 / 12:48 pm

        What if you have committed to feed and house and provide for PEOPLE and then you default, and they find themselves with no rent money, no heat, no food, and no toys. At this point you face the panic, and wrath, of desperate and pissed-off PEOPLE, who have had what is essential to them taken away from them because YOU could no longer provide it.

        Do you really think these PEOPLE are going to quietly sit there and starve? That there is not going to be a violent explosion of anger, fed by fear and a sense of betrayal?

        Amazona, just look at what’s happened with 4,000 passengers stranded on a disabled cruise ship for 3 days.

        ‘All of the girls in their group were calling their family members as well and they were crying. Everybody wants off of this. It’s a big mess, there’s no power, there’s no toilets, there’s no food – it’s like a bunch of savages on there.’

        So, “over-the-top fear mongering? I don’t think so.

      • Cluster February 14, 2013 / 1:27 pm

        The short answer is because I think your apocalyptic scenarios amount to a lot of over-the-top fear-mongering. – Watson

        So quadrupling the debt in 10 years is of no concern to you? Have you done any research on other countries that have gone down this path we are headed on?

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 1:39 pm

        Exactly, Spook. And these are people in a short-term situation, one which they know will end in a few days, after which they will return to their usual lives of comfort.

        Imagine even these middle-class people suddenly told that they would no longer have rent, or food, or transportation, or phones, or perks and toys—that the government funding for these things is no longer available. This would be a long-term, possibly permanent situation, often for people who have never in their lives had to be responsible for any aspect of their own sustenance or even been in a family where anyone was independent and self-sufficient.

        Hard on the heels of panic and fear would come anger and resentment and strident demands of the government to reinstate these benefits.

        When a court ruling against a stranger, with no connection other than skin color, can result in a days-long violent riot taking lives and costing millions, just imagine the impact of such an ending to government funding for things like housing and food and whatever else the feds have been handing out.

        We have already seen some shop owners in riot areas defending their lives, families and property with guns, when the police were helpless. Surely we can imagine city and suburban people doing the same thing, which would be the equivalent of small wars in each city involved. In many cities this would devolve into a race war, with “the enemy” defined by skin color.

        The casual dismissal of this potential, in the face of unsustainable debt and the inevitable collapse of our economy if debt is not reined in, entitlements are not cut back, spending is not reduced and economic vitality improved is simply willful blindness and wishful thinking.

  8. Jeremiah February 13, 2013 / 8:39 pm

    I’m ready to roll; just not enough men to do what needs to be done. You can’t do anything by yourself.

    Like the old saying, ‘No guts, no glory!’

    How many brave souls in this country are willing to stand up and do what it takes to take our country back from the incompetent bunch in Washington?

    I’ll be surprised if you can count them on one hand.

  9. Bob1 February 13, 2013 / 10:11 pm

    How can we “take our country back” when it is “the incompetent bunch in Washington” that is in charge of the political process to do so? More elections of “popular” candidates who only need 51% of the appropriate collection of voters,won’t get the job done; particularly when the responsible election officials can’t guarantee that the elections were legally conducted by legally qualified voters. We live in a country that is now far removed from being governed by the “rule of law”.Jeremiah, who do you know (just one “brave” soul) who has enough authority and courage to even start the process of doing “what needs to be done”?

    • Jeremiah February 14, 2013 / 3:26 am

      Jeremiah, who do you know (just one “brave” soul) who has enough authority and courage to even start the process of doing “what needs to be done”?

      That is what I’m asking, Bob.

      How many people are there with the bravery and wherewithal to take American back!?

      We the people have the authority, we just don’t have the courage to stand up, and remove the enemy that is in charge.

      A transcript of our Declaration of Independence

      “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

      The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

      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.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

      He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

      He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

      He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

      He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

      He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
      He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

      He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
      He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
      He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
      He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
      He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
      For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
      For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
      For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
      For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
      For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
      For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
      He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
      He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
      He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

      In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

      Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

      We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

      In honor of our Forefathers, who fought valiantly to win our freedom, in the words of George Jones…

      “Who’s gonna fill their shoes? Who’s gonna stand that tall?”

      • Jeremiah February 14, 2013 / 4:19 am

        A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

        You might say that part of the declaration is a fitting description of our current commander-in-chief. Especially the word unfit. He is unfit to be in power and needs dethroned. NOW!

      • Bob1 February 14, 2013 / 3:41 pm

        Is there a state in this Union that will actually vote to leave the Union rather than to continue to try to take care of its people under the oppressive action of a “big government” that is beyond “reasonable” controls? Which politicians in Washington would be willing to take the courageous action to just resign from their positions rather than to continue to try to work in a political body that is no longer subject to the “people”? It will take more than another version of the “Declaration of Independence” to correct the problems that threaten the people of this country. And even another “Tea Party” doesn’t seem to be having much of an impact.

  10. GMB February 14, 2013 / 9:36 am

    ” Big government must go if liberty is to survive.”

    The best statement I have seen in a long while. Now, the question begs to asked, how do you get rid of big government when you keep voting for people who perpetuate it?

    I think you should be realistic here. The fact of the matter here is that big government is here until it collapses under it’s own weight. My opinion is that there is no organized group able to oppose it. I.E. the repub party or any small more conservative party.

    It will take a large number of individual acts of defiance to bring this monster to heel.

    The only question remains is, what are you as an individual willing to sacrifice to achieve it?

    • Retired Spook February 14, 2013 / 9:55 am

      I think you should be realistic here. The fact of the matter here is that big government is here until it collapses under it’s own weight. My opinion is that there is no organized group able to oppose it. I.E. the repub party or any small more conservative party.

