10 Dec

The Only Thing Left for the Republican Party is its Obituary [Reader Post]

                                       

soft tab viagraium wp-image-86942″ />

Despite its own insistence that it is very much alive, the Republican Party has now joined the crowd invisible. The sad pathetic truth of its demise is that those who once believed in it, and cared deeply for it, are no longer around to bury it with dignity. Its corpse has now become the dancing play thing of Washington D.C. consulting firms and lobbyist.

The most ironic fact of the Republican Party’s death is that it was not a showdown at high noon on Capitol Hill that killed it. Nor a rare exotic virus that provided the mortal blow. It was killed by something very common in society and usually not fatal in Washington D.C… It was done in by a severe allergic reaction to the truth.

There has always been one thing Conservatives, Libertarians, Tea Partyers, Constitutionalists, and Social Conservative could always agree on. We all agreed in one basic primary principle. The principle of less government and even less spending. That very basic principle was the glue that held all these factions together under the Republican Party tent. Recent events paired with a close look at the Republican Party’s actions over the course of fifteen years have now exposed that the Republican Party has been living a lie. They are not for less spending and smaller government. The foot of the Republican Party has always been just as heavy on the pedal to hurtle our great country off the financial cliff shooting out into space as the Democrat Party. The only difference is that elected Republicans have been pretending to be innocent kidnap victims of President Obama and Democrats, being forced into going along for the ride.

The current Republican Party Establishment is not the victim of the main stream media clouding their message of the benefits of spending cuts. On other issues that is surely the case, but not this one. The reason the Republican Party fails to articulate the primary virtue of less spending and small government effectively is because it does not believe in the words that are coming out of its mouth. It is a lie they are forced to say out of political necessity, not because of some deeply held belief.

The Republican Party’s primary concern for a while now has been to deliver tax payer money for lobbyists and consulting firms who represent the industries that fill the campaign war chest. Erick Erickson at RedState delved a little into the incest problem here. These consulting firms are the middle men. The paper bag carriers. The mules. The blood sucking mosquitos. They are the ones who make the promise and make sure the Republican candidate delivers. They are in fact the buffer between corporate Washington D.C. Insiders money and the Republican politician’s conscious that allows them to sleep at night thinking they are as clean and pure as a bowl full of freshly poured Clorox.

The curtain that once protected both the Republican and Democrat party’s shady alliances from public view has now become threadbare thanks in part to the World Wide Web and Google searches. The conservative voting public is now finally getting a full view of what is going on behind the curtain and the ugly truth it once had hidden.

The truth is that we all have been watching a low budget, but highly expensive ticketed production of World Wide Wrestling. The Republican Party once was a billion dollar steroid infused vein popping behemoth hero in a red mask fighting for a smaller government who always seemed to get pinned at the last second by the Democrat Party, the other billion dollar steroid infused behemoth in blue tights (who fought for an even larger government) due to some trickery or unfair sportsmanship in the political ring. But long before the match had taken place we now know both political wrestlers and the consultant promoters representing them were at dinner together, at some posh restaurant that no one in the audience would be able to afford or get reservations to, clinking wine glasses and smoking after dinner cigars laughing at how easy it is. The prize money already distributed and spent, the outcome already agreed upon and scripted. All that was left was the show.

As long as the audience was still paying for the tickets, spending money at the concessions and buying t-shirts both the Democrat and Republican Party were raking in the money. Those days, unfortunately for the Republican Party are now over. The people who cheered them on and paid hard earned money to see their Red Masked Avenger have finally started to realize they have been played more times and harder than a fiddle at a Bluegrass festival. In despair most dropped their foam fingers and twrilly towels and headed for the exits. They were not even around when the guy in blue tights delivered what was scripted to be a pretend third buckle high elbow drop to the throat. Though it was scripted, the elbow drop was not pretend.

Now the Democrat blue tighted devil and his followers are laughing all the way to the bank with a stop at the Oval Office. They were never playing a part in this violent political theater. They were playing for real. More importantly they never had to dupe their fans to get their adulation. All they had to do was make sure they kept their fan base’s pockets full of money for hotdogs, beer, and free cell phones and they would always have their fanatical cheering little minions. They knew all along that this would be the outcome since the Republican Party agreed to take part in their l money making vote securing little ruse.

The Republican Party however did not die in the ring that night. It was rolled out on a stretcher, shoved into the back of a waiting ambulance, and driven to the hospital. It eventually recovered, but never regained its former fans or glory. Dejected and led by even less competent promoters, it had a hard time finding a gig, and in its weakened depressed condition it eventually succumbed to an allergic reaction to the simple truth. A waste of a party and a sad un-heroic way to go.

You can still see the Republican Party if you want to. It is now a carnival attraction in Washington D.C… Lobbyists and consultants have pumped it full of a millions dollars’ worth of embalming fluid, tied strings to its hands and feet and now make it dance the Potomac Jig for a few fans and donors who still believe that its better days are ahead even though its conservative soul long ago departed this world. Eventually even these die-hard fans will not be able to stand the stench of corruption and decay and will find some other sideshow to gawk at. The consultants will most likely dump its body in some dirt road ditch once every ounce of usefulness has been wrung out of its corpse.

All that really remains is for the Republican Party now is for someone to write a forced glowing obituary of what it once had been.

R.I.P.

About Michael Henkins

He is just a fat guy in Maine.
This entry was posted in Conservatism, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, December 10th, 2012 at 8:21 am
| 1,130 views

139 Responses to The Only Thing Left for the Republican Party is its Obituary [Reader Post]

  1. Redteam says: 101

    @justme95:
    And I think the word ‘freedom’ might be lost on you. If you are not willing to do what is necessary to remain free, you likely won’t. You can not build a fort and not expect someone to build something that will tear it down. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, but as long as most of the power in the world remains in the USA, we stand a better chance of someone not tearing our fort down. I don’t want cameras everywhere, but I have no problem with them being in ‘public’ areas or business areas. I have no problem with drones, but not ‘armed’ drones. Cell phones with a battery in them can be located, doesn’t matter if the ‘location’ service is turned off or not. It always communicates with every cell tower within range, even when turned ‘off’.

    ReplyReply
  2. Redteam says: 102

    @justme95: I didn’t say we need hundreds of foreign bases, but we definitely need ‘enough’ whatever that is.

