25
   

I may be the only one.

 
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 08:07 am
@OmSigDAVID,
i never think about it, i don't seem to be under any major restrictions

i think that americans i know seem to be too hung up on it, to the point of paranoia

take the gun thing, i know people who own handguns (it is possible) but only a couple, i know lots of folks who own long guns (live rural), i know lots more who never think about owning a gun of any kind
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 08:17 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

i never think about it, i don't seem to be under any major restrictions

i think that americans i know seem to be too hung up on it, to the point of paranoia
That 's the reason that we started America; the quest and lust for freedom.

Some of us are keenly aware that government is our creation,
our contemptible employee BELOW US, not above us.
We created it to serve US, not for US to serve IT.

The good thing about government is how feeble it is,
having been strangled at its inception by the Bill of Rights.
Weakness of domestic jurisdiction = personal freedom.

Each right is like a chain on the Frankenstein monster
that holds it down to its slab in the lab.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 08:23 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
i never think about it, i don't seem to be under any major restrictions

i think that americans i know seem to be too hung up on it, to the point of paranoia

take the gun thing, i know people who own handguns (it is possible) but only a couple, i know lots of folks who own long guns (live rural), i know lots more who never think about owning a gun of any kind
In the minds of the Founders of the American Republic,
guns were not only a means of controlling criminals and animals,
but also of the individual controlling GOVERNMENT.

The Founders were intimately familiar with the need to CONTROL government
and to be able to overthrow it as thay did.

America is based on Individualism, not collectivism.





David
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 08:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
being that we just drifted away from our "other rulers" as opposed to having to fight them, i guess that's why i don't get the paranoid fear of government (not that's that what it is, but it's how i view it)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 08:34 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
being that we just drifted away from our "other rulers" as opposed to having to fight them,
i guess that's why i don't get the paranoid fear of government (not that's that what it is, but it's how i view it)
I guess that 's Y.

Note that it is in the nature of politicians, with few exceptions,
to wish to aggrandize their political power, to re-shape the polity
to conform to their own wishes and vision.

Thay assume that the answer to every question is to put another chain
on the body politic, and another, progressively more chains
to reduce its freedom, endlessly.
Another chain was added, after struggle, last nite.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 08:53 am

To an American, being accused of not living in a freedom-loving country
woud be received as FIGHTING WORDS.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 11:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
America is based on Individualism, not collectivism.


Funny how all these individuals can be so easily tricked into supporting one illegal invasion after another causing all manner of murder and mayhem to numerous countries and peoples around the world.

The propaganda is certainly collective in nature.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  4  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 12:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Y'know, Dave, the more I read your posts and try to understand how your mind works, the more I realize that you have a lot in common with those horrible Communists that you profess to hate. Back in the days of the Soviet Union (that was back when we still refered to China as 'Red China' and did no business with it), the Russian Commies were fond of bragging how they had overtrown the terrible Tsarist monarchy and established a paradise for the freedom-loving proletariat. Whether or not even a scintilla of that was true is irrelevant. I'm talking about attitude here. That's the lesson all Russian kids were taught in school, just like American kids are taught that we overthrew the King of England's rule to establish a 'free country.' Whether or not even a smidgen of that is accurate is also irrelevant. You've bought the whole propagandistic myth hook, line and sinker, David. You do sound an awful lot like that guy -- what was his name? Vishinsky, I think -- bragging about his homeland, the great Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You've just changed the nomenclature to the United States instead of Republics.

Nice going, ace.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 01:19 pm
@Merry Andrew,
that's why i slept through history class, i didn't want to be indoctrinated, i just wanted to live in my country
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 01:25 pm
@edgarblythe,
Edgar: On NPR's Talk of the Nation this afternoon, a reporter was attempting to explain a couple of the legal issues that may come into play once the law is signed by President Obama tomorrow.
One is called "nullification" under which states can adopt laws specifically aimed at excluding those states from having to obey the law. This was attempted prior to the Civil War and in (many of) our lifetimes during the civil rights era.
Another is the "mandate" that in 2014 (most) people will have to buy insurance or they will be subject to a fine (or a tax). The novel argument goes that the Federal government can not do this unless an action has some connection to interstate commerce. A decision by a person NOT to buy is neither interstate nor is it commerce.
I don't pretend to be a lawyer or a constitutional lawyer so I probably botched this explanation. My understanding is as many as a dozen suits against the bill will be filed as early as tomorrow when it becomes law.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:39 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:
Y'know, Dave, the more I read your posts and try to understand how your mind works, the more I realize that you have a lot in common with those horrible Communists that you profess to hate. Back in the days of the Soviet Union (that was back when we still refered to China as 'Red China' and did no business with it), the Russian Commies were fond of bragging how they had overtrown the terrible Tsarist monarchy and established a paradise for the freedom-loving proletariat. Whether or not even a scintilla of that was true is irrelevant. I'm talking about attitude here. That's the lesson all Russian kids were taught in school, just like American kids are taught that we overthrew the King of England's rule to establish a 'free country.' Whether or not even a smidgen of that is accurate is also irrelevant. You've bought the whole propagandistic myth hook, line and sinker, David. You do sound an awful lot like that guy -- what was his name? Vishinsky, I think -- bragging about his homeland, the great Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You've just changed the nomenclature to the United States instead of Republics.

Nice going, ace.
Thank u, Andy; sweet of u to notice.
Some ideas have merit; others don 't. Thay are not all equal.
I discriminate.





David
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 06:00 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Edgar: On NPR's Talk of the Nation this afternoon, a reporter was attempting to explain a couple of the legal issues that may come into play once the law is signed by President Obama tomorrow.
One is called "nullification" under which states can adopt laws specifically aimed at excluding those states from having to obey the law. This was attempted prior to the Civil War and in (many of) our lifetimes during the civil rights era.
Another is the "mandate" that in 2014 (most) people will have to buy insurance or they will be subject to a fine (or a tax). The novel argument goes that the Federal government can not do this unless an action has some connection to interstate commerce. A decision by a person NOT to buy is neither interstate nor is it commerce.
I don't pretend to be a lawyer or a constitutional lawyer so I probably botched this explanation. My understanding is as many as a dozen suits against the bill will be filed as early as tomorrow when it becomes law.


Here's Josh Marshall from TPM talking about it:

Quote:
Would They?

There's a lot of nonsense out there about constitutional challenges to the Health Care Reform law on various 'state sovereignty' grounds. That's nonsense. The Nullification Crisis and Civil War settled those issues. But the more serious challenges are based on extremely forward-leaning conservative arguments about the 'commerce clause'. It seems very out there. Comical almost. And with your average Court, I would think it a trivial concern. But this Court, particularly the four most conservative members, have shown themselves to be not only so ideological but so activist and even so partisan that I'm not sure you can really put it past them. We're going to do some poking around to find out more, particularly views on this question among the sort of legal academics and would-be judges who cluster around the Federalist Society.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I consider this at all likely. But I've seen a number of things happen lately that I didn't think at all likely. So I'm watching.

--Josh Marshall


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/03/would_they.php?ref=fpblg

Cycloptichorn
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 07:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
But this Court, particularly the four most conservative members, have shown themselves to be not only so ideological but so activist and even so partisan ...


Hold it here, conservative judges, activists, ideological, partisan even; that simply cannot be for I've never heard it described from the ranks who continually whine and kvetch about judges legislating from the bench.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2010 07:21 pm
@JTT,
Toobin has a take on this - re overriding a lot of precedent:

March 22, 2010
After Stevens
The Supreme Court's Liberal Leader

he discusses the activism of the conservatives on the court to some extent.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/22/100322fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 04:47:06