      It will take a large number of individual acts of defiance to bring this monster to heel.

      I think you hit the nail on the head, GMB. There may well be a final act or event that throws us over the brink, but the most likely scenario, IMO, will be continued expansion of the government coupled with continued and increasing resistance from people whose rights have been trampled — more Wacos followed by more Oklahoma Cities,

      • neocon01 February 14, 2013 / 10:23 am

        what amazes me is the very people from specific demographics are the ones pushing for more and more restrictive and leftist laws and huge (leftist) government.
        These are the very people who one would think would be conservative.

      • neocon01 February 14, 2013 / 10:25 am

        “Were from the government, and we are here to help you”

      • neocon01 February 14, 2013 / 11:01 am

        The NEW (white) RACISTS

        Students Told to< Stop ‘USA!’ Chant, Take Off American Flag Bandanas
        By Andrew Johnson

        Four California high-school students were reportedly suspended for chanting “U.S.A! U.S.A!” and wearing American flag bandanas during a basketball game. While their punishment has since been rescinded, school administrators said “the incident is far from over.”

        Oxnard Union School District superintendent Gabe Soumakian told Fox News Radio that “we need to pursue this further” and “work with teachers and students and the community about the concept of cultural proficiency.” Soumakian and Camarillo

        High School principal Glenn Lipman felt that the students’ actions might have had racist undertones since the schools have large Hispanic student populations.

      • neocon01 February 14, 2013 / 11:22 am

        I LOVE it……… 🙂

      • neocon01 February 14, 2013 / 12:06 pm

        will SOMEBODY PLEASE rid us of this Fn RINO IDIOT?? (at the voting booth of course)

      • neocon01 February 14, 2013 / 12:15 pm

        Spook

        Im READY……..

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 12:35 pm

        cultural proficiency

        I keep saying, Orwell was a prophet

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 2:16 pm

        Sadly, we are stuck with these morons in the Senate. They will never be voted out. All we can do is go to other states and get solid conservatives elected, to outnumber them, and gradually isolate them into a (hopefully) shrinking little enclave of RINOs with less and less power and smaller voices.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 3:06 pm

        Cool. Nothing better than having ignorant Dems hand us our campaign material for 2014—in this case proof of abject ignorance of, and disdain for, the Constitution of the United States of America.

        As for the various spellings of and meaning of your oft-repeated “Molin Labe!!” all it does is portray conservatives as eager to engage in violence, rather than willing to do what it takes to protect our nation. That and “ready to roll” and so on might feed an image of bravado but I personally think a statement of simply being ready to mount a defense without eagerness to get into a fight would be more productive as well as a better reflection of the conservative position in general.

        The dangerous dogs are the ones who just sit there till you cross a line and then bite, not the ones that bark all the time.

      • neocon01 February 14, 2013 / 3:30 pm

        As for the various spellings of and meaning of your oft-repeated “Molin Labe!!” all it does is portray conservatives as eager to engage in violence, rather than willing to do what it takes to protect our nation

        molin labe = a typo, = Molon Labe

        BALONEY,
        NO more than the gadsden flag used by the TEA party portrays conservatives as eager to incite violence.

        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        Jump to: navigation, search
        For the Kenneth W. Royce book, see Molon Labe!.
        The words ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ as they are inscribed on the marble of the 1955 Leonidas Monument at Thermopylae.

        The phrase molon labe (Ancient Greek μολὼν λαβέ molṑn labé; reconstructed Ancient Greek pronunciation [molɔːn labé]; Modern Greek pronunciation [moˈlon laˈve]) means “Come and take”. It is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army’s demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae. It is an exemplary use of a laconic phrase..

        A divisive grassroots political movement appeared on the scene less than two years ago—they call themselves the Tea Party Patriots, a name designed to evoke images of colonial rebels dumping tea into Boston Harbor. However controversial, the movement is gaining steam. Tea Party protests have been popping up all over the country: Denver, St. Louis, Seattle, Nashville, Tampa, Boston, San Diego, Cincinnati, New York City—the list goes on. Although it’s only been around since 2009, the party is using a 235-year-old symbol called the Gadsden flag to suggest a connection to the founding fathers and patriotism. Dating back to the American Revolution, the yellow flag features a coiled rattlesnake along with the words “Don’t Tread On Me.” In the past, the flag has been associated with the military—it’s the original flag of the U.S. Marine Corps—but is now attracting more attention as an opposition symbol.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 3:43 pm

        Nonsense. There is a difference between the message of “I’ll make you sorry if you step on me” and “Bring it on” and you know it. You are just defensive because I pointed it out.

        I am all for a “Don’t Tread On Me” message, because it says that if the other party starts something I am willing to finish it. I see this as a very different thing than taunting the other side with a “Come on—bring it on—I’m ready to roll” message which indicates a desire to fight, a willingness to fire the first shot.

        “Don’t Tread On Me” is obviously a warning not to START something, hardly the same thing as bragging about being “ready to roll” and mourning the fact that so few are willing to join in, or the challenge of “bring it on”.

        My opinion, how it comes across to me. I was attacked in January by a Black Russian Terrier, which came at me silently and without warning, and this is far more deadly than yapping at a distance. Not to mention that I find the image of conservatives as eager to fight very off-putting and not helpful to the cause. Willing, yes—eager, no.

      • neocon01 February 14, 2013 / 4:03 pm

        You are just defensive because I pointed it out.