    ReplyReply
  3. Smorgasbord
    you’re 69
    no you don’t want to wait till they attack again,
    so why the hell they let enter those sleeper cell in THE USA,?

    ReplyReply
  4. Smorgasbord
    I had to leave and not finish my comment,
    but I strongly believe those haters cells, are indoctrinating the young 20s
    to destroy AMERICANS, because it’s unconceiveble to not be so,
    with what we see happening, they sow the hate AMERICA FROM WITHIN OUR DOORS
    AS NEIGHBOR, AS TEACHER, AS PROMOTER ,AS CONSULTANT,
    and jobs in NATION SECURITY, AND THEY ARE RIGHT IN THE GOVERNMENT ALSO,
    BRAINWASHING THE YOUNG MINDS OF HATEFUL RHETORIC OF VENGEANCE, the young are confuse enough to turn on their own parents, it’s getting to obvious to pass,
    THERE IS NO WAY TO ESCAPE THEM AS A YOUNG PERSON
    they know how to desensitize them
    UNAWARE OF THEIR RELIGION OF PEACE IS A SNAKE VENOM

    ReplyReply
  5. justme95 says: 105

    @Redteam: your 101

    If you are not willing to do what is necessary to remain free, you likely won’t.

    And you obviously do not understand our Constitution and think it jus a ‘piece of paper’.
    You and Smorg desperately need to read and comprehend our Constitution. You should probably read anything by Judge Andrew Napolitano also.
    He just wrote this article and I suggest you read it. Here’s a snippet for you:

    “FISA gives the government unchecked authority to snoop on all Americans who communicate with any foreign person, in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment. The right to privacy is a natural human right. Its enshrinement in the Constitution has largely kept America from becoming East Germany. Moreover, everyone in Congress has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which could not be more clear: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” shall not be violated, except via a warrant issued by a neutral judge upon the judge finding probable cause of crime. If we let Congress, which is a creature of the Constitution, change the Constitution, then no one’s liberty or property is safe, and freedom is dependent upon the political needs of those in power.”

    I’m sure the Judge would agree with me that those spying devices all over cities also abrogate our 4th Amendment. I believe in the rule of law and our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Why you care nothing about adhering to our Constitution is something you should, but probably won’t, mull over.

    ReplyReply
  6. Redteam says: 106

    @justme95: Shooting from the hip, aren’t you. You’re accusing me of a lot that I’m not advocating. While you’re accusing me of not knowing the Constitution, I suggest you might want to read it also. Do you think that if WalMart chooses to have cameras monitoring your every move (except in dressing room or rest room) while in their store, that violates your ‘right to privacy’? The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but some amendments have been interpreted as giving us such rights. But they weren’t written in. Do you think the government has a right to have cameras to monitor traffic? Do you think a bank has the right to have cameras at ATMs or inside the bank? I believe that some cameras are for the good of the majority. Do you think it is legal and ok for you to have a camera mounted on your garage that shows your driveway and any cars that pass by on the street in front of your house? Wouldn’t that interfere with your neighbors rights in you knowing when they are coming and going? Isn’t that ok? Or is it?

    You said: ” Moreover, everyone in Congress has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which could not be more clear: ” What a novel idea. Do you think anyone there takes that oath seriously? should they? If they did, Barack Obama would not be President. He’s not a natural born citizen. If they don’t take that part of the Constitution seriously, why should they take any other part seriously. Personally, I think all of it should be taken ver batim. But seriously, some cameras monitor for good reason. Beach surf to know if it’s dangerous. Playgrounds to ensure children are safe. etc. You said:

    And you obviously do not understand our Constitution and think it jus a ‘piece of paper’.
    You and Smorg desperately need to read and comprehend our Constitution.

    So I think your interpretation of what I know and believe about the Constitution is about 180.

    ReplyReply
  7. justme95
    I do love JUDGE NAPOLITANO, HE IS SO SMART AND KNOWLEDGABLE,
    EVERYONE WHO NEED A JUDGE SHOULD HAVE THE JUDGE NAPOLITANO,
    HE IS A GREAT MAN,
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  8. justme95 says: 108

    @Redteam:

    Do you think that if WalMart chooses to have cameras monitoring your every move (except in dressing room or rest room) while in their store, that violates your ‘right to privacy’?… Do you think a bank has the right to have cameras at ATMs or inside the bank?… Do you think it is legal and ok for you to have a camera mounted on your garage that shows your driveway and any cars that pass by on the street in front of your house?

    Do you understand the difference between ‘private’ and ‘public’ property?

    What someone does on/in their private property to ‘secure’ their property is their right as per the 4th Amendment, what the government does to abrogate rights in the public arena is something else.
    It appears you read and understand the 4th Amendment as such:

    The right of the Federal and State Governments to be secure against persons in public areas authorizes its use of unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrants need be issued, nor supported by oath or affirmation, nor particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things shall be seized upon its disgression.

    This is how neocons and warmongerers twist and contort our founding documents and ideology in order to make it conform to their need for what they believe to be ‘security’. I don’t believe there are terrorists hiding around every corner and there are certainly no terrorists hiding under my bed. I don’t live in the kind of ‘fear zone’ like you do, where I believe the ‘government’ can/will and needs to protect me from imagined boogymen by abrogating my 4th Amendment rights, especially when those who can do the most damage are in the government itself. It’s expected that a terrorist would torture and murder a captive, but when a government is so distrustful of its citizens that it must resort to spying and recording their every move, sound and written word, then we live in tyranny. Again I quote Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

    The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but some amendments have been interpreted as giving us such rights.

    Really?

    In order to invoke protection under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, an individual must first have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to the location that was subject to the search or to the item that was seized.

    Do you disagree with Justice Brandeis’ dissent to the Olmstead decision when he wrote:

    The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.

    How about Justice Stewart’s majority opinion in the Katz case?

    The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. . . . But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

    They are, most probably, already profiling the subjects watched via the spy cameras. People often express their private thoughts through facial expressions, and God help the poor person who was dismayed by the dinner he burned the night before and that annoyance expresses itself by a narrowing of his eyes and tightening of his lips. How easily can it be interpretted that that person is about to jump the guy who just brushed passed him? ‘DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!’ So we will have to learn to walk around expressionless and without a bounce in our step lest we be mistaken as enemies of the state.
    You really do approve of the Orwellian nightmare!

