We're celebrating what, again ? by Fremdfirma

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen 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.
Gee, that sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it ?

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.
Can you say "signing statements" ? I knew you could

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.
I believe we call that the Greater Washington DC area, yes ?

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.
Care to check the timestamps on recent Congressional Votes, especially tight ones ?

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
Of course, simply ignoring them has the same effect, cause he's 'the decider' yanno

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.
Huh ? what ? since when have the People had any authority.. oh wait...?

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.
Or simply ignored the laws and allowed them to be violated by his corporate friends.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
Or by recess appointment of fanatic partisans to the bench to support idealogical agendas

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
Ayep, just about the same deal this time around, innit ?

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
Department of Homeland Security, TSA, you-name-it ? chapter and verse folks.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
And worse, used them to initiate imperialistic wars with countries who did not attack us.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
Yeppers, given that the Civil Power, that being US, has put it in no uncertain terms that we want em outta there

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:
Again, decider, signing statements, nuff said.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
And building detainment camps on our soil intended for use on our citizens

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
Blackwater, anyone ?

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
Invading and pissing off other countries DOES have that effect, yes ?

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
Dear heaven, THIS one's a slam dunk.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
Military Tribunals, anyhow ? Enemy Combatants ?

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
Gitmo, anyone ?

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
Gitmo would also qualify here to a degree

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
PATRIOT Act, anyone ?

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
Cause he's, yanno..."the decider"

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
"Enemy Combatants", PATRIOT Act, NSA Spying, TSA Shakedowns, just to start.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
Katrina, Unchecked Corporate Rapaciousness.

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.
Good golly, sounds JUST like Iraq and DynCorp/Blackwater, dunnit ?

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.
Or just sent em for "Rendition" till they turn in all their friends and neighbors just to stop the torture.

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.
Agents Provokateur, COINTELPRO, and related new programs with the same effect.

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.
But he's.. yanno, "the decider" and doesn't have to listen to US, right ?

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British 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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 9:17 AM

Ergo, in the end, we have accomplished NOTHING, save to replace one King George with another, and celebrating a lie of this magnitude disgusts me utterly, with rabid patriotism and ignorant self-imposed deliberate and malicious blindness ruling the day as they cheer on the death of liberty.

Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy, and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your president may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed to what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue for ever unchangeably this government, altho horridly defective.

I say unto you, fuck the 4th, and the lies that come with it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 9:43 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

There's a lovely piece on The Nation's editorial page, accessible thru yahoo. opinions, about Thomas Paine, advocating the original Revolution, and advising Congress to impeach Cheney and Bush.

Meanwhile, best we can hope for is that there is an election only 18 months away, so these guys aren't in charge for life.

And hurrah for the Gadsden flag, a better symbol for America, actually, than the Stars and Stripes.

" There's always a difference, the difference between bad and worse, which is much sharper than the difference between bad and better."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 10:35 AM

America loves a winner!

Let me first say that I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your views. The reach and power of the Imperial Federal Government has extended well beyond what the Founding Fathers had in mind. I'm not so paranoid that I think that my mail is being read or my phone conversations are being listened to by men in black. , but there are problems.

It's clear from the latest immigration bill skirmish , that there are many in D.C. who consider themselves the top of the food chain, and that the rest of us should be lucky we're allowed what freedoms we still have.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said that we have been given a Republic, now it's up to us to keep it.

I wonder what he'd think of us now.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 10:53 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
There's a lovely piece on The Nation's editorial page, accessible thru yahoo. opinions, about Thomas Paine, advocating the original Revolution, and advising Congress to impeach Cheney and Bush.

Meanwhile, best we can hope for is that there is an election only 18 months away, so these guys aren't in charge for life.

I trust some will still be as vigilant toward our freedoms should the Democrats take over the White House, and control Congress as well. For it is their plans which truly are designed to strip us of our rights. ( Fairness Doctrine, for example ) There's nothing at all which Cheney or Bush have done to warrant impeachment, though I do understand such talk is inevitable. It is all that some simpletons can muster, when trying to voice some sort of contrary opinion. Lacking the mental capacity to formulate rational thought, they instead simply blurt out "Impeach" . Though if asked 'why?', they could not say.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 12:23 PM

Whooa, back up the turkey truck son... now lookahere.

Whatisdis wit playin the gestapo an tryin to scare folk outta the thread?

I say, i say, i say, it's downright unseemly son, skedaddle off a minnit and siddown.

Strikes me a bit fancy that yer talkin outta both sides o yer mouth, cause ya ain't talkin no sense sayin two differin things in the same breath, ya hear?

Ya come straight out and go denyin that us poor fool americans are gettin spied upon by the gubbermint, when it's been right as rain admitted by the plumb fool idjits that what did it in the first place!

An on top o that you go on blamin the dimmocrats for strippin us of our freedoms, not sayin they didn't help push the ball along son, but ain't them what started it in motion, I say, I say, son..

Don't get on a-thinkin that noboddy luvs them dimmocrats no more than any other buncha plumb fools up on da hill polishin chairs with their backside for a livin, ya all steamed up bout all the wrong things ya ask me...

An the nerve! ya go on tellin folk they dun nuttin impeachable ? whyfor ya kin see it a mile away that they did, I say, I say! even I kin name a hunnert things, but let's keep it simple and go with what put an end to tricky dick - when da con-gress send ya a letter called a SUB-PEE-NOE, it means cough up the goods ye damn fool, er yer gonna go ta JAIL, is what it is, I say, I say there...