        LOL No I am not, (defensive)
        I just dont agree with your interpretation. I welcome your thoughts but on this one I have a different take on it.

        Molon Labe is used in many TEA party rallies and is on their official web site along with the Gadsden flag. I agree with both.

        PS
        Happy Valentines day.
        from a crotchety ole Grunt! 🙂

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 4:08 pm

        And hearts and kisses back to you, you grumpy old fart!

        (With a smile and a hug, not conveyed by any font I know.)

    • M. Noonan February 14, 2013 / 9:51 pm

      That is the problem – can we reform, or must we first collapse before any reform is possible? Right now, with various economic factors ongoing (in oil/gas, agriculture, etc) we could, with just a few rational policies, be in twenty years engaged in a boom which would make the post-WWII boom pale in comparison. We can, pretty easily, have a massively revived energy industry, revived metals industry, revived agriculture, revived chemical industry…and so much new wealth and so many new jobs that we’ll be regretting the fact that Mexico has run out of people to send our way to labor. And with this boom, we can even afford to pay for almost all of the Welfare State our liberals have built up…but there in lies the real problem: the Welfare State will be much less necessary under those circumstances and would not in any way assure continued power for those who live off the Welfare State…and I don’t mean the food stamp recipients, I mean the very wealthy class which runs the government.

      These people simply would not be able to find usable work for themselves and they would no longer have a license to steal via government…they are determined to protect their feed bag and they honestly don’t give a darn what happens…all that matters is that they keep getting paid for doing nothing useful.

      Obama getting re-elected was a body blow against any reform – quite honestly, I’m more and more coming to the conclusion that he’s plain and simple afraid of reform…too many of the people who sustain him would be angered if he did a Clintonite pivot to the center and he doesn’t have the brass that Clinton had to do it (Clinton kept talking a liberal game from 1994 until 2000…all the while, in practical terms, allowing Gingrich and the Congressional GOP to govern). Say what you will about Clinton, but I’d take four more years of him instead of Obama – we’d still have the oozing pustule of liberal moral decay going on, but at least we’d have an economy; now we’ve got both the moral decay and the economic collapse.

      I still think that we can get to reform, however – even if the Democrats win in 2016. If they win in 2020? That’s another story – they can’t keep this ball in the air too much longer; I have my doubts they can keep it going until 2016, but that actually works to our advantage – complete collapse can probably be staved off until we swear in Jindal or Rubio…but by 2020, we’re talking Greece here.

  11. Amazona February 14, 2013 / 3:50 pm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/wyoming-gun-control_n_2451438.html
    emphasis mine

    A Republican state lawmaker in Wyoming has introduced legislation to prohibit enforcement of federal gun control measures that Vice President Joe Biden is likely to recommend next week.

    State Rep. Kendell Kroeker (R-Evansville) has put forward a bill making it a felony to enforce in Wyoming any federal ban on assault weapons or high-capacity gun magazines, two proposals that Biden’s gun control task force is likely to present to President Barack Obama on Tuesday. The task force’s recommendations, of course, would have to be passed by Congress and signed by Obama in order to become law.
    Kroeker said his bill, which would hit federal agents with up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine for attempting to enforce such bans in Wyoming, is designed to be proactive in preserving gun rights.

    “We want to get things ahead of the game,” Kroeker said, pointing to opponents of the Bill of Rights two centuries ago who argued that the amendments were not necessary because there was no issue over those rights. “We take the Second Amendment seriously in Wyoming.”

    Kroeker’s bill covers gun bans that the federal government passes after Jan. 1, 2013.
    “I take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of Wyoming,” said Kroeker, who had previously sponsored legislation to return Wyoming to the gold standard. “I believe it is my duty to take that oath seriously. If the federal government is going to pass laws taking back our rights, it is our right as a state to defend those rights.”

    Underlying this legislation, Kroeker is making a controversial argument about the power of states to nullify federal law. He told HuffPost that Thomas Jefferson helped lead Kentucky and Virginia lawmakers in resisting state enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the late 18th century.

    Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford University law professor and former Supreme Court clerk, was not persuaded. “It is elementary that a state cannot pass a statute that blocks enforcement of an otherwise enforceable federal law,” he said.”

    Note Fisher’s caveat of “..an otherwise enforceable…” federal law.

    I am hoping this bill passes in Wyoming. I hear it has passed the House and the governor has said he will sign it if it passes the Senate. It will draw its own line in the sand and force the feds to prove that their law is “enforceable”.

    • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 3:55 pm

      “The Wyoming House of Representatives has reportedly already approved the bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Kendell Kroeker (R-Natrona) and several other state representatives and senators, and it will now move on to the Senate. Similar legislation in other states has also been introduced following the Obama administration’s unveiling of a gun-grabbing plan ominously known as Now is the time: The president’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence on January 16, which of course draws its title from the famous speech made by the late Dr. Martin Luther King back in 1963.

      “Within hours of … Obama’s press conference announcing his new gun control push, state legislators in Wyoming, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina, Indiana, and other states were initiating efforts to ‘nullify’ any attempts by federal authorities to enforce those restrictions in their states,” explains a recent piece by The New American about state backlash against the federal government’s rogue efforts to steal Americans’ firearms.

      “They are not merely talking about state resolutions expressing disapproval of federal encroachment, but actually making it a criminal offense for agents of the federal government to attempt to enforce what the states determine to be illegal, unconstitutional usurpation of power.”
      States have full right to counteract unconstitutional federal mandates
      Commenting on the legislation, Rep. Kroeker reminded the public and federal officials via the Associated Press (AP) that Wyoming, like all other states, is sovereign, and has its own constitutional form of government. He reiterated the fact that his state has the right not only to make its own laws, but also to block the enforcement of unconstitutional, fake laws like Now is the time that might emerge from federal occupiers.