    You said: ” Moreover, everyone in Congress has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution…

    If you had read correctly and read the entire article from the link I provided, you would know that was a quote from Judge Andrew Napolitano, not me. I agree with it, but did not write it.

    I 100% believe you don’t understand our Constitution.

    ReplyReply
  9. justme95 says: 109

    @ilovebeeswarzone:
    Hi Bees, From watching interviews with the the Judge, I think he was hoping to become a Supreme Court justice under a Ron Paul presidency. Now how great would that have been?

    ReplyReply
  10. Smorgasbord says: 110

    @Redteam: #101

    Cell phones with a battery in them can be located, doesn’t matter if the ‘location’ service is turned off or not. It always communicates with every cell tower within range, even when turned ‘off’.

    The difference here is that ONLY your cell company can track you by which towers you are near. The police would have to contact the cell company and ask THEM to say where you are. The only reason the police would be looking for you is if they want to talk to you about a crime, or your family called them and asked them to help find you. Many people have been saved by the cell phone company giving the police a general area where the lost person was.

    Are you sure a cell phone can be tracked, even if it is of? I haven’t heard of that, but I don’t keep up on stuff like that either.

    ReplyReply
  11. Redteam says: 111

    @justme95:

    This is how neocons and warmongerers twist and contort our founding documents and ideology in order to make it conform to their need for what they believe to be ‘security’.

    If you persist in calling me a neocon, I’m going to call you something worse. I was likely a conservative, a real one, before you were born. I am not a neocon nor a warmonger, so you have gone off the deep end for no reason. Why are you trying to make someone into something they’re not. Just in a argumentative, superior mode or something. I’m trying to have a discussion about issues that we both care about. I’m not trying to make you out as a wacko or something. so calm down and have a discussion.

    I don’t live in the kind of ‘fear zone’ like you do, where I believe the ‘government’ can/will and needs to protect me from imagined boogymen by abrogating my 4th Amendment rights, especially when those who can do the most damage are in the government itself.

    So quote where I said I live in a fear zone. Are you telling me that if someone is attempting to break into your house that you won’t call the police because you’re afraid they may have to come into your house and it would interfere with you watching tv or something? Well, if you are saying that, I don’t believe you. I personally have no problem with a police car cruising my street once or twice a day, etc. I don’t think they’re the enemy and I don’t think they’re out to make me dependent on them. I think they have a job to do and hope they do it well. You sound as if you don’t want them in your neighborhood because they might steal your car or something. Strange.

    I said:

    The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but some amendments have been interpreted as giving us such rights.

    To which you said: “Really?” Well, the correct answer to that is ‘really’. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. whether you like that or not. Those quotes you use are the attempts and interpretations that I mentioned that seem to give you that right. But they all depend on interpretations. If you want to argue that, put out the statement that quotes the constitution exactly that says ‘citizens have a right to privacy’.

    I 100% believe you don’t understand our Constitution.

    Actually I don’t care that you believe that, but I also believe 100% that you don’t understand the constitution or very much of anything else. Now if you want to have a civil discussion, drop your superior attitude and I’ll have a discussion, As I said, I’m sure I was a real conservative a long time before you were even born.

    ReplyReply
  12. Smorgasbord says: 112

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #103

    you’re 69

    I’m not 69, but I am an official old fogy.

    …so why the hell they let enter those sleeper cell in THE USA,?

    POSSIBLE ANSWERS
    (1) Stupidity.
    (2) The politicians have been bribed.
    (3) The more they let in, the more votes for them.
    (4) It is part of a plan to overthrow the USA.

    Pick from the above answers, or come up with your own.

    ReplyReply
  13. Hard Right says: 113

    Neocon is ronulan for jooooooo!
    Anti-semitism runs extremely deep in the the ron paul tards.

    ReplyReply
  14. Redteam says: 114

    @Smorgasbord: Only as you said. smart phones have mapping programs that will locate you exactly, but those are for your benefit, such as you can keep up with where your wife or child is. You can disable that and it will not transmit your location. But, as you said, as long as your cell phone has a battery in it, whether off or not, it will transmit a signal to the nearest cell tower and the phone co. can locate you as being within range of that cell tower. If you are within range of two or more, they can triangulate you. If you take battery out, it is out of contact.

    ReplyReply
  15. Redteam says: 115

    @justme95:
    You didn’t answer this question above, would you mind answering it?

    Do you think it is legal and ok for you to have a camera mounted on your garage that shows your driveway and any cars that pass by on the street in front of your house?

    ReplyReply
  16. Smorgasbord says: 117

    @justme95: #97

    No I don’t. I want my 2nd Amendment rights preserved.

    I can’t believe you don’t want a strong police department in your area. Who do you think tries to keep out the drug dealers, gang members, prostitutes, or solve crimes that have been committed. I’ll take a very well funded police department any time. The small town I live in has the county sheriff’s department based here, and we have our own police department. I have several police offices living just one or two blocks from me, and the sheriff’s office is right across the street. I’ll take my location any time compared with your desire to live without police protection, but I will defend your right to live in the type of area you want.

    That is the saddest comment I’ve ever read on FA. It’s pathetic. Did you also read 1984 and think it a wonderful fairy tale?

    Why is my assuming that someone is watching me all of the time when I am outside my residence “pathetic”? The crooks look for places they think nobody will see them. How many times have you seen videos of crimes committed on the streets? If something like that would happen to me, I hope it would be recorded so the one or ones involved will be punished. I’m beginning to wonder if you are one who would do something if you KNEW nobody was watching you, or are you wanted by the police and don’t want to get caught on video? I’m asking, because, in my opinion, the only ones I can see that are so concerned about being recorded in public are those with something to hide.

    I haven’t read 1984, but I saw the movie, and I know that if obama gets his way, that will be very close to how it will be.

    My point was that they shouldn’t be doing this at all.

    I think location services should be a choice. With no location service, you can’t use GPS, because they have to route you FROM someplace. You also can’t find a restaurant, business, etc. I want the CHOICE to have or have not some services.

    It’s apparent you don’t give a crap about the innocents in foreign countries that are murdered by these things, and I think it’s safe to say you won’t care how many innocent Americans are killed by them, either.