An to top it all off, ya go an be insultin to them fair folks who be wantin justice done, such as it is around here these days, I got half a mind to get me a willa stick and learn ya good about mistreatin yer peers, now shaddap an set a spell, and let other folks chime in ya greedy damn fool !

I'm Foghorn Leghorn, and I be approvin of this message, I say I say I say...
[IMG]

[/IMG]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 12:28 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There's nothing at all which Cheney or Bush have done to warrant impeachment, though I do understand such talk is inevitable. It is all that some simpletons can muster, when trying to voice some sort of contrary opinion. Lacking the mental capacity to formulate rational thought, they instead simply blurt out "Impeach" . Though if asked 'why?', they could not say.

I wrote out a long post about the many, "Why"s but realized the important thing was not, "Why?" but instead your statement, "There's nothing at all which Cheney or Bush have done to warrant impeachment."

That statement really shows you don't know what impeachment is all about. No one ever needs to do something to be impeached. If you needed to do something wrong before you could be impeached then article two section four would not read, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," because if you had to be known to be guilty first there would be no need for a conviction.

Conviction is only necessary if the Constitution allows people to be impeached without doing anything wrong.

What is required is not for Bush or Cheney to have committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" but instead for there to be a distinct and visible possibility that they may have committed such things.

Bush admits to warrantless wiretapping, some people believe that this qualifies as such while Bush maintains that it is legal. The next logical step is to draft articles of impeachment. Then the House is to debate the case for and against, in this case whether or not is possible that warrantless wiretapping might qualify as grounds for dismissal. If the House votes for impeachment then, and only then, does the question of whether or not Bush really did anything wrong come up. In this case the question is not whether or not he did it but whether or not it was wrong, more specifically whether or not it is grounds for removal from office under Article II Section IV.

It should be noted that the question of whether or not the subject did anything wrong comes up in the Senate, where as impeachment or lack there of is determined in the House.

On the side of Cheney you've got a question of involvement in bribery. That he accepted the money is not in question, nor is the fact that he lied about accepting the money. (Though, it should be noted, there was debate on whether or not you can call publicly and willfully denying what he knew to be true can described using the word, "Misled.") The only ambiguity lies in whether or not the money was a bribe. This question has never been resolved.

What is supposed to happen next is simple. The House weighs the evidence, but does not consider the guilt or innocence of Cheney or even whether or not Cheney may have done anything wrong. It determines whether or not the evidence warrants a trial, and votes. If the vote is for impeachment then, and only then, does what Cheney did or did not do come into play.

You are skipping the entire process and pronouncing them innocent before it is even determined whether or not there should be a trial. We've seen this happen before. I remember just recently the Attorney General said that he knew nothing was done improperly in a certain place at a certain time in spite of not knowing what was done or how it was done and, in fact, not knowing what the certain place and the time were. He also stated that he didn't know who was involved.

If the top lawyer in the country can know that everything was above board without knowing who, what, where, when or how it doesn't surprise me that you can know the President and Vice President have done nothing to warrant something you need to do nothing in order for it to be warranted, but I have to ask:
Why don't you want to see them proven innocent?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 12:28 PM

We're celebrating our freedom from oppressive foreign powers that want to tell us how to live. We're celebrating our victorious rebellion against an overwhelming imperial force from overseas.

uh...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 1:00 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I'm Foghorn Leghorn, and I be approvin of this message, I say I say I say...

Only one appropriate reply to that: " Are ya gonna come along peacable, er am I gonna hafta muss ya up?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 1:53 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
What is required is not for Bush or Cheney to have committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" but instead for there to be a distinct and visible possibility that they may have committed such things.
Bush admits to warrantless wiretapping, some people believe that this qualifies as such while Bush maintains that it is legal. The next logical step is to draft articles of impeachment.

What are they waiting for? I hear a lot of people expressing a lot of reasons for impeachment. Is everyone just waiting for someone else to make the first move? Will it be a retroactive impeachment since Bush will be gone soon?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 1:54 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
I wrote out a long post about the many, "Why"s but realized the important thing was not, "Why?" but instead your statement, "There's nothing at all which Cheney or Bush have done to warrant impeachment."

That statement really shows you don't know what impeachment is all about.

Actually, I do know what impeachment is about. It's the proceedings which are brought forth in the House, and then , following a simple majority passage, tried in the Senate. After both sides have been given time to plead their case, a 2/3rds majority vote is required for conviction. My original point still stands. There's nothing which Bush or Cheney have done which would even warrant impeachment proceedings in the House. The pin head Representative, Jessie Jackson Jr is even trying to get Bush impeached for commuting Libby's prison sentence, a purely idiotic and clearly politically motivated move on Jackson Jr's part. He should know there's absolutely nothing wrong, nor any abuse of power in Bush's action, but Jackson Jr is simply trying to stir up negative sentiments against the President. It's a show, a game,and I for one find it despicable.

Quote:
Conviction is only necessary if the Constitution allows people to be impeached without doing anything wrong.

Wrong. Conviction is the RULING by the Senate given after the evidence has been presented. It follows that the case HAS been made which proves the person in question did commit a, high crime/misdemeanors, what ever.... while in office. You're convoluted logic is making this far more complicated than needed.

