Jump to content

Tea Party/GOP crazies lining up to out-stupid each other. "Gather your armies" agains the IRS.


Recommended Posts

When the secessionsists (whom were also charged with "sedition" by the British and their lapdog "tories")signed the Declaration of Independance, they made sure the King got a copy. It had their NAMES on it. Many had their homes and livestock, their goods and crops burned and utterly destroyed. Many lost their lives.

This man volunteers his name and beliefs for public dissection and criticism and rightly so if he intends on representing others, he should be as transparant as possible on his philosophy of natural law and natural rights as well as his understanding of the role of Government.

You write anonymously with a pseudonym on a public forum.

Edited by Boston T. Party
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How many Democratic candidates were calling for armed uprising and borderline seditious propaganda during the Bush administration? There were leftwing loonies during Bush, but they weren't part of the mainstream Democratic Party. The GOP has fully embraced the Tea Party idiocy. That's the major difference.

They weren't asking for secession. They were just asking for:

impeachment

election fraud

war crimes

Then again, the republicans didn't try to fundamentally alter the basis of our economy like the democrats. They just started a war. [shrugs]

If you look to the left and don't see any crazies...you probably are one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I'm talking about... Assault weapons? How many were there? Two, three? You act like the crowd was chock full of them. Hyperbole at its finest. It's perfectly ok to draw Hitler stashes over a President, but to say he's the anti-Christ, well that's just over the line.

I am not saying that is over the line. They could call him the love child of Satan and Hitler for all I care. The question in this enviroment do you then allow someone who believe's in their heart like that to be armed near the President?

Ok easy question how many right wing idiots with an assault weapon do it take to shoot a person? Next easy question show me ONE time in the past 100 years where this was ever done or allowed.

Imagine the Secret Service telling President Kennedy that Lee Harvey Oswald or President Reagan that John Hinckley fellow is just practicing his rights to bear arms. When you are referring to the President of the United States to answer the question one crazy is too many period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying that is over the line. They could call him the love child of Satan and Hitler for all I care. The question in this enviroment do you then allow someone who believe's in their heart like that to be armed near the President?

Ok easy question how many right wing idiots with an assault weapon do it take to shoot a person? Next easy question show me ONE time in the past 100 years where this was ever done or allowed.

Imagine the Secret Service telling President Kennedy that Lee Harvey Oswald or President Reagan that John Hinckley fellow is just practicing his rights to bear arms. When you are referring to the President of the United States to answer the question one crazy is too many period.

ALLOW?

The 2nd amendment protects a soverign citizen's right to bear arms. The President being in close proximity does not supercede that soverign right anymore than the 1st amendment. Should a citizen be muzzled in the presence of the President? NO! Because his right to FREE speech is guranteed.

So is his RIGHT to bear any firearm (if you attack someone with a marble bust of Beethovan isn't still "assault"?)he pleases.

Crazy people exist. Unstable people are drawn to public events and read meaning into circumstances and coincidence, many of them have driver's liscenses and own cars that are capable of thousands of times more kenetic energy than a firearm. Yet we "allow" them to drive and that's not even a RIGHT guranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Your objection is obvious so let's just get it out in the open:

You believe these rights are the Government's to give and take away.

That's what the Tory's thought as well when they sided with their British Masters who primised them land and title. They would rather be cared for than free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying that is over the line. They could call him the love child of Satan and Hitler for all I care. The question in this enviroment do you then allow someone who believe's in their heart like that to be armed near the President?

Ok easy question how many right wing idiots with an assault weapon do it take to shoot a person? Next easy question show me ONE time in the past 100 years where this was ever done or allowed.

Imagine the Secret Service telling President Kennedy that Lee Harvey Oswald or President Reagan that John Hinckley fellow is just practicing his rights to bear arms. When you are referring to the President of the United States to answer the question one crazy is too many period.

You should probably know that those armed people you saw at the rallies, they weren't ANYWHERE near the President. They were at a public rally on public grounds, where it's perfectly legal to carry a firearm. The President has special "national security" rules that would have allowed any secret service agent to disarm anyone they deem necessary.

Did any of those gun carrying crazies actually carry their gun & say Obama was the Antichrist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't asking for secession. They were just asking for:

impeachment

election fraud

war crimes

Then again, the republicans didn't try to fundamentally alter the basis of our economy like the democrats. They just started a war. [shrugs]

If you look to the left and don't see any crazies...you probably are one.

The impeachment stuff was stupid, but impeachment is a legal process that is part of the Constitution. Same for investigations of election fraud and war crimes.

Armed revolt and "revolution", no the other hand...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The impeachment stuff was stupid, but impeachment is a legal process that is part of the Constitution. Same for investigations of election fraud and war crimes.