      “We’ve got a right to make our laws, and if the federal government is going to try to enforce unconstitutional laws on our people and take away the right of Wyoming citizens, then we as a state are going to step up and make that a crime,” said Rep. Kroeker to reporters.”

      Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038983_Wyoming_nullification_gun_grab.html#ixzz2KuAvnQpl

    • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 3:56 pm

      “…..state legislators in Wyoming, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina, Indiana, and other states were initiating efforts to ‘nullify’ any attempts by federal authorities to enforce those restrictions in their states…”

      hmmmmm, indeed

      • neocon01 February 14, 2013 / 4:10 pm

        Do you agree with this man?

    • M. Noonan February 14, 2013 / 9:54 pm

      It is an excellent State’s rights battle…and the next step is for the States to start forming militia regiments.

  12. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 14, 2013 / 5:40 pm

    Question for Watson and any other Progressives who might be reading this. You’re at a sports event — say a high school basketball game. You’re wearing a T-shirt that has a variation of the American flag on it and the message, God Bless America”. A security guard comes up to you and says he has had complaints that your shirt is offensive and you need to either remove it or leave. What do you do?

    • mitchethekid February 14, 2013 / 7:03 pm

      Please be specific about the variation you refer to. You are implying that a Tea Party member, or an extreme conservative has a right to wear an altered flag. And I agree. But let me axe you a question. Lets say this high school sporting event is taking place in 1968, or 69. Or 1970. And some younger people are wearing a variation of the flag as a 1st amendment right to protest the Vietnam War. I know exactly how you would react. With hostility. Beat up the damn hippies! Anti-Amerikcan hoodlums!
      Have a taste of your own medicine. This entire thread is predicated upon the delusion that our country is on the precipice of civil war and post apocalyptic anarchy. It’s not. These musings are just another in a long series of examples of your paranoia and insanity.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 7:32 pm

        And twitchy comes gallumping in again, full of spite and malice, spewing more of his hateful fantasies.

        Hard to imagine an American flag being used to protest against the Viet Nam war. At the time the only “variation of the flag as a 1st amendment right” would have been a desecration of the flag, a little detail you omitted, and yes, that might have stirred up some pushback. But your tired old crystal ball is too cloudy and scratched to show a decent vision even when looking backward, and all you could come up with was one of your snotty fantasies—what we call “lies”.

        “This entire thread is predicated upon the delusion that our country is on the precipice of civil war and post apocalyptic anarchy. ”

        No, it’s not. Again, you are letting those voices in your head lead you into making utterly stupid comments.

        It is predicated upon the reality that as the Left becomes more and more blatant in its subversion of the Constitution and erosion of personal liberties, people are going to have to give some thought to just where each of us will draw the line and say “No, no more.”

        True, this is a reality that some of you don’t want to acknowledge, but that is probably because there is no moral or intellectual basis for your support of the Left, which is fact not support of the Left but just hatred of an imagined Right. You can’t be pushed over a line because to have a line you have to have a spine.

        As for “paranoia and insanity” to have YOU of all people accuse anyone else of this is the most bizarre of ironies. Clearly you lack self-awareness in at least the same degree you lack political clarity.

      • Amazona February 14, 2013 / 8:28 pm

        What is an “extreme conservative” ? Someone who really REALLY REALLY believes our Constitution is not only the best but the only legal way to govern our nation?

      • Cluster February 14, 2013 / 8:35 pm

        Mitch,

        Remember when liberals blamed Bush’s “cowboy” policies for the world hating us? Well tell me, what should we blame this on?

        WASHINGTON, D.C. — With President Barack Obama’s first term characterized by strained relations between Pakistan and the U.S., more than nine in 10 Pakistanis (92%) disapprove of U.S. leadership and 4% approve, the lowest approval rating Pakistanis have ever given.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 14, 2013 / 9:22 pm

        Please be specific about the variation you refer to. You are implying that a Tea Party member, or an extreme conservative has a right to wear an altered flag.

        I have a red, white and blue T-shirt that says “These Colors Don’t Run”, and it depicts a portion of the flag across the middle of the shirt, showing a corner of the field of stars and several rows of stripes. I guess that was sort of what inspired my question.

        This entire thread is predicated upon the delusion that our country is on the precipice of civil war and post apocalyptic anarchy.

        I take it then that you don’t favor ANY limits on the expansion of federal power, and there’s nothing for which you would risk your life to protect or defend.

      • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 9:50 am

        bmitch

        event is taking place in 1968, or 69. Or 1970. And some younger people are wearing a variation of the flag as a 1st amendment right to protest the Vietnam War.

        you mean like bathouse barry’s neighbor, business partner, best buddy and terrorist?

        sad to see you agree with him and bathouse barry.

  13. mitchethekid February 14, 2013 / 8:48 pm

    When Retired Spook said that posts would not be deleted if they were responsive to the thread, he did not guarantee that all posts would remain. Posts such as this one, which are not responsive to the thread and which are vulgar and consist of nothing but insults, will be removed as this one has been. Mitch was given the opportunity to participate but could not give up his addiction to hate and his dependence on vulgarity. //Moderator

  14. GMB February 14, 2013 / 9:13 pm

    “Where is your line in the sand, Watson? What right/s would you absolutely lay down your life to defend?”