You claim that Bush admits to wireless wiretapping, when instead all he's allowed for is the tracking of calls, not the individual tapping of lines. The language needs to be specific here, because there are distinct difference in actions taken w/ respect to the collection of data. And just as you say 'some people believe that this qualifies' as grounds for impeachment, Rep. Jackson Jr claims commuting of Libby's jail term also qualifies for impeachment. It clearly does not, nor is the false claim of 'wireless wiretapping'. Again, all this is just obstructionism by the opposition party, purely for show, purely for politics.

Quote:
On the side of Cheney you've got a question of involvement in bribery. That he accepted the money is not in question, nor is the fact that he lied about accepting the money.

What bribery? From who ? And for what purpose ? Hard to claim it a fact when no case has been made. First I've heard of it, though I don't read democratundeground or the daily KOS much. Was it worse than Gore getting 'campaign donations' from Buddhist monks in exchange for allowing top secret missile technology to 'fall' into the hands of the Chinese government?

Quote:
Why don't you want to see them proven innocent?

That's putting the cart before the horse. By your 'logic', each and every President , VP and who knows how many officials should be in a perpetual state of impeachment, all to prove their innocence.

Thankfully, our system doesn't work like that. At least, so far.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 2:57 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Conviction is only necessary if the Constitution allows people to be impeached without doing anything wrong.
Wrong. Conviction is the RULING by the Senate given after the evidence has been presented.

Please read things before you respond. There would be no need for a ruling in the Senate, or anywhere else, if impeachment could only occur when one had done something wrong. If, as you claim, impeachment requires that the impeached person has done something to warrant impeachment then only guilty people could be impeached in the first place.

If only guilty people could be impeached then all impeached people would, necessarily, have to be guilty. That makes the idea of conviction redundant at best, why require conviction if a person need be proven guilty before they are even impeached? And before you quibble with the word "proven" consider this: The only way to actually know whether or not someone has done something to warrant impeachment is to have it proven (or disproven.)

Quote:
It follows that the case HAS been made which proves the person in question did commit a, high crime/misdemeanors, what ever.... while in office.

Indeed. The case is made in the Senate, which only happens AFTER a person has been impeached.

So tell me, how is any corrupt official ever to be impeached if they can only be impeached after they've had a trial that only takes place after they've been impeached.

Quote:
You're convoluted logic is making this far more complicated than needed.

How is my logic any more convoluted than:
We can't impeach him because we haven't had a trial.
We can't have a trail because we haven't impeached him.
?

Quote:
That's putting the cart before the horse. By your 'logic', each and every President , VP and who knows how many officials should be in a perpetual state of impeachment, all to prove their innocence.

I never said that, nor did I imply that, and you know it.

I said that (and I'm paraphrasing) when charges, not actions, that warrant impeachment are raised they should be investigated, and, if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial the civic official in question should be impeached and subsequently tried before the Senate. It is only in the Senate that it will be determined whether or not the official actually committed the actions he is accused of in the charges warranting impeachment.

Quote:
You claim that Bush admits to wireless wiretapping, when instead all he's allowed for is the tracking of calls, not the individual tapping of lines. The language needs to be specific here, because there are distinct difference in actions taken w/ respect to the collection of data. And just as you say 'some people believe that this qualifies' as grounds for impeachment, Rep. Jackson Jr claims commuting of Libby's jail term also qualifies for impeachment. It clearly does not, nor is the false claim of 'wireless wiretapping'. Again, all this is just obstructionism by the opposition party, purely for show, purely for politics.

Ok, let me rephrase: That Bush has approved commonly referred to as "warrantless wiretapping" by the press which were declared illegal by various judges has been admitted to by Bush.

You're sidestepping though, if you are right and impeachment can only occur if people have done things the whole thing is moot, the impeachments in our history (slightly more than 60, not all of presidents and vice presidents) were almost certainly all out of order, and none of this matters.

Quote:

Quote:
On the side of Cheney you've got a question of involvement in bribery. That he accepted the money is not in question, nor is the fact that he lied about accepting the money.
What bribery? From who ? And for what purpose ? Hard to claim it a fact when no case has been made. First I've heard of it, though I don't read democratundeground or the daily KOS much.

First off I didn't say there was any bribery, I said, "The only ambiguity lies in whether or not the money was a bribe." If you didn't catch that, whether or not it is a bribe is ambiguous. I don't know it was a bribe, I don't claim it was a bribe, and if it is a bribe I make no assumptions as to what purpose it was for (given the source of the money preferential treatment would make sense but I won't assume it.)

As far as the who, guess. I'm serious, I'm sure you can. Though whether or not you'll want to is another question.

My source was the then Republican controlled House of Representatives, but I'm sure that was just political maneuvering by the same party, right? Given that this is the first you've heard of it I think it is pretty clear you don't give a damn about anything that's gone on in this country for the past few years. And given that you just implied that the REPUBLICAN House of Representatives is a democratic source I think it is pretty clear that you don't know what a political party is.

Quote:
Was it worse than Gore getting 'campaign donations' from Buddhist monks in exchange for allowing top secret missile technology to 'fall' into the hands of the Chinese government?

How is, "Someone else did something worse," a valid argument? Frankly I don't give a damn who was worse, everyone who breaks the law should be punished taking into account only their own crimes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 3:52 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ergo, in the end, we have accomplished NOTHING, save to replace one King George with another, and celebrating a lie of this magnitude disgusts me utterly, with rabid patriotism and ignorant self-imposed deliberate and malicious blindness ruling the day as they cheer on the death of liberty.