Armed revolt and "revolution", no the other hand...

Well, since it was legal, it's perfectly ok. Illegal equals morally reprehensible though.

I do love that this country was founded by revolution, and subsequently made "illegal."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since it was legal, it's perfectly ok. Illegal equals morally reprehensible though.

I do love that this country was founded by revolution, and subsequently made "illegal."

First, I said it was stupid. There's a difference between stupid but constitutional and stupid AND illegal.

Second, what would this revolution look like? The public chose Obama and the Democrats to lead the country. So revolution would overturn the will of the public and install a conservative dictatorship? Or will it overturn the will of the public, replace it with conservatives who then go up for reelection and get thrown out again? So they'll need another revolution?

How you can defend that idiocy is beyond me.

Edited by AcworthFalcFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharron Angle: The stupid, it burns.

You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

How to lose otherwise easy Republican pickups? Let me count the ways.

Edited by AcworthFalcFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I said it was stupid. There's a difference between stupid but constitutional and stupid AND illegal.

Second, what would this revolution look like? The public chose Obama and the Democrats to lead the country. So revolution would overturn the will of the public and install a conservative dictatorship? Or will it overturn the will of the public, replace it with conservatives who then go up for reelection and get thrown out again? So they'll need another revolution?

How you can defend that idiocy is beyond me.

I'm not calling for a revolution. But I do think this country is heading down a path to insolvency very quickly, and it's not just Obama and the democrats that caused this problem. The whole idea of shifting the cost of government to a smaller and smaller group of people will be our death knell.

I don't know where you got this stupid idea that I'm a "conservative." I just enjoy pissing you off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend watching Chris Matthews' documentary Rise of the new Right tonight at 7pm.

I'm going to count how many contradictions these Tea Party nuts throw out there when they expose their viewpoints/talking points. Should be entertaining and scary at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ALLOW?

The 2nd amendment protects a soverign citizen's right to bear arms. The President being in close proximity does not supercede that soverign right anymore than the 1st amendment. Should a citizen be muzzled in the presence of the President? NO! Because his right to FREE speech is guranteed.

So is his RIGHT to bear any firearm (if you attack someone with a marble bust of Beethovan isn't still "assault"?)he pleases.

Crazy people exist. Unstable people are drawn to public events and read meaning into circumstances and coincidence, many of them have driver's liscenses and own cars that are capable of thousands of times more kenetic energy than a firearm. Yet we "allow" them to drive and that's not even a RIGHT guranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Your objection is obvious so let's just get it out in the open:

You believe these rights are the Government's to give and take away.

That's what the Tory's thought as well when they sided with their British Masters who primised them land and title. They would rather be cared for than free.

That makes no sense. There are plenty of times that right to bear arms is superceded.

Try carrying a gun up into a court room. Or a bank. Seriously, try it sometimes and let us know how that goes for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes no sense. There are plenty of times that right to bear arms is superceded.

Try carrying a gun up into a court room. Or a bank. Seriously, try it sometimes and let us know how that goes for you.

or a school

Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes no sense. There are plenty of times that right to bear arms is superceded.

Try carrying a gun up into a court room. Or a bank. Seriously, try it sometimes and let us know how that goes for you.

Oh, it goes just dandy...

Conceal carrying a firearm into a bank is FULLY LEGAL if one has a permit (in Vermont you can wear one on your hip everywhere you go!), and police officers (and in some cases the judges themselves!) are armed in court, again, it depends on which side of the philosophy of liberty with which you find yourself standing, (I say RIGHTS, you say LIMITS!) but let's stay on track shall we?

Because congressmen are not in fear of their jobs, their fortunes, or their lives they have the nerve to propose repealing the 2nd amendment, assualt weapons bans, gun-free school districts, permits, BATF forms and concealed carry permits in first place. Such D.C. ilk should have been dragged down the streets back in 1933 when they outlawed the private ownership of gold - which they blamed for the depression!

Since we, the gilded serfs, did not instill in them this rightous fear, they have grown above all shame and defecate on the rights that were essential in ratifying the very constitution that gives them semblance of power and consent to govern.

Yes, Felons may be stripped of certain rights, but lawful citizen's rights are enumerated in the bill of rights,the amendments to the constitution of these United States of America.

This emasculated opinion you parrot is a perversion of the foundation of this republic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it goes just dandy...

Conceal carrying a firearm into a bank is FULLY LEGAL if one has a permit (in Vermont you can wear one on your hip everywhere you go!), and police officers (and in some cases the judges themselves!) are armed in court, again, it depends on which side of the philosophy of liberty with which you find yourself standing, (I say RIGHTS, you say LIMITS!) but let's stay on track shall we?