    I do not see drones used by the police ever being ARMED, unless it would be with tear gas grenades, or similar items. I have asked different times for someone to tell me how our soldiers are supposed to tell the difference between an “innocent civilian” and the enemy, when the enemy doesn’t wear uniforms? I have also asked how many “innocent civilians” is one soldier worth?

    Pretend you have a family member who was killed in an attack. The information you received from the battle as that his/her unit came under fire. The enemy was firing from buildings with civilians in them. The decision was made to go into the building instead of calling for an air strike or artillery. In the battle, your relative lost their live, but there were (blank) “innocent civilians” not killed in the battle. How many “innocent civilians” would you say your relative’s live was worth, so that you could say the military did the right thing not blowing up the buildings?

    How do our guys identify an innocent civilian. Keep in mind that the Koran teaches that ALL non-Muslims are the enemy. If a battle starts, I would think that the innocent civilians would run from the fight, not stay. I don’t know anything about combat, but in every war we have had, more civilians died than military personnel. The idea was that the faster we defeated the enemy, the fewer people who died, so that fewer civilians would die than if we didn’t take out the enemy because of some civilians in the area and kept the war going longer.

    America will fall. There will be bloodshed. I knew that a long time ago

    I have said different times that I knew obamas’s agenda when he said he wants a civilian security force as strong as, and equally funded as the military. The governors have to activate the National Guard. The president can’t. Why would he want a civilian security force that could defeat the military? I have asked liberals to answer that question, but none of them have.

    …I was pretty much repulsed by your entire 93. You don’t have the slightest idea about what our founders were trying to do when they created America. The word ‘liberty’ is lost on you.

    Your statement is true up to the time I retired. I have apologized many times that I let the country get in the shape that it is because I figured the politicians in office are there because they knew what was best for the country. After listening to conservative talk radio all across the USA, I finally started getting involved in the Tea Party movement after I retired.

    I used to live about 200 from washington dc, and attended almost all of the Tea Party rallies. I started writing and calling my reps. I have sent emails to family, friends, and others. I follow the conservative blogs and TV shows. I have had many liberals at the different Tea Party rallies “repulsed” by me. If you are a conservative, you are the first one who was “repulsed” by me. Please don’t expect me to change my mind just because you are repulsed by me. I figure I will be making many more repulsive comments in the future.

    ReplyReply
  17. Smorgasbord says: 118

    @Redteam: #114
    Could this be why Apple decided to use a hard to replace battery?

    ReplyReply
  18. justme95
    yes I use to think the same way, still DO, every time I see him on FOX,
    and he goes right on the subject, no fooling around with complicated but or if or maybe,

    ReplyReply
  19. Smorgasbord I like the last one, that if I only can pick one,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  20. Smorgasbord
    yes and I was reading in today ‘s paper that CANADA US SIGN VISA DEAL,
    sharing biometric [ for wathever it mean] and other data, about refugee claimants,
    and visa applicants, which then may provide it to third countries,
    under a newly sign treaty, it mean finger print , photo,of someone who hope to visit or study or work,
    in CANADA COULD BE PASS TO WASHINGTON , WHICH IN TURN MIGHT SHARE THEM WITH A THIRD COUNTRY TO HELP VERIFY the person identity,
    however, CANADA would have to agree to the disclosure and could place restrictions or conditions
    on how the information is share says the treaty sign yesterday.
    the biometric sharing initiative affecting NATIONALS OF 29 COUNTRIES and one territory seeking visas
    or refugee status in CANADA IS part of a continental perimeter security deal reach last year,
    the idea is to strengthen NORTH AMERICAN SECURITY, WHILE SPEEDING the passage of goods
    and people across the 49 parrallel
    under the immigration agreement, biographic information ; name date of birth and gender of
    visa applicants and asylum claimants will be share by 2013
    but biometric information such as photo and fingerprints of select individuals
    will be share by 2014,
    information that CANADA provide to the USA will be compare with various data banks,
    to identify previous failed refugee claimants, deportees and those trying to enter
    under fraudulent names, if there is a positive hit, we will be notified of that,
    if the hit indicate something problematic, that perhaps that person has been deported by the USA,
    OR THAT IN FACT, THAT PERSON HAS AN ALIAS THEN WE WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLORE
    MORE CLOSELY THE REAL IDENTITY of whether they are admissible to CANADA OR WOULD CONSTITUTE A SECURITY RISK, RIGOROUS PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS will ensure that
    immigration information is shared in conformity with CANADIAN LAWS ,
    as same for the USA,

    ReplyReply
  21. Smorgasbord says: 122

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #121
    I saw on Glenn Beck that obama is selling F-16s to Egypt. You know, the country that elected a Muslim Brotherhood member as president. Nothing can go wrong with that deal, can it?

    ReplyReply
  22. justme95 says: 123

    @Redteam:
    Your 115 re your 106

    Do you think it is legal and ok for you to have a camera mounted on your garage that shows your driveway and any cars that pass by on the street in front of your house?

    was answered in my 108

    What someone does on/in their private property to ‘secure’ their property is their right as per the 4th Amendment…

    ReplyReply
  23. Smorgasbord
    they are beating their young who want to have the freedom they promises,
    not a good start for FREEDOM,
    THAT IS TRYING TO SILENCE THEIR MAJORITY

    ReplyReply
  24. Redteam
    I use to check the DREMMEL BITS TO BUY ONE THAT I ALREADY DID NOT COLLECT,
    one day I see a man stealing the expansive bits in their package and take of as I was comming
    so I CALL A PERSON TO TELL IT, so they did not think it was me, because I would usuely spend time in there when I bought my tool, and they had many bits to collect and useful for all kind of do it yourself,
    I had to read on the package which one I did not previously bought, they had a big collection of it, some costing around the 20 dollars, so every time I went to WALMART, IT WAS A FUN THING TO ADD ONE MINI BIT 1/8 FOR MY COLLECTION.
    UNTIL THAT TIME, THEY TOLD ME THEY WHERE GOING TO STOP THE SALE BECAUSE OF TOO MUCH WHERE STOLEN, I could understand it, they are very small package so easy to take,
    even a camera was not effective for small items ,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  25. justme95 says: 126

    @Redteam:

    If you persist in calling me a neocon,

    If you had read my 108 with a clearer head, you would have seen that I didn’t actually call you a neocon/warmongerer. I said it ‘appeared’ you read and understand the 4th Amendment as such (and you can re-read what I wrote – I’m not going to requote here) then I said this is how neocons and warmongerers blah blah conform to THEIR need…. I deliberately did not write YOU, meaning you – Redteam – because I’m still trying to figure out where your ideology lies, but you’ve certainly been infected by some of the neocon virus – heck, it’s a rare Republican who hasn’t and I include myself in that mix. There is no denying that the neocons have been the influential force in the Republican Party for several decades now so it’s near impossible for their influence to have not rubbed onto us. I was a quasi warmongerer at one point. Back in ’98 when I first read about what the Taliban was doing I seriously considered writing to Clinton to tell him he needs to go in Afghanistan and smite that enemy. I had this terrible feeling that our lack of intervention in a situation that seriously called for would come back to bite us. I had no idea how right I was. But I don’t get that feeling from Iran. Not at all. Mahmoud is a clown and the khomeinis want to keep their power. They may huff and puff, but they aren’t going to blow anything down. I’m more concerned about Kim jong-um; he’s young and wants to prove himself important on the world stage. The young are much more apt to take risks and put everyone around them in danger.

    I’m going to call you something worse.

    Why the threat – even one as mild as this? Unnecessary.

    I was likely a conservative, a real one, before you were born.

    ??? You’ll never get total agreement on what a ‘real’ conservative is. Let’s try not to define ourselves by age, gender, proffession, hair color, etc. We’re discussing our political view at this point in time, not what led us to it.

    I’m trying to have a discussion about issues that we both care about.

    So am I. So we’ve found our point of agreement and can work from there. This is good.

    Okay, so in your 111 you blockquote where I say I don’t want the government’s brand of protection if it means abrogating my 4th Amendment rights and you reply by talking about cops. How am I supposed to address this when you are off-topic? Do you want to discuss the cops or the govt denying me my 4th Amendment rights? I was discussing the latter.

    Then you say the ‘right to privacy’ is not mentioned in the Constitution. What do you think “right of the people to be secure in their persons” means? What we now call the ‘right to privacy’ wasn’t conceptually the same as in the 1780s. They didn’t even have the telegraph then. The language they used was different to how we express ourselves today but still that phrase strongly indicates a constitutional right to privacy. You can argue all you like with me on this point but I will not budge. The be ‘secure in my person’ means I have a right to not be watched by the federal government.

    You should read this entire article, but I’m not sure if you will so here’s a snippet

    On a typical day, Mary leaves her home in the morning to go to work. Once on the road, her vehicle passes by multiple traffic and red light cameras that monitor her driving in the event that she might break a traffic law. Upon arriving at work, she is monitored by security cameras as she enters the building and rides in an elevator up to her desk. After work, Mary stops by her local grocery store to pick up a few items, where her every move is tracked by closed circuit security cameras from the time she enters the parking lot to the time she leaves. On her way home, she is stopped at a police sobriety checkpoint, where she is required by law enforcement to hand over her driver’s license for review and submit to a breathalyzer test even though there is no reason to suspect that she is impaired.

    John travels by plane frequently for his business. Today, after picking up his ticket, he is selected for enhanced security screening. John knows that he can choose to opt out of the body scanners, which take naked pictures of his body through his clothes, because of the questionable safety of the devices. Instead he opts for a pat down. He is required to leave his personal items unsupervised while his body and genitals are probed and prodded by a TSA agent. While he is receiving his pat down, John also notices a small child being subjected to the same pat down. When John’s pat down is complete he is allowed to return to his property, he discovers a TSA agent going through his credit cards, cash, receipts, and other items in his wallet.

    Obviously Mary and John are fictional characters, but their stories are real and shared by millions of Americans every day. Our world is one in which we have been so conditioned to tolerate gross invasions of our persons and property that we simply can’t fathom what it is to be truly “secure in our persons.”

    To understand the Fourth Amendment, we need to go back to the conditions that led the Founders to write it into the fabric of the Constitution. During the colonial era, the British government would issue documents called writs of assistance to authorize law enforcement to perform searches. These writs of assistance were a major source of controversy in the years leading up to the American Revolution, as unlike a modern search warrant, the writs were vague in nature. A writ of assistance did not require probable cause in order to be issued, nor did it have to specify the place to be search or the items for which law enforcement was to search. Any items that were suspected to be untaxed or illegally imported could be seized – with or without proof of any illegal activity. Often the officials who seized these items could keep or sell whatever they seized, leading to rampant abuse of the writs of assistance.

    The Founders wanted to prevent these kinds of governmental abuses in their newly formed republic. They wanted people to be truly free to live as they pleased without interference by an overreaching nanny state. Because of their wisdom, Americans were once free to travel from place to place without their every move being recorded on surveillance cameras, without drivers licenses, and without being stopped randomly by police or searched by Transportation Safety Officers in the name of “safety” when there was no suspicion of a crime. This is what it meant to the Founders to be secure in their persons.

    I concur with the above.

    Now if you want to have a civil discussion, drop your superior attitude and I’ll have a discussion…

    How I write is how I write. Adjust your attitude and you will see none from me. What I mean by this is that we often see in others what we ourselves are projecting.

    ReplyReply
  26. Smorgasbord says: 127

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #124
    I’m sure they will use the F-16s to DEFEND their country. They surely aren’t figuring on going up against Israel’s F-126s.

    ReplyReply
  27. Redteam says: 128

    @justme95: Well, if that camera mounted on your garage shows people passing by on the street, doesn’t that trample on their right to privacy? That’s the question I wanted answered. You only addressed yourself and your property.

    ReplyReply
  28. Redteam says: 129

    @Smorgasbord: I think so.

    ReplyReply
  29. Redteam says: 130

    @justme95: your 126

    Then you say the ‘right to privacy’ is not mentioned in the Constitution. What do you think “right of the people to be secure in their persons” means? What we now call the ‘right to privacy’ wasn’t conceptually the same as in the 1780s. They didn’t even have the telegraph then. The language they used was different to how we express ourselves today but still that phrase strongly indicates a constitutional right to privacy.

    So you’re saying you find the right to privacy in the constitution through the interpretation that you quoted. That’s what I said. You only get it through an interpretation, it’s not written in.