Your right...the soldiers will be there to kill you for writing this...no wait...they wont...because your FREE!

The right to be ignorant of your rights is what your celebrating with this thread. The "BoomBoomBoom" your hearing are the fireworks celebrating your freedom...not the firing squad illustrating point.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Is anyone else pissed that this so-called holiday has become about the most hypocritical joke EVER?

Celebrating WHAT fucking "freedom" ?

The "freedom" to be declared an enemy combatant and sent off for "extraordinary rendition" ?

The "freedom" to be harrassed and spied upon ?

The "freedom" to be shaken down and felt up by the TSA ?

I'm very tempted to go outside a run a goddamn Gadsden flag up the pole - but I can't take the risk of being arrested and having my home seized for "Terrorism"... ain't that a fuckin laugh ?

Part of what we are celebrating is that people like you can throw these completely ignorant fits because you live in a country that is so free, stable and wealthy and has been so for so long that you have absolutely no context upon which to compare and therefore appreciate the value of what you have. The truth is that you are so spoiled on the freedom and wealth this country has that you have no clue how ungrateful you are. And that is truly something to celebrate.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 4:46 PM

JONGSSTRAW

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 5:09 PM

BIONICBATMAN

Jong, thank you.

Why do people who think America sucks still living here? Get the F out of this country then!

You are FREE to go out and live your life the way YOU want to.
You are FREE to make your own decisions.

There wasnt a war over this for nothing!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 5:44 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Please read things before you respond. There would be no need for a ruling in the Senate, or anywhere else, if impeachment could only occur when one had done something wrong. If, as you claim, impeachment requires that the impeached person has done something to warrant impeachment then only guilty people could be impeached in the first place.

If only guilty people could be impeached then all impeached people would, necessarily, have to be guilty. That makes the idea of conviction redundant at best, why require conviction if a person need be proven guilty before they are even impeached? And before you quibble with the word "proven" consider this: The only way to actually know whether or not someone has done something to warrant impeachment is to have it proven (or disproven.)

Now you're making my case for me. Pick a position, and then stick with it. I'll say again. Bush and Cheney haven't even done anything which would 'rise to the level ' of impeachment. As evident by the absurd remarks by Jessie Jackson Jr, pushing for impeachment for Bush when there's absolutely no case. Bush was well with in his powers to commute Libby's prison sentence, that is undeniable Constitutional mandated power. THIS is what I'm talking about. Happy now ?

Quote:
First off I didn't say there was any bribery, I said, "The only ambiguity lies in whether or not the money was a bribe." If you didn't catch that, whether or not it is a bribe is ambiguous. I don't know it was a bribe, I don't claim it was a bribe, and if it is a bribe I make no assumptions as to what purpose it was for (given the source of the money preferential treatment would make sense but I won't assume it.)

You said 'bribe'. It's right there in the text above your comment. Thats why I asked what the hell you're talking about. Your exact words - " On the side of Cheney you've got a question of involvement in bribery. That he accepted the money is not in question, nor is the fact that he lied about accepting the money. " There IS no question of bribery w/ Cheney. If you have anything of substance to say, then say it. That he accepted WHAT money? Your speaking as if your wild conspiracy theories (Daily KOS, D.U. ,moveon dot org,etc..) were 'common knowledge', when they aren't. You 'claim' your source is from the 'GOP controlled House, but you offer nothing to support your claim, only juvenile insults and specious remarks. Since I don't know your conspiracy theory, I must not care or know about anything that goes on in th is country. Wow, what an asinine comment. If you can't do better than that, then I'm wasting my time.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:47 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I trust some will still be as vigilant toward our freedoms should the Democrats take over the White House, and control Congress as well. For it is their plans which truly are designed to strip us of our rights. ( Fairness Doctrine, for example ) There's nothing at all which Cheney or Bush have done to warrant impeachment, though I do understand such talk is inevitable. It is all that some simpletons can muster, when trying to voice some sort of contrary opinion. Lacking the mental capacity to formulate rational thought, they instead simply blurt out "Impeach" . Though if asked 'why?', they could not say.

Wow man.... Repuglican loyalist dillusions. I'm not saying that you're totally wrong, in fact I happen to agree with some of what you're saying. But Bush and Cheney didn't do anything to warrant impeachment? Truely you can't be that obtuse?

Bush and Cheney have pissed all over our Constitution from the very beginning (Cheney did it to line his pockets).... and what more, you're absolutely right about the Demoncrats. F Bush and Cheney and the current Communist Administration. They (Repuglicans) are supposed to be the party that doesn't do this to its people and their freedoms, and yet, they strenghtened the Centralized Government to levels that it had only imagined achieving in it's most tyrannical dreams and has caused the death of liberty and justice for all of us and our children and thier children.

Admittedly, the only thing I fear even more than 8 more years of this shit at the hand of that evil son of a bitch Giuliani, who I belive is infinately smarter and more capable of deception than Bush Jr., is having Hillary or Obama sitting on the throne in 18 months and having a Demon House and Demon Senate playing their yes man. Man.... you think we got it bad now. I'll be paying $200.00 for a carton of cigarettes, and $200.00 more a month for Universal Healthcare, and we'll all be singing the Communist Anthem at the ballgame in 8 years.

A Vote For Ron Paul, Is A Vote For FREEDOM.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 12:53 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Why don't you form your own country somewhere...