    I think that is the wrong question to ask. Dying for your cause is easy as heck. Just step in front of a bullet.

    I think the question that should have been asked is, What are you willing to kill for?

    Are you willing to kill the federal agent who comes to confiscate you “assault rifle” Are you willing to kill your local sheriff when he comes to kick you off your land when you refuse pay property taxes?

    “Assault Rifle” even the name was a lie. 😦

    • tiredoflibbs February 14, 2013 / 9:59 pm

      As seen from his posts, he has responded to almost anything but a challenge directed to him. Typical for watty, don’t offer too much information or commit to anything concrete or specific….

      …. just like the pResident of the United States.

      • watsonthethird February 15, 2013 / 12:22 am

        Right, tired. I actually responded to Spook’s post. You did nothing of the sort. Every one of your juvenile responses on this thread were insults directed at me. You obviously lead a small life if that’s the best you can do.

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 2:16 am

        waaaaa waaaa waaaaa. Scathing “response” there, wattie.
        Keep pretending it is all about you. Your fantasies are the only place you will ever be that important.

      • watsonthethird February 15, 2013 / 12:54 pm

        Was Amazona the name of one of Pavlov’s dogs? Because you’re just like one. I write a comment and bell goes off in your little head.

        As of last night, tired had written exactly three comments on this thread, each specifically directed at me. You would really have to ask your little buddy why he is so obsessed. (Hint: It was because I had the audacity to correct a lie on another thread. tired doesn’t like it when lies are corrected.)

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 12:56 pm

        waaaa waaaaa waaaaaa

      • tiredoflibbs February 15, 2013 / 1:11 pm

        warty still continues with his version of the events of the past few days. warty no matter haw many times you repeat your version doesn’t make it true. I was very clear in my reasons and you still have not accurately portrayed it. If it is due to your inability to comprehend the written word then I will chalk it up to you being an illiterate. If you are knowingly misrepresenting what I actually said, then you are a simple liar. With several of your posts as evidence that you do the latter, then liar is another trait to add to you growing list of faults – along with coward, since you lack the courage to answer challenges directed at you.

        You already have “incessant whiner” amongst that list, along with “hypocrite”.

        pathetic.

    • Jeremiah February 14, 2013 / 10:05 pm

      Great questions, GMB.

      I always think of it this way…

      If a 900 lb brown bear is stalking me through the forest, I have two choices, run and let the bear pursue me and have me for lunch. Or two, turn, and put a bullet squarely between the shoulders of the bear…there is no more threat, and I can go my merry way.

      Or a rabid dog, showing its canines, drool and bloody face…and that dog has its sights set on me, it for some reason picked me…I can let the dog bite me, and then I have to get foot long shots in my stomach, or I can put the dog away with a .22 mag between the eyes, and no more threat. N by the way, I feel pity and sadness for creatures that get such horrible disease.

      So, about the whole drawing a line thing….we can draw a line, but I don’t think we should let the left cross it. I think it’d be too late by then. Cause the left’s plan is to starve us before they take our guns, weaken us to the point that we can’t raise a gun to our defense. What use are we to save America at that point then?

      Anyway, come what may, I don’t think this ol’ earth can take much more of man’s wickedness. America is becoming so wicked. Children are becoming so evil, slitting the throats of their own parents to get money for drugs. Soooooo wicked!

    • dbschmidt February 15, 2013 / 6:13 pm

      GMB,

      With consideration the damn revenuers are bad enough but tolerable with a little fore-thought ~ As I stated earlier (in this thread) when they come for my guns. I would ask them very politely to not attempt confiscation several times and then become “the next rouge agent” to the cause and head underground. That would be because they would not get my guns but I may have to give them one or two of my rounds to make a clean exit.

  15. ricorun February 14, 2013 / 10:09 pm

    Damn, this is a really interesting post! Kudos to Spook! While I think there’s probably some stuff I’d like to add, I don’t currently have the time to read all the way through the many contributions already made. And while there are elements of Obama’s inaugural and SOTU speeches I applaud, there are many others which make me cringe. Apparently, his intention is to parry the radical right by throwing down a radical left gauntlet and making us decide between “us” versus “them”. It’s an interesting strategic move, but I find it uncomfortable, unsettling, and profoundly un-presidential. These recent developments have made me think a lot.

    • GMB February 15, 2013 / 12:54 am

      Us versus them

      That is all collectivism has ever been about and all it ever will be.

      When the collapse comes, don’t be a useless mouth somebody else has to feed.

    • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 9:44 am

      reek-o

      And while there are elements of Obama’s inaugural and SOTU speeches I applaud,

      “when the blind follows the blind, BOTH fall into the ditch”
      If you applaud anything about this POS and his regime you are in fact blind.

  16. Retired Spook February 15, 2013 / 10:08 am

    I’m curious if anyone here knows someone who was involved in the OWS movement. From everything I had read about it, OWS seemed to be a revolutionary force that was bent on affecting societal and economic change by whatever means necessary. It turned out to be mostly empty rhetoric by a bunch of spoiled rich kids whose best-education-money-can-buy apparently hasn’t taught them anything useful about business or government.

    • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 11:44 am

      Van jones
      bathouse barry
      bill ayers
      code pink
      CPUSA
      muslim brotherhood (BIG contributor.)

    • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 12:53 pm

      Spook, Jim Geraghty from National Review posted this this morning:

      “You’ll have to forgive me here; at this point I’d like to cite a report I read that put together a psychological profile of the leaders and rank-and-file of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but for some reason, it has completely disappeared. I’ve Googled like mad and been unable to find it. So, feel free to take the following with a grain of salt, since I’m describing something I read probably a year ago and can’t find now; if you happen to know who wrote this and have a link, please send it along.