    Obviously Mary and John are fictional characters, but their stories are real and shared by millions of Americans every day. Our world is one in which we have been so conditioned to tolerate gross invasions of our persons and property that we simply can’t fathom what it is to be truly “secure in our persons.”

    Some of the things you mentioned, I’m for, some I’m against. Against sobriety checkpoints, traffic light cameras, excessive invasion by TSA. For: businesses cameras, security cameras in elevators. that sort of thing. Some things are necessary so that I can be secure in my person. If someone is headed toward my house with a gun to rob me, if there is not something there to stop him, I might not be too secure. Having a police force at my call is nice.

    The Revolutionary war was fought to rid us of the practices of illegal search, unreasonable taxes, etc. We won and don’t need to fight it again. Search warrants can be pretty intrusive.

    Some wars have justification, some don’t. WW2 was justified even though we only got into it because the FDR crowd ‘wanted’ the US into it for financial gain and to help the employment situation. The Viet Nam war was totally unnecessary and only got into it for enriching some personal friends of LBJ and to appease the military JCS that wanted to get into it. Desert Storm was necessary and fought as it should have been. Iraq war and Afghanistan war, the reasons were ok but totally mishandled and lasted years longer than necessary. While Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex, had he remained president, he would have gotten the US into the Viet Nam war just as LBJ did. And for the same reasons.

    Just curious, do you think persons should have to have a Drivers License to drive and should they be required to have liability insurance. I have no problem with cameras that are used to monitor traffic conditions, but they should not be used to track individuals. anything that is started for good reasons seems to ultimately be abused. I don’t have the answer to how that gets prevented until we figure out how to get people that make rules and laws that are for the people and not people that are just in office to enrich themselves and preserve their terms in office.

    Thanks for being civil in your last response.

    ReplyReply
  30. redteam
    i’m so drunk now that i dont care what his coming from a party or another had a good time WITH NICE PEOPLE who I CAN DEPEND ON TO DRIVE ME HOME , WHEN THE PARTY IS OVER,

    ReplyReply
  31. justme95 says: 132

    @Redteam: your 130
    LOL this post is chuck full of comments!

    So you’re saying you find the right to privacy in the constitution through the interpretation that you quoted.

    It’s not ‘interpretation’. It’s ‘original intent’.
    Example: When the Founders used the words ‘to regulate’ in the Commerce Clause, it didn’t mean ‘regulations’ as we understand that word to mean today but to ‘make regular’ or ‘uniform’ the tariffs on trade and we know this because of the preamble to Article 1 Section 8 where is says “but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States’.
    We can look to Madison’s Federalist #42 for the original intent of the Commerce Clause:

    A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former…
    … The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.

    Do you honestly believe the Founders intended for the central government to control every aspect of trade? They weren’t Marxists but today’s politicians and SCOTUS now abuse that clause to render its meaning to fit the Marxist concept of the central government controlling all means of trade.

    We should be very greatful to the anti-federalists for wanting to buck the Constitution; if they hadn’t we wouldn’t have the Federalist Papers to look back on to know why they wrote the Constitution as they did. It’s extremely unfortunate that all the anti-federalists’ warnings weren’t listened to because they were also appalled by the power given to SCOTUS and if there’s one branch that seriously needs to be taken down several notches, it’s them.

    For: businesses cameras, security cameras in elevators. that sort of thing.

    I make a very clear distinction between what the government can do and what people or private businesses can do. There is no authority in the Constution for the government to spy on its citizens. The 9th Amendment, though mostly ignored, states:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    This is open to wide interpretation, but since there is nothing enumerating the govt’s ‘right to spy/watch’ its citizens, and individual property rights have always been paramount in our history, then what someone does to protect their personal property/business to make it secure is totally justifyable.
    As to your particular niggle re: a camera on someone’s house to watch their drive/street – if they are positioning their camera toward the street for the particular purpose to watch a certain individual, I would call that stalking and there are laws in place for that. Citizens can’t stalk and get away with it.
    We can also look to George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights – a document Jefferson heavily relied on when writing the Declaration of Independence and Madison used at various times.
    The first article states:

    That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

    Safety. It is our natural right to secure our safety.

    Having a police force at my call is nice.

    I never said I want to do away with law enforcement, but I have no use for police ‘force’.
    I guess you never heard of a little town in Georgia called Kennesaw. In 1982 they passed an ordinance that said:

    (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

    (b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

    This town mandated gun ownership. Crime is extremely low and the murder rate almost non-existant. Tim Brown wrote an excellent piece highlighting the difference between a town that encourages 2nd Amendment rights and one that is demanding total gun bans. I hope you read it.

    Just curious, do you think persons should have to have a Drivers License to drive and should they be required to have liability insurance.

    I’ve actually though about this one a lot. A car isn’t a horse and has been proved to be a lethal form of travel. I think licenses ‘renewals’ are just a way for the State to continually tax you for a right to travel, so I think all you would need to do is demonstate that you do know how to drive safely and understand road rules and I have no problem with a one-time nominal payment for a document that states you can/know all that – be it a license or something else. There are costs involve in issuing the document and that’s why I have no problem with whatever authority recouping that cost.
    As for liability insurance, and even yearly inspections – yes. We are responsible for our property. It’s one thing if you crash your car into a tree – the tree won’t sue – and another if you hit someone, who will sue for damages.

    The Revolutionary war was fought to rid us of the practices of illegal search, unreasonable taxes, etc.

    The Revolutionary was fought for Liberty. Plain and simple. Whether or not we will need to fight another one remains to be seen. Our Republic has been replaced with a ‘democracy’ that is quasi fascist, veryMarxist, and our Founders knew democracies always devolve into tyranny. Ours is in serious trouble. We can’t depend on the GOP to raise us from the quagmire and we know the dims are useless. We can only help by enlightening our fellow citizens to the true meaning of Natural/God-given rights and our duty to ensure they are retained. We’ve done a terrible job so far. People become stuck on certain issues that seriously offend others – I would rather caution on the side of too much Liberty.

    As Thomas Jefferson said:

    “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

    Civil discussion are always a pleasure!

    ReplyReply
  32. Ditto
    I like the CONSTITUTION PARTY,
    WHO IS THE FOUNDER?