There were people who tried this not long ago. They were called Davidians. Just ask the charred skulls of the children how much the Government frowns upon what you're suggesting.

Of course, the Lifetime made for TV movie says that David raped all of the women in his commune, so I suppose they all got what they diserved, didn't they?

Go back to your mindless sitcoms and let the adults talk for a while prole.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 2:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
...what the fuck is the problem dude? What..lost a job? A girlfriend or wife? Your wallet? Had your identity stolen?...Lost your Ipod files?

No, actually, it's our nation we've lost. To neo-con shitheads who're raping her daily before our eyes. It's our very love for our country and the freedom she represents that prompt the cries for justice. You gotta problem with that? I guess you do.

Quote:
Why don't you form your own country somewhere...

That's plan 'b'. Plan 'a' is to save this one from from the forces attempting to ruin it (and the asshats supporting them - that's you!)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 2:11 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Go back to your mindless sitcoms and let the adults talk for a while prole.

Ok...and let's look at your very ADULT words.....
"Repuglican loyalist dillusions"
"pissed over our Constitution"
" F Bush "
"8 more years of this shit"
and my personal favorite.." Repuglicans caused the death of liberty and justice"

Now, anyone can clearly see how adult your statements are, and I have given myself a strong talkin' to....to be more adult, to be more like 6string....thanks!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 2:37 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by BionicBatman:

Jong, thank you.

Why do people who think America sucks still living here? Get the F out of this country then!
There wasnt a war over this for nothing!

Oh please, I consider it a pleasure just trying to help a fellow Browncoat get through his misery, hatred & un-happiness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:12 AM

Frem, thanks for posting this.
Your love for our country is obvious, as is you hatred of corporate controled/friendly government.

I salute ya Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:15 AM

KANEMAN

"What? You're free!...free to pontificate and spew at your leisure in air-conditioned luxury ...certainly not being forced to strap dynamite sticks to your chest, and certainly not getting whipped to death 'cause your beard is too fucking short, and certainly not seeing your sister raped and stoned to death 'cause she blinked at some guy...right? Well that's the other side pal, I bleed not a drop, and sweat not a bead for them. Why don't you form your own country somewhere.."

If this is a statement that defines our freedoms...We are in bigger trouble than I thought. How about an illegal income tax, turning a cheek at a subpoena, a fairness doctrine, monopoly money from the private entity known as the Federal reserve bank, Patriot Act...etc. So, let us not use the "We are not as bad as a Muslim state" argument to defend the "we are still free" position....It is as laughable as shit pancakes..........Well, it's true.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Part of what we are celebrating is that people like you can throw these completely ignorant fits because you live in a country that is so free, stable and wealthy and has been so for so long that you have absolutely no context upon which to compare and therefore appreciate the value of what you have.

Er, I think the context is in the comparing of government in the past to government now...in the past when government wanted to do something illegal/unconstitutional or whatever, it was done behind closed doors. Neo-Cons have made it a policy to do as they will in front of us, pushing the visible envelope of power that much further. These CAN BE the first steps toward fascism, and we must be aware. It also might all go away with following administrations. I believe the pendulum will swing back to the center, after going all wacky for so long. At least I HOPE that's what it's gonna do.....

Quote:
The truth is that you are so spoiled on the freedom and wealth this country has that you have no clue how ungrateful you are.

One need not be grateful that one's country holds to it's Constitution, and conversely need not be ashamed of calling 'foul' when it doesn't.
I'm grateful to the powers that be for being born a citizen of this land, but I DEMAND my government operate according to the established rules set down long ago.

Plus: I'd like it to play nice, as well. But that's more a desire than a demand.....

Patriot Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

If this is a statement that defines our freedoms...We are in bigger trouble than I thought. How about an illegal income tax, turning a cheek at a subpoena, a fairness doctrine, monopoly money from the private entity known as the Federal reserve bank, Patriot Act...etc. So, let us not use the "We are not as bad as a Muslim state" argument to defend the "we are still free" position....It is as laughable as shit pancakes..........Well, it's true.......

Kaneman, my man!!!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Er, I think the context is in the comparing of government in the past to government now...in the past when government wanted to do something illegal/unconstitutional or whatever, it was done behind closed doors. Neo-Cons have made it a policy to do as they will in front of us, pushing the visible envelope of power that much further. These CAN BE the first steps toward fascism, and we must be aware. It also might all go away with following administrations. I believe the pendulum will swing back to the center, after going all wacky for so long. At least I HOPE that's what it's gonna do.....

Frem is not comparing anything. Frem is an extremist. And painting the American system as totalitarian and acting as if he or other Americans have nothing worth being grateful for can only be a consequences of ungrateful ignorance. You can disagree with the system or disapprove of certain political bodies or polices, but to suggest that we as Americans have nothing worth celebrating is nothing short of asinine. And it illustrates the complacency that has come to dominate many people’s political views in America. Many Americans have no context upon which to compare the transgressions they see or believe they see in America. They are so spoiled with immense freedom and wealth they can’t even imagine what real totalitarianism and real poverty is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Frem is unleashing a fanatical political hatred of the US system as a whole. Frem is an extremist.

Extremely pissed, yeah. But I don't see that he's pissing on the US system, more that he ranting about it being subverted...

Quote:
And painting the American system as totalitarian

It can be, for some unlucky ones...

Quote:
You can disagree with the system or disapprove of certain political bodies or polices, but to suggest that we as Americans have nothing worth celebrating is nothing short of asinine.