      The report said that your average member of Occupy Wall Street sleeping in a tent somewhere was primarily driven by a need for a sense of community. Yes, they had passionate beliefs about the economy and fairness and opportunity and the ills of society and so on, but that generally, what kept them staying in those leaky tents night after night as the weather chilled was a sense of being part of something greater, a sense of connection with all the other folks around them. For whatever reason, these folks had found the other, traditional forms of connection — family, neighbors, friends, religious groups — lacking, but in Occupy they had found what they felt they needed.

      The leaders were a different story. The leaders weren’t driven by a need for connection; the leaders were sitting on a massive psychological stockpile of rage. They were consumed by grievances toward a society that they believed had ignored their obvious genius and talents, believed that every corner of modern American society shared in the guilt for the injustice against them, and were ready to lash out, oftentimes violently, against those who they deemed their enemies. They found leadership of the Occupy movement thrilling and invigorating, and saw it as an opportunity to settle the scores against a world that had done them wrong. Frightening stuff.

      Look, we’ve always had murderous people among us, we’ve always had the insane, and we’ve always had those who would see their encounters with standard-issue hardships of life (or worse) and see some grand, cosmic injustice that must be avenged. But it does feel like the ranks of those folks are growing, doesn’t it?”

      I differ from Geraghty in one respect—I think the true leaders, the instigators, of the OWS movement are not simply people consumed by rage, but are hard-core organized true Leftist ideologues well-schooled in Leftist mob tactics. They are the same “students” we see all over the world, mounting faux “protests” at events like World Trade Organization conferences, G-8 summits, etc. They are professionals, paid provocateurs, and manipulators of the raw emotions of the surly and the ignorant.

      We see some of their successes here on the blog, though they usually end up being deleted or banned.

      • dbschmidt February 15, 2013 / 6:23 pm

        Ama,

        Here is where I have to agree with your perception of the “true leaders” of OWS because it was reported (and confirmed) on more than one occasion that the “Dear Leaders” (like NK) were spending their nights in $700 / night hotel rooms living high on the hog so to speak while their minions wallowed in the slop.

    • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 12:55 pm

      For whatever reason, these folks had found the other, traditional forms of connection — family, neighbors, friends, religious groups — lacking, but in Occupy they had found what they felt they needed.

      In other words, they joined a cult which promised to meet their emotional needs.

      • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 1:35 pm

        Ama

        I heard today on Rush that women and Hispanic farmers have been discriminated against and all you have to do for a payday is to file with the dept of agriculture. Schweeeet..

        Remember where you heard this…… $$$ 🙂 the Princesses diamonds are getting old.

  17. rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 4:04 pm

    My line in the sand would be a politician choosing religious dogma over scientific fact. Personal religious conviction is fine, but should not be the basis for our laws.

    • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 4:16 pm

      Yet many of our laws are based on religious teachings. You know—Thou Shalt Not Kill and Thou Shalt Not Steal being the two that form the basis of most others.

      Then there is the problem of defining”religion”. If it is a faith-based belief system absent objective empirical proofs, then Leftism is a religion as much as Judaism or any Christian religion.

      I have a feeling this post originates in the favorite Lefty whine that only religious dogma interferes with the blind acceptance of some scientific theories as absolute and sole fact. We run into this all the time, and the entire argument depends on misstating the side that does not find some of this so-called “scientific fact” to be proven or absolute.

      • rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 4:41 pm

        While some of our laws may be based on religious teachings (arcane morality laws come to mind), it’s a stretch to claim laws against murder and theft are among them. Murder and theft are objectively destructive to a healthy society; religion is not required know this.

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 4:47 pm

        Yet religion was the first system of rules to formalize these concepts.

        The destruction of the family unit is also “objectively destructive to a healthy society” and while “…religion is not required know this..” it is religion which has stated rules against behavior that has this result.

        Yes, as a good little Lefty foot soldier you hate hate hate religion and find it necessary to scorn it, demean it, etc. But the simple fact is that religion has done more to advance civilization than any other societal construct.

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 4:49 pm

        As “arcane” means “mysterious” or “secret” I am not sure which “arcane morality laws” you refer to. A secret law isn’t much good now, is it?

        Though when we have Thought Police, some laws ARE secret and mysterious, until the Central Committee declares that they have been broken.

        Ah, the Brave New World…..

      • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 5:01 pm

        bustybrownpants

        does that include islam? we all know how much the left loves islam.
        what are the ten commandments of atheism?
        thou shall murder your baby?
        thou shall sodomize thy brother?
        thou shall steal the wealth of your neighbor?
        thou shall support sloth?
        thou shall covet your 23 yo intern with a c-gar?

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 8:48 pm

        BTW, rusty, YOU are the one who has inserted the word “teachings” into this dialogue. I believe that people can develop a moral code because of religious beliefs without a formal dogma to dictate it.

    • rustybrown2012 February 16, 2013 / 12:14 am

      “BTW, rusty, YOU are the one who has inserted the word “teachings” into this dialogue.”

      WRONG AGAIN ama! At 4:16 you wrote: “Yet many of our laws are based on religious teachings.” Prior to that, I had not used that word. My you’re having trouble keeping things straight today!