Because congressmen are not in fear of their jobs, their fortunes, or their lives they have the nerve to propose repealing the 2nd amendment, assualt weapons bans, gun-free school districts, permits, BATF forms and concealed carry permits in first place. Such D.C. ilk should have been dragged down the streets back in 1933 when they outlawed the private ownership of gold - which they blamed for the depression!

Since we, the gilded serfs, did not instill in them this rightous fear, they have grown above all shame and defecate on the rights that were essential in ratifying the very constitution that gives them semblance of power and consent to govern.

Yes, Felons may be stripped of certain rights, but lawful citizen's rights are enumerated in the bill of rights,the amendments to the constitution of these United States of America.

This emasculated opinion you parrot is a perversion of the foundation of this republic.

The bank I go to has a sign that absolutely NO guns allowed, concealed or otherwise.

And OF COURSE judges and cops are allowed to carry guns in court. That is a ridiculous comparison.now YOU carry one up in there. I bet you find out in a hurry theirs are loaded. As it should be.

I don't say " limits", I say common sense. And no freedom, even that of speech is without limits. You can't just say anything anywhere you want to. You can't just carry a gun anywhere you want to. You're not bringing one up in mY house, I don't give a #### what rights you think I am stepping on.

And ### D### man, quit trying to talk like a Ben Franklin voice over, it sounds pretty ridiculous on a message board." since we, the gilded serfs..." :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bank I go to has a sign that absolutely NO guns allowed, concealed or otherwise.

And OF COURSE judges and cops are allowed to carry guns in court. That is a ridiculous comparison.now YOU carry one up in there. I bet you find out in a hurry theirs are loaded. As it should be.

I don't say " limits", I say common sense. And no freedom, even that of speech is without limits. You can't just say anything anywhere you want to. You can't just carry a gun anywhere you want to. You're not bringing one up in mY house, I don't give a #### what rights you think I am stepping on.

And ### D### man, quit trying to talk like a Ben Franklin voice over, it sounds pretty ridiculous on a message board." since we, the gilded serfs..." :lol:

And here I thought he really was Ben Franklin. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here I thought he really was Ben Franklin. :unsure:

well, he probably has the mullet... Or as he would put it "" Myself, being more hirsute upon the rearmost portion of my cranial appendage, and shorter in the foremost am indeed affecting a festival in the back,labor in the front visage."

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, he probably has the mullet... Or as he would put it "" Myself, being more hirsute upon the rearmost portion of my cranial appendage, and shorter in the foremost am indeed affecting a festival in the back,labor in the front visage."

Dude did not havea mullet....he had something totally more awesome....... the Skullet.

Not even Hulk Hogan rocked the skullet like Ben Franklin

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bank I go to has a sign that absolutely NO guns allowed, concealed or otherwise.

And OF COURSE judges and cops are allowed to carry guns in court. That is a ridiculous comparison.now YOU carry one up in there. I bet you find out in a hurry theirs are loaded. As it should be.

I don't say " limits", I say common sense. And no freedom, even that of speech is without limits. You can't just say anything anywhere you want to. You can't just carry a gun anywhere you want to. You're not bringing one up in mY house, I don't give a #### what rights you think I am stepping on.

And ### D### man, quit trying to talk like a Ben Franklin voice over, it sounds pretty ridiculous on a message board." since we, the gilded serfs..." :lol:

Last time I was in a bank in Danville everybody had a Marlboro potruding from their lips and that includes the tellers....if yours has a sign like that in clear violation of your rights as a citizen, WHY DO YOU DO BUSINESS THERE?

BECAUSE YOU NO LONGER SEE IT AS AN INFRINGEMENT ON YOUR RIGHTS.

The 2nd amendment meant to put citizens on a common footing with those that meant to govern in the way of armed conflict. It is unconstitutional to allow a baliff or judge to bear firearms in a given area and not the populace that are so inclined to do so.

BUT BECAUSE YOU BUY THE LIE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE OWNS YOU, YOU CONSIDER THIS NOTION "RIDICULOUS".

Yes, everytime I post something to this effect you are compelled to illustrate the LIMITS to such rights. Search my posts, you've done it since my first post on this forum. I say RIGHTS, you say LIMITS. I share a view of common sense and mature application of these rights, but yes, you CAN say anything you want anywhere you want to....it does not make you free from consequences that may arise of you doing so, social order and a modern decorum of politeness insist that free people temper themselves to avoid confrontation.

BUT YOU INVITE JUST THIS SORT OF CONFRONTATION BY LEVELING CHALLENGES LIKE:

"You can't just carry a gun anywhere you want to. You're not bringing one up in mY house, I don't give a #### what rights you think I am stepping on."