I agree with that, there is much to celebrate and to be glad of.

Quote:
And it illustrates the complacency that has come to dominate many people’s political views in America.

I wouldn't use the word 'complacent' to describe Frem...

Quote:
Many Americans have no context upon which to compare the transgressions they see or believe they see in America.

If they're youngish, I guess you're correct...

Quote:
They are so spoiled with immense freedom and wealth they can’t even imagine what real totalitarianism and real poverty is.

This may be true for many, but I think many here at RWED have no problem imagining it. Personally, I've seen some severely poor folk near the Hatian side of the Dominican Republic. Made poverty in the US look enviable

.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:54 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
If this is a statement that defines our freedoms...We are in bigger trouble than I thought. How about an illegal income tax, turning a cheek at a subpoena, a fairness doctrine, monopoly money from the private entity known as the Federal reserve bank, Patriot Act...etc. So, let us not use the "We are not as bad as a Muslim state" argument to defend the "we are still free" position....It is as laughable as shit pancakes..........Well, it's true.......

And let me be the first to state that I hate Demoncrats more than anyone on this board (and to use a phrase that Josswhachmacallit will love, I F-ing hate them and I challenge anyone to say they F-ing hate Demoncrats more than anyone else on this board) At the same time I think one would be a fool not to admit that Bush and Cheney are F-ing monsters and need to go. And I don't want to see an Obama or a Clinton in next time. I told you..... I F-ing hate Demoncrats.

A vote for Ron Paul, is a vote for LIBERTY!

Quote:
Chrisisall: If they're youngish, I guess you're correct...

Great post otherwise my man, and I really appreciate it, but I don't belive this part to be true. I figured a lot out on my own from reading books and seeing the world with my own eyes for once after I left home at 19 and things were a lot different. I think a lot of parents would love to teach their kids a lot of things they're afraid to because it might come back to them when they go to school and show their friends.

I mean, come on..... a screwdriver is considered a fracking weapon in school for cryin' out loud....

No wonder it's cheaper to ship most shit around the globe than to have it made here today. Our kids are being taught to be the "retards" of the world, for lack of a better term.....

But won't the mother's be proud when their kids participated in their touch football tournament where there was no score and no winners and losers so everybody feels good?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:
Chrisisall: If they're youngish, I guess you're correct...

Great post otherwise my man, and I really appreciate it, but I don't belive this part to be true.

My joke failed.

I meant youngish as in babies, cause they can't read yet....

Can't all be winners...Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 7:16 AM

HKCAVALIER

Before the toadies' reframing of the argument takes complete hold of this thread...

Here's the deal, these people defending the current government are Royalists. These people would never have faught a revolution against King George back in the day. These people think that as long as a person can rant on the internet and not be beheaded then they are free. Nevermind Frem's point that we faught a revolution against PRECISELY THE POLICIES THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED TODAY--times change, they'll say, and we obviously don't need as much freedom now as the founders did. Obviously, wealth trumps freedom in this country--or in the mind of the toadies, wealth IS freedom.

Again, the point of Frem's post is that we faught a war for independance, not against the Mulahs and Sharia, but against PRECISELY THE POLICIES THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED TODAY (income tax, standing army, being held indefinitely without trial, etc.--hello?). Frem is saying that American government has lost its way, is that so hard for folks to understand?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Frem is saying that American government has lost its way, is that so hard for folks to understand?

How come I can't make it that simple?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What HK said.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 7:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Frem is saying that American government has lost its way, is that so hard for folks to understand?

Not hard to understand. Hard to admit. Especially for those who were fooled twice.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Not hard to understand. Hard to admit. Especially for those who were fooled twice.

Not hard to understand or admit. The difficulty comes in when you can see nothing but bad and you seek to paint the whole as such. The good is real too and it vastly outweighs the bad, so any real political view must take that into account or an intelligent person could assume people supporting that political view have not really thought things threw or they are pushing a bigoted, one-side or self-serving view. You can’t expect intelligent people to support you, if you’re vision is so clouded by extremism. It’s not really that hard to understand. If you can't celebrate or appreciate how lucky the vast majority of Americans are in living in this country, then I can’t see how you can expect anyone to take your complaints seriously or view them as anything other then extremism.

This is absolute nonsense:

“Ergo, in the end, we have accomplished NOTHING, save to replace one King George with another, and celebrating a lie of this magnitude disgusts me utterly, with rabid patriotism and ignorant self-imposed deliberate and malicious blindness ruling the day as they cheer on the death of liberty.”

It is either the ramblings of a lunatic, an attention-seeker or it is a lie. To say that we have accomplished nothing in our +200 years as a nation and that we are dictatorship run by a king is absolutely bullshit. It can’t possibly be true and no intelligent person would honestly make this claim and expect others to believe it. It is pure anti-Americanism, hatred of America. I’m okay with talking about America’s faults. I’m not okay with lies and extremist one-sided views that attempt to paint American as evil. And such views do not help the cause of fixing America's problems; all they do is hide those problems behind layers of extremism that no one can take seriously.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The good is real too and it vastly outweighs the bad, so any real political view must take that into account or an intelligent person could assume people supporting that political view have not really thought things threw or they are pushing a bigoted, one-side or self-serving view.