  18. rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 5:27 pm

    “Yet religion was the first system of rules to formalize these concepts”

    Can you prove that? Can you prove that without religion, mankind would have been incapable of figuring out that murder and theft were injurious to a healthy society? One of the earliest laws prohibiting murder comes from the Summerian code of Ur-Nammu, 2100-2150 BC. While that culture was undoubtably superstitious, as primitive cultures were, where is the evidence that their laws against murder came directly from their superstitions? In fact, the code states “if a man commits murder, that man must be killed”. Seems like a common sense law to promote order rather than a religious directive.

    Arcane means “known or knowable only to the initiate”. I was referring to blue laws which make sense only to the faithful.

    • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 5:40 pm

      rustybrownshorts

      Arcane means “known or knowable only to the initiate”. I was referring to blue laws which make sense

      only to the faithful.

      like YOU and Yours ?

      koff koff….

    • neocon01 February 15, 2013 / 5:43 pm

      rustybrownshorts…

      seems you only are worried about Christian laws…why is that?
      funny NO mention of sharia or islam.

      • rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 5:48 pm

        Neo,

        Sharia law is terrible. I’m against ALL religious/superstitious influence on our judicial system, including Islam.

    • dbschmidt February 15, 2013 / 6:45 pm

      Rusty,

      I am only speaking of America and American Laws here; however, you do realize that America was founded on what the founders referred to as “People’s Law.” This was based on AngloSaxon birthright and Judeo-Christian beliefs. The rest of this post is paraphrased from “The 5000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen. A good read if you can find the time (and will).

      A couple of points to note are; the Anglo-Saxons considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen plus all decisions and selection of their leaders had to be with the consent of the people, preferably by a full consensus, not just a majority.

      The rights of the individual were considered inalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges. The justice system was structured on the basis of severe punishment unless there was complete retribution to the person(s) who was wronged.

      There were only four crimes or offenses against the entire people. Treason; Cowardice (refusing to fight or failing to fight courageously); desertion; and homosexuality. These were considered capital offenses. Everything else required reparation to the person, or persons, who were wronged.

      • rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 7:57 pm

        That may be true but it’s besides my point. My point is that politicians should not be inserting their religion into law GOING FORWARD. That is the topic of this post – lines in the sand which shall not be breached henceforth.

        My second point is a rebuttal to Amy’s ridiculous claim that laws against murder and theft sprang from religious teaching.

    • Jeremiah February 15, 2013 / 7:43 pm

      rusty,

      The very first law against murder was ordered by mankind’s Creator in His Word. That would be Genesis 9:6 … “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made He man” This not only states that murder is against God’s created order, but it also manifests God’s authority among and through civil governments to take the life of the murderer. And in Ecclesiastes, don’t remember chapter and verse, but it states that there should be a speedy trial and sentence, because if you don’t carry out the trial and sentence speedily, that the heart of men is fully set to do evil deeds.

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 7:51 pm

        Actually, Jeremiah, there have been rules against murder predating even the Old Testament.

      • Jeremiah February 15, 2013 / 8:31 pm

        Amazona,

        God created man in the image of Himself, and man was a perfect human being until he sinned. After sin, he was cast forth from the Garden of Eden his perfect home. “Paradise” you might say.

        The first murder took place when Cain slew Abel, and God was displeased with the act that Cain done. God set a mark on Cain, He wanted to restore fellowship with Cain, so God would avenge the blood of any who would touch Cain. The reason for this is simple, if Cain does good, then he will be restored to his original relationship with God…be in ‘good standing’ if you will with the Supreme Judge of the world. If not, then Cain’s sin is ready to pounce, and destroy him.
        It’s this act by Cain that would set the stage for the Law that was to follow against this particular sin among the many.

        God’s contempt for this evil deed only grew as man’s deeds became increasingly evil, so He destroyed all of mankind except the righteous few, Noah and his family.

        God gave the commandments through Mosaic Law dealing with murder, theft, adultery, etc. And there was no law recorded before or after the Mosaic law. There was no law before Moses went up on Mount Sinai, when God came to Moses to give him the commandments. All other times and dates for laws against murder are copied, they have their derivation/origins in Scripture. Just like people who say they have “morals” yet are not faithful to give God and His Word the credit for having such morals, and blaspheme Him through disbelief in Him and His Son Jesus Christ…they have to copy and give themselves the credit for having “morals.” This is the mistake many people make, condemning themselves to try to discredit God’s Word.

        In any event, Cain and Abel provide a dramatic picture of broken relationships, and that were in sharp contrast to each other. Their lives were very different. They illustrate both the blessings of faithful worship, and the danger of self-willed worship. Their lives stand as an encouragement, as well as a warning to all men and women throughout the world in every country, all the way from their time, through history, even up to today.

    • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 7:50 pm

      rusty, you are simply redefining terms. You seem to be asserting that the “superstitions” of the Sumerians did not qualify as a religion. As long as the definition of “religion” is ever-flexible you can twist it to mean whatever you want it to mean.

      Western civilization was formed by religion. From art to music to literature, without religion and its structure and inspiration western civilization would be barren. The great architecture of the West was seen in churches and cathedrals, and before that in shrines and buildings built to honor the gods. From Stonehenge to Macchu Picchu to the pyramids of Egypt and Mexico, religion was the inspiration for great feats of architecture in culture after culture.

      This is in addition to the societal benefits of cultures with religious foundations. If you can stop your infinite quibbling about the meaning of religion, to try to support your anti-religious bigotry, you can see that Roman and Greek civilizations were based upon the foundation of religious beliefs, as were their buildings and art.

      • rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 8:07 pm

        “rusty, you are simply redefining terms. You seem to be asserting that the “superstitions” of the Sumerians did not qualify as a religion.”