    ReplyReply
  33. Redteam says: 134

    @justme95:
    Justme, I think you said a few things just to try to show where you’re ‘different’. I basically agree with almost all you said. I don’t care to get into a discussion about interstate commerce, though I’m in favor of regulating ‘commerce’ that clause is being used for way more than it was intended.

    Basically the Constitution was written to regulate or limit the rights/powers of the federal government, leaving the remainder to be either regulated by the state or not at all. So if individual ‘rights’ are mentioned in the constitution, it would be to ‘limit’ them. That’s why it is NOT in there. And by the fact that it is not in there, it means the Federal government can not limit your individual right to privacy.
    When it was obvious that some rights were being infringed, they did some amendments to try to insure that they were not limiting your rights. But ‘privacy’ is not one of the things listed.
    I said:

    The Revolutionary war was fought to rid us of the practices of illegal search, unreasonable taxes, etc.

    You said:

    The Revolutionary was fought for Liberty. Plain and simple.

    both are correct, but the Revolutionary war would not have been fought for a long time, just for ‘liberty’. When Taxes became oppressive, the citizens revolted. When the war was won, liberty was a partial result.

    Your response about drivers license is quite humorous. I don’t think it would be very reasonable for a policeman to have to test each driver each time he is stopped to determine if he could drive safely or knew the laws. License renewals are mostly a form of revenue, but photos do need to be updated regularly. Liability insurance, I’m for, but surprised that your are. I would think that you would just put the burden on the citizen and his rights.

    Kennesaw, Ga. very familiar with it. Have quoted those numbers myself in the past. I’m a native Georgian. I notice that you say gun ownership is mandated. Not quite. too many exceptions. I personally own several guns, my main one for home protection is an automatic shotgun. Makes me feel a lot safer.

    ReplyReply
  34. justme95 says: 135

    @Redteam:

    I think you said a few things just to try to show where you’re ‘different’.

    I read at as being a bit argumentative. I don’t know if that was your intent, but it is how it comes off as being.
    I didn’t reply to you to highlight our ‘differences’, but to explain my perspective as per our conversation ans questioning. It seems you take umbrage with that.
    You claim I am interpretting the Constitution while I clearly state I am looking to the ‘original intent’ behind every section written in our Constitution.

    Basically the Constitution was written to regulate or limit the rights/powers of the federal government,

    Yes…

    leaving the remainder to be either regulated by the state or not at all.

    Article 1 Section 10 specifically says what individual states ‘shall’ not do. Various other sections delineate what individual states ‘shall’ do.
    ‘Leaving the remainder’ doesn’t happen until we come to the Amemndments (Bill of Rights), specifically the 10th Amendment, which is, you may not agree with me, part and parcel of the Constitution.

    So if individual ‘rights’ are mentioned in the constitution, it would be to ‘limit’ them.

    So the 1st Amendment limits our feedom of speech, our right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?
    And the 2nd Amendment limits our right to bear and keep arms?
    You must mean the 4th Amendment where we are ‘limited’ in our ability to be secure in our persons and therefore have no right to privacy from the government we created.
    Absurd.

    When it was obvious that some rights were being infringed, they did some amendments to try to insure that they were not limiting your rights.

    The Bill of Rights was argued for before the Constitution was even ratified. Ratification became contigent on there being a Bill of Rights as several states demanded it.

    But ‘privacy’ is not one of the things listed.

    It seems you are working very hard to give the fed and state govts the right to use cameras to watch our every move.

    When Taxes became oppressive, the citizens revolted.

    When taxation without representation became oppressive, the citizens revolted. Actually, it was more than just that fact as I’m sure you are aware of what is written in our first Organic Law – the Declaration of Independence.

    When the war was won, liberty was a partial result.

    The people had shades of liberty in America before the monarchy and parliament became oppressive. Had they not, a revolution would have occurred before it did. The migration of Puritans and Pilgrims to America was, in a sense, a ‘revolution’, as they would be far away from the prying eyes of the tyrannical rulers. Hmmm, seems they were determined to exercise their right to privacy from the ‘government’s’ watchful eye.

    Your response about drivers license is quite humorous.

    Devolving into combative verbiage again, I see.

    I don’t think it would be very reasonable for a policeman to have to test each driver each time he is stopped to determine if he could drive safely or knew the laws.

    I neither said that nor implied such a thing. Why do you have such difficulty comprehending what I write? Re-read what I wrote, I will not repeat myself.

    Liability insurance, I’m for, but surprised that your are. I would think that you would just put the burden on the citizen and his rights.

    Your ‘surprise’ may lie in thinking I’m a ‘Libertarian’ (as we know that group today) when I am not. I’m more a Jeffersonian Republican with a strong Patrick Henry flavor. That is the libertarianism I favor.

    I notice that you say gun ownership is mandated. Not quite.

    You’ll write anything just to disagree with me. I quoted the ordinance, including the exemptions, yet you still feel it necessary to coucil me on what it says. Do you think I don’t read what I quote?

    I personally own several guns, my main one for home protection is an automatic shotgun. Makes me feel a lot safer.

    Apparently it doesn’t. You want a strong police force and spy cameras.
    I don’t think we have anything more to write on these subjects. You obviously want more and bigger government to keep you safe – strong police force/spy cameras/drones over America (if that was you – could be Smorg, you two agree on so many things), and I do not. You do not consider ‘original intent’ when parsing the words of the Constitution, I do. And you do not comprehend what I write – re driver’s licenses amongst other things.
    I believe we’re finished here. I regret you had to resort to… I’ll say ‘a bit of cheek’ while replying to me, but perhaps you can’t help it. I did support Ron Paul, after all. That kinda makes me ‘the enemy’. Even the MIAC Report said so.

    ReplyReply
  35. Redteam says: 136

    @justme95: Wow, kinda lengthy, seems like a lot of ‘differences’ are just interpretations, or how it’s said. I started out by saying that the constitution was written to say what the powers of the Federal government are and that other things are left to the states. Clearly if the constitution says something will be regulated by the state, then that is what it means. It is still a limitation on the Federal or state gov. If it’s not included. then if it comes up, it has to be decided by a court.

    So the 1st Amendment limits our feedom of speech, our right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?
    And the 2nd Amendment limits our right to bear and keep arms?
    You must mean the 4th Amendment where we are ‘limited’ in our ability to be secure in our persons and therefore have no right to privacy from the government we created.