You know, Finn, every time I show up at my doctor's office, he asks me what my problem is. I say to him, why do you always assume I have a problem, can't I just stop by to hang?
Seriously, when one is discussing problems, it CAN come off like that's all there is. Frem comes off severe, but I love his devotion to his points. He's pissed because he cares. Of course "Nothing has been acomplished.." is wrong, literally. But I take phrases like that to be similar to me saying I "love" Serenity. Do I? Would I marry it?

Quote:

It is pure anti-Americanism, hatred of America.

Once again, for the cheap seats: Hating a particular administration, or corporate influence/control of public officials does not = anti-America. *sigh*

I feel like I'm redundantly repeating myself Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 8:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Seriously, when one is discussing problems, it CAN come off like that's all there is. Frem comes off severe, but I love his devotion to his points. He's pissed because he cares. Of course "Nothing has been acomplished.." is wrong, literally. But I take phrases like that to be similar to me saying I "love" Serenity. Do I? Would I marry it?

So you can’t view the issues in anything other then colors of black and white? Well for me extremist positions have never really proven themselves to be the right positions. In fact, more often then not they tend to be those that society later comes to regret.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Once again, for the cheap seats: Hating a particular administration, or corporate influence/control of public officials does not = anti-America. *sigh*

There is nothing cheap about it. It is anti-Americanism. The belief that America has done nothing in 200 years but promote its own dictatorship and that there is nothing about America that is worth appreciating or celebrating is anti-Americanism. How is that not anti-Americanism? Don’t accuse me of being cheap and then defend extremist one-sided positions for Frem’s sake.

In any event, I don’t agree with Frem. He’s welcome to hold his extremist views, but I’m not going to apologize for them. America has plenty of problems, but there is enough good in American to spend at least one day appreciating how lucky we are to live in America. You’re welcome to disagree, and you can.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you can’t view the issues in anything other then colors of black and white? Well for me extremist positions have never really proven themselves to be the right positions.

Whoh, pardner, I'm in agreement with this right here, but that ain't the point. To hyper-focus on an issue doesn't make it a black and white view. Bush's crew hasn't done ALL bad, but enough that it overshadows the good- for many. You're reacting to Frem's post as if it's ALL bad (It would seem). We need to dial down the emotion to see the real points here.
One of the wheels are busted, and we need to fix it before the damage gets worse. That's all.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Once again, for the cheap seats: Hating a particular administration, or corporate influence/control of public officials does not = anti-America. *sigh*
There is nothing cheap about it. It is anti-Americanism. The belief that America has done nothing in 200 years but promote its own dictatorship and that there is nothing about America that is worth appreciating or celebrating is anti-Americanism. How is that not anti-Americanism? Don’t accuse me of being cheap and then defend extremist one-sided positions for Frem’s sake.

"Once again, for the cheap seats" is a line from the Last Boyscout, basically it means I'm sayin' it again louder. I don't know how much you spend on dates...

An example of Anti-Americanism is: not just seeing the cyber-porn, but judging that ALL Americans are responsible for it, they widely promote kiddie-porn, enjoy it, and ultimately will be destroyed by it!
See, I just think there are some problems w/it.

Savy? Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Whoh, pardner, I'm in agreement with this right here, but that ain't the point. To hyper-focus on an issue doesn't make it a black and white view. Bush's crew hasn't done ALL bad, but enough that it overshadows the good- for many. You're reacting to Frem's post as if it's ALL bad (It would seem). We need to dial down the emotion to see the real points here.
One of the wheels are busted, and we need to fix it before the damage gets worse. That's all.

But that’s not what Frem is saying. He’s not saying there is a problem that we need to fix; he’s saying the whole thing is bad. I don’t know why you can’t see that or won’t see that or why you attempt to attribute some sort of moderate position to Frem, because it is not what he said. Either way, you don’t seem to disagree that his words at least are extremist; you just refuse to admit it is what he meant. Maybe you're right. Only Frem knows for sure what he meant, but I can’t read is mind, all I know is what he said, and I don't agree with it or feel it is a helpful dialogue.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
"Once again, for the cheap seats" is a line from the Last Boyscout, basically it means I'm sayin' it again louder. I don't know how much you spend on dates...

Most people have told me I’m a big spender, perhaps because I dated poor women?

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
An example of Anti-Americanism is: not just seeing the cyber-porn, but judging that ALL Americans are responsible for it, they widely promote kiddie-porn, enjoy it, and ultimately will be destroyed by it!

Yeah, could be. Another example is saying we are a dictatorship, have been for 200 years and that there is nothing worth appreciating in or of America.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 9:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But that’s not what Frem is saying. He’s not saying there is a problem that we need to fix; he’s saying the whole thing is bad.

If that's his TRUE point, then I wouldn't agree with it...If America truly sucked, we couldn't be talking like this right now.

Quote:
Another example is saying we are a dictatorship, have been for 200 years and that there is nothing worth appreciating in or of America.

I just take that as zeal. Now if you want to make a case for economic dictatorship...hmmm, well, not so far...

Still and all, it's a might rocky time, at the moment...(IMHO)

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 9:37 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Patriot Chrisisall

Better watch out, Chris. Posting something like this could get you arrested for treason, blasphemy, obscenity, AND desecrating the flag.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 9:54 AM

* nevermind *
(deleted for the pointless of answering rovist demagoguery)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

You know, I like to keep things civil

Sarge, just admit that this is a GREAT flag...

...let visions of Neo-Con scum objecting to this wash over you like soapsuds....