        No, to clarify, I meant to EQUATE their superstitions with religion. They are both the same. Ancient religions can appear to be so archaic that it’s often easier to see them in terms of superstition; given enough time, our modern religions will likewise be viewed as quaint superstitions by future generations.

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 8:11 pm

        Yes, I did understand that you intended to equate superstition with religion. This sneering disdain for religion and effort to demean it by calling it mere ‘superstition’ is a hallmark of the arrogant religion-hating bigot who feels that his inability to believe is a mark of superiority rather than a lack of something essential in his being.

        You are hardly the first bigot to make such insulting comments, and you will not be the last, intolerance being another hallmark of the ardent Lefty.

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 8:14 pm

        And now, in this very time, in 21st Century America, the superstitious belief system of Leftist governance is already seen as quaint and a throwback to an earlier time, an inability to process fact due to emotional commitment to a faith,

        It is too malignant to be merely quaint, but it has some elements of quaintness—-the emotional yearning for what never was, coupled with the conviction that somehow it might possibly be, in spite of all proofs to the contrary. There is a wistfulness to the belief system, when it is not overridden by its brutality.

    • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 7:55 pm

      I don’t NEED to “… prove that without religion, mankind would have been incapable of figuring out that murder and theft were injurious to a healthy society ..” even if it were possible to prove a negative.

      What I said is that as it so happened, religion DID form the foundation for laws against murder and theft, and many other acts “injurious to a healthy society”.

      You can speculate all you want about what MIGHT have happened without the influence of religion, but it would be nothing but speculation, and furthermore speculation fueled by bigotry and therefore hardly objective.

      • rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 8:11 pm

        OK, so I’ll repeat the question: can you prove that laws prohibiting murder and theft sprang directly from “religious teaching”?

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 8:19 pm

        As prohibitions against the taking of life and the theft of property evolved in mankind parallel to belief systems in higher powers and an afterlife, it is not possible to prove that these prohibitions did NOT “spring directly” from religious belief.

        On the contrary, it is more logical to think they did, as mankind has always sought to understand concepts like death, and afterlife, and the powers seen in daily life, even before realizing that there must be some formal regulation on behavior.

      • rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 8:35 pm

        Yeah, didn’t think you could prove it, because it’s an absurd notion. It’s fun to speculate though!

    • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 8:06 pm

      “Arcane means “known or knowable only to the initiate”. I was referring to blue laws which make sense only to the faithful.”

      Now that’s a sentence that makes no sense at all. First you claim that the “blue laws” you disdain were “known or knowable only to the initiate” yet in point of fact “blue laws” were known to everyone. As I pointed out, a secret law isn’t much of a law at all. Actually, I can’t think of a single “arcane” law, using your definition. I suppose you could have a secret society in which some rules or traditions are “known or knowable only to the initiate” but in this case they would also apply only to the “initiate”.

      And then you veer off in a completely different direction, with a claim that these supposedly “arcane” laws (by your definition) are really KNOWN to others, just not UNDERSTOOD by anyone but the “faithful”. (“makes sense to the faithful” taken to mean “understood by the faithful”)

      And a “blue law” is or was one which restricted certain activities on the grounds of either public safety and decency (areas where no liquor is served, for example) or out of respect for the day set aside for worship and/or family time, such as laws prohibiting liquor sales or general shopping being available on Sunday.

      These “blue laws” were known, and knowable, to everyone, and understood, if not exactly agreed with. They were in no way “arcane”.

      • rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 8:27 pm

        This is a ridiculous splitting of hairs. To help you out, Merriam Websters offer “mysterious” and “obscure” to the definition of arcane – words which may occur to an atheist or a hindu seeking to understand why they can’t but beer on Sunday. That law would seem “mysterious” to them. Downright “arcane”.

      • Amazona February 15, 2013 / 8:41 pm

        rusty, you used the word incorrectly. Get over it. It’s not the end of the world, and besides, it’s not as if anyone cares. Your whole argument is so emotionally overwrought and reeking of that odd combination of intolerance and arrogance tinged with fear that mark the Lefty religious bigot that from your first snarl about religious dogma you have not been taken seriously.

        By your definition the entire catalog of Leftist writings would be considered “arcane” because they make no sense except to a few who choose to abandon reality for the illusions of equality and perfectibility.

        So you like the word. So you think using it makes you sound smarter. So….use it. I am sure in your circles you can get away with it. Maybe in your circles some even think you are smart. Lucky you. Go for it. Live the dream.

      • rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 9:14 pm

        I did not use it incorrectly. If you don’t know how to use a dictionary, it’s of no concern to me. Hint: you don’t get to just pick the one part of the definition you like while ignoring the parts which don’t reinforce the petty point you’re trying to make.

      • rustybrown2012 February 15, 2013 / 11:51 pm

        By the way, as a fun experiment, I googled “arcane blue laws” and guess what? Multiple pages appeared with examples of “arcane” used to describe “blue laws”! Many examples from professional writers! But I and the people who use language for their living must be wrong, because a single rancher disagrees with us!

        Ama, not only cant you win arguing the substance of my post, ya can’t even win with your own invented “gotcha!”. That would be hilariously funny if it weren’t so sad.

      • neocon01 February 18, 2013 / 5:44 pm

        Farrakhan Claims God Sent Recent Winter Storm ‘Calamities’ to Punish His Critics — And Here’s His Bizarre Logic

        “When you plan against me, the plan is already against you and to prove it he’s going to increase the calamities shortly after you hear this message

Comments are closed.