    As a matter of fact, it does limit your right to free speech to what is included within the constitution. You can not yell fire in a crowded theatre.

    I’m going to state this one more time and though you disagree, you have not produced a ‘right to privacy’ within the constitution. The right to be secure in your home may be interpreted that way, but it is an interpretation.

    I know the Bill of Rights was agreed on before hand.

    When Taxes became oppressive, the citizens revolted.

    When taxation without representation became oppressive, the citizens revolted. Actually, it was more than just that fact as I’m sure you are aware of what is written in our first Organic Law – the Declaration of Independence.

    restating it doesn’t change the meaning. taxation likely would not have become oppressive had they had representation. I didn’t think that needed to be said.
    I said:

    I don’t think it would be very reasonable for a policeman to have to test each driver each time he is stopped to determine if he could drive safely or knew the laws.

    you said:

    I neither said that nor implied such a thing. Why do you have such difficulty comprehending what I write? Re-read what I wrote

    because you had said:

    so I think all you would need to do is demonstate that you do know how to drive safely and understand road rules

    So your intent was to demonstrate this once only? How would anyone know that you had done so if you didn’t have a license granted as a result of that demonstration?

    Your ‘surprise’ may lie in thinking I’m a ‘Libertarian’ (as we know that group today) when I am not. I’m more a Jeffersonian Republican with a strong Patrick Henry flavor.

    It never occurred to me to put a label on you, one way or the other.

    You’ll write anything just to disagree with me. I quoted the ordinance, including the exemptions, yet you still feel it necessary to coucil me on what it says. Do you think I don’t read what I quote?

    I was just pointing out that you made a statement that is literally not true. I wasn’t doing it to be argumentative, just to ensure you understand the difference. Do you really believe that if someone passed a law requiring you to buy a gun and then gave you several ways to opt out, that is a ‘mandate’. You might, I wouldn’t.

    Apparently it doesn’t. You want a strong police force and spy cameras.

    I don’t believe I said that.

    I have not tried to write anything just to be argumentative, mostly just to have a discussion. I’m not sure I knew that you supported Ron Paul, but if you did, that’s certainly your right and I have no problem with it. My candidate did not get the nomination either. I sure wasn’t a Romney guy, though I voted for him against Obama.

    I’ve enjoyed the discussion and have not tried to be ‘cheeky’ whatever that means.

    ReplyReply
  36. justme95 says: 137

    @Redteam:
    I’m only going to comment on two things:
    In your 136 you ask

    So your intent was to demonstrate this once only? How would anyone know that you had done so if you didn’t have a license granted as a result of that demonstration?

    after you only quoted a portion of what I wrote. I don’t know why you did not read or comprehend the entire sentence which is:

    I think licenses ‘renewals’ are just a way for the State to continually tax you for a right to travel, so I think all you would need to do is demonstate that you do know how to drive safely and understand road rules and I have no problem with a one-time nominal payment for a document that states you can/know all that – be it a license or something else.

    I know how it was when I got my license –
    I went to the DMV and took and passed a written test demonstrating that I knew the road rules, which awarded me a permit so I could learn how to drive and then I went for my driving test to demonstrate that I knew how to drive and obey traffic laws and then I got a document that states I passed. That initial document was enough to drive with until I received the State license and all I suggested is that should a state not wish to issue something called a license then whatever document they came up with in lieu of what we call a license should be enough.
    Do you now understand what I wrote – which is just a fluffed out version of what I initially wrote? Or does the state you live in require you to take the written and road tests every year to demonstrate that you know the road rules and know how to drive?

    As a matter of fact, it does limit your right to free speech to what is included within the constitution. You can not yell fire in a crowded theatre.

    Why is it that you say we have no right to privacy because it is not written in the Constitution, but that you say we can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a theater when that isn’t written in the Constitution? Show me the law that says you can’t yell fire in a theater.
    Oh, never mind – there is no law that says that! It’s paraphrased from a SCOTUS opinion given back around WWI that has since been overturned. So yes, you can yell fire in a theater if you’re (not you personally) that kind of a jerk.
    Finally, you are the only person I have ever met in person or had a blog discussion with that believes the Bill of Rights was written to limit the Natural/God-given Rights of the people as per what you wrote in your 134

    So if individual ‘rights’ are mentioned in the constitution, it would be to ‘limit’ them.

    I am asking you to please ask someone else other than me about this. Phrase your question exactly as you did with me, asking, “So, if individual rights are mentioned in the Constitution, it would be to limit them, right?” Ask 3 people that question and please come back to me with their answers. Perhaps you are surrounded by people who believe the Bill of Rights, which you can’t separate from the Constitution, was written to limit our God-given rights and that is why you believe such a thing. I re-iterate, I know no one who believes that.
    So please, get other people’s opinion about that and let me know what they say. Thanks for the discussion!

    ReplyReply
  37. Redteam says: 138

    @justme95:

    “So, if individual rights are mentioned in the Constitution, it would be to limit them, right?”

    You did the same thing you accused me of (accurately) in only quoting part of what I said.
    I won’t rehash all i’ve already said, but do want to re-state that most people would agree that the intent of the constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. I think it is generally accepted that if the constitution mentions something it is to creat the right for the government to do something, as in regulate interstate commerce. If they didn’t regulate it, then it would be unregulated. You can assume that you have a right to privacy since the constitution does not say that the government has the right to regulate your right to privacy. etc. But that is an assumption and it has to be granted in an interpretation of either what ‘is there’ or ‘is not there’. The best example, perhaps, is that you have a right to be secure in your home, unless the government gets a search warrant.
    I have no problems with the way you state the things you believe and I believe that if we were standing face to face, we would agree on most of the things we discussed.
    Here is something I found:
    “” The right to privacy is the right to be let alone, in the absence of some “reasonable” public interest in a person’s activities, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events. Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right.

    The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has interpreted several of the amendments as creating this right. One of the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without “probable cause” to believe that we have committed a crime. Other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from the government. The due process clause of the 14th amendment generally only protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.”" a link to that:
    http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/right-to-privacy/

    Talk to you on another thread sometime.

    ReplyReply
  38. Ditto says: 139

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    I honestly don’t know who founded the party. I’m simply throwing them out as an alternative. I’ve looked at some of the candidates that have been put forth, and so far I’ve liked what they had to say.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site