My America is a SEXY America

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
* nevermind *
(deleted for the pointless of answering rovist demagoguery)

Or the way it made you look like a fruitcake. Undeservingly, I’m sure. Let’s just all try to agree that this is a great flag:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 10:57 AM

You know Finn. I get real touchy about people telling me I hate America. So just don't do it, m'kay?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 11:06 AM

What I am *sayin* is that we threw a revolt for LESS than this, and in fact to defy this very treatment that is downright *celebrated* these days and that right does piss me off.

Politically, in the end we HAVE accomplished nothing - because at the end of the day our leadership indulges in far worse excesses, abuses and usurpations than King George would have ever *dreamed* of committing, while hordes of kool-aid drinking dittoheads cheer it right on, since it's not directed at THEM (yet), just folks THEY dislike.

Since when did it become extremism to want our Gov to follow it's own goddamned rules ?
Anarchist I may be, but time and time again I've stated that I would SETTLE for a halt to the endless abuses and usurpations, which is one reason I favor Ron Paul.

Beyond that, calling ME ignorant of our Governments foundations, history, and the abuses thereof is about as facetious a comment as humanly possible around here given previous threads discussing the matter, if anything it is those defending said abuses that would be ignorant of the Constitution and what it means, but it's "just a goddamn piece of paper" to you, right ?

It's far more than that to me, it's the very bedrock upon which our freedoms rest, which has been saturated, weakened, and is rotting from the unchecked corruption of power in all high offices top to bottom, regardless of party - and your attempts to make it a fuckin partisan issue show where you really stand, when it comes right down to it, it's ok when YOUR guys do it, but not the other guys, uh huh - go look up Hoyles Law, fool.

Just as the rethugs scare me with this corpo-fascist sig-heil shit, so too do the dimocrats with their "for your own good" nannyism, my life is MY business, innit ? but neither friggin one of em wants to leave it at that, and thus, a pox on both their houses, I say.

Damn right I'm angry, I want my fuckin country back - not this whitewash on a corpo-fascist imperial empire.

Let's talk about those "Freedoms" you SAY we have.

Start with say... the idea of simply walking down to the nearest hardware store and buying a pistol for self-defense, can you do it ? or do you have to practically BEG the states permission ?

Marriage, which is none of the Gov's biz being a religious contract... gotta go beg permission, yes ?

I wanna build a shed on my property, oh, wait.. can't do that... need a permit...

I decide the Gov has done a piss poor job and failed to faithfully execute their duty, and on april 15th I decide to tell em to go to hell - I can do that right ?
(Sarcasm)

I decide I wanna go fishing or hunting on my buddys property, it's all ok, right ? oh wait...

I decide I wanna smoke a phattie on my front porch, no one's gonna bother me about it, right ? oh wait...

The list goes on and on and on, and not one damned bit of it even the Gov's BUSINESS, much less in any way shape or form under it's control nor should it be - they've simply taken, and taken, and usurped, and taken, with damn fools cheering them on all the while.

For heavens sake these days you have to even BEG PERMISSION to PROTEST ? what kind of counter-intuitive IDIOCY is that ? and IF the powers that be even bother to ALLOW you, it'll be in a euphamistically named "Free Speech Zone" a mile away somewhere in the basement of a damned parking garage, whoopie, we're so free...

And all those firecrackers yer so damn happy to be setting off ? uh huh - and what's gonna happen should you get *caught* with them, most of em, eh ?

Oh the irony of our primary form of 'celebrating' our so-called 'freedom' being illegal.

Patriotism doesn't blind me, it outrages me, should I be HAPPY that the gov pisses all over the very foundations of our entire country, our entire philosophy ?

Should I be happy that we are a de-facto corporate oligarchy instead of a constitutional republic, no matter what it says on paper ?

Fuck that, you wanna define hatin america, you go right to the folks shredding constitutional rights and the kool-aid drinking pissants helpin em do it while cheering from behind red white and blue blinders.

Now beat it, ya damn apologists, imma get trench foot from puttin my boot in yer ass so much, and it's not like it accomplishes anything other than wasting my time humilating a buncha miserable fucking quislings who'll be the loudest and fastest whiners when the gov gets around to THEM.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You know Finn. I get real touchy about people telling me I hate America. So just don't do it, m'kay?

Except that I never said such a thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 11:45 AM

HKCAVALIER

(ETA: whoopsie! Half these posts weren't here when I started this reply. Good to see Frem's return to the thread. Carry on, sir.)

Finn, here you skip over Frem's lengthy itemized list of comparisons between our current government's policies and those of King George the First of England (which, btw, our founding fathers just happened to go to war to end) and instead attack his most emotionally charged--and therefore most vulnerable--statement.

Of course, you say it would take a "mind reader" to understand Frem's point, because from where you sit, open-mindedness itself must look like a psychic power.

Plenty of intelligent folks here understood Frem's point perfectly without having to read his mind or even agree 100% (witness AURaptor's "mindreading" at the top of the thread). And btw, the "NOTHING" that Frem said we accomplished was the "nothing" of difference between Bush's policies and those of George the First listed in his post. I believe his contention was that we went to war against England for a greater purpose than simply changing ownership of the monarchy.

Why don't you refute his points instead of attacking his emotionalism as if that were his point?

And finally, none of what Frem wrote in his post claimed that America is "evil," nor that Bush is a "dictator"--George the First was not a dictator, he was king presiding over a constitutional monarchy.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 5, 2007 11:48 AM