You don't have to agree with me but I hope you can get to a place where you can consider the solemnity of what I am attempting to convey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I was in a bank in Danville everybody had a Marlboro potruding from their lips and that includes the tellers....if yours has a sign like that in clear violation of your rights as a citizen, WHY DO YOU DO BUSINESS THERE?

BECAUSE YOU NO LONGER SEE IT AS AN INFRINGEMENT ON YOUR RIGHTS.

The 2nd amendment meant to put citizens on a common footing with those that meant to govern in the way of armed conflict. It is unconstitutional to allow a baliff or judge to bear firearms in a given area and not the populace that are so inclined to do so.

BUT BECAUSE YOU BUY THE LIE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE OWNS YOU, YOU CONSIDER THIS NOTION "RIDICULOUS".

Yes, everytime I post something to this effect you are compelled to illustrate the LIMITS to such rights. Search my posts, you've done it since my first post on this forum. I say RIGHTS, you say LIMITS. I share a view of common sense and mature application of these rights, but yes, you CAN say anything you want anywhere you want to....it does not make you free from consequences that may arise of you doing so, social order and a modern decorum of politeness insist that free people temper themselves to avoid confrontation.

BUT YOU INVITE JUST THIS SORT OF CONFRONTATION BY LEVELING CHALLENGES LIKE:

"You can't just carry a gun anywhere you want to. You're not bringing one up in mY house, I don't give a #### what rights you think I am stepping on."

You don't have to agree with me but I hope you can get to a place where you can consider the solemnity of what I am attempting to convey.

Wow. I totally don't live or bank in Danville. But I am glad, in your eltism you seem so above their Marlboro habit.They can't all smoke Virginia slims like you.

To answer A.I don't see it as an infringement on my rights for one simple reason. I still believe a business has their RIGHT to do their business in a manner that They see fit in relation to the safety and concern of their employees and their customers and their business. So even if I were to carry a gun, I feel I can walk the 30 feet to the bank and the 20 feet inside the bank and the 50 feet back out to my car without feeling all infringed upon.

to answer B2 I consider my house my business just as the bank does theirs. In my house, there is only one person to shoot, and that is me, so pray tell why do you need a gun in my house?

As for B1, nobody owns me, but I don't own the bank the school or the general store either, so I don't act like I do by saying my individual rights are more important than their rights, something you seem to truely believe.

I feel compelled because you live in pure idiocy if you assume a right to anything is an unfettered right. Does my right to free speech give me the right to stand outside your window at 3 AM and shout insults at your family? Or would you do something to " limit" my rights? Can you answer that, mr. unlimited? You say I face the consequences, but does not that impede upon my rights? How dare you? :rolleyes:

And for your info, the 2nd ammendment doesn't say one ### ####ed thing about a firearm.

But I don't expect you to know all that. And I won't infringe on your right to be a dumb ###.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I totally don't live or bank in Danville. But I am glad, in your eltism you seem so above their Marlboro habit.They can't all smoke Virginia slims like you.

To answer A.I don't see it as an infringement on my rights for one simple reason. I still believe a business has their RIGHT to do their business in a manner that They see fit in relation to the safety and concern of their employees and their customers and their business. So even if I were to carry a gun, I feel I can walk the 30 feet to the bank and the 20 feet inside the bank and the 50 feet back out to my car without feeling all infringed upon.

to answer B2 I consider my house my business just as the bank does theirs. In my house, there is only one person to shoot, and that is me, so pray tell why do you need a gun in my house?

As for B1, nobody owns me, but I don't own the bank the school or the general store either, so I don't act like I do by saying my individual rights are more important than their rights, something you seem to truely believe.

I feel compelled because you live in pure idiocy if you assume a right to anything is an unfettered right. Does my right to free speech give me the right to stand outside your window at 3 AM and shout insults at your family? Or would you do something to " limit" my rights? Can you answer that, mr. unlimited? You say I face the consequences, but does not that impede upon my rights? How dare you? :rolleyes:

And for your info, the 2nd ammendment doesn't say one ### ####ed thing about a firearm.

But I don't expect you to know all that. And I won't infringe on your right to be a dumb ###.

Again, you scream limits even when temperate consideration of social norms are established as the underpinnings of a polite armed society.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR ARMS (that's the part that means FIREARMS.....), SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And for your info, the 2nd ammendment doesn't say one ### ####ed thing about a firearm.

...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - The 2nd Amendment of the US Bill of Rights

I think you both make good points BTW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you scream limits even when temperate consideration of social norms are established as the underpinnings of a polite armed society.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR ARMS (that's the part that means FIREARMS.....), SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Really? They meant firearms? Were they just too lazy to write out firearms? If they meant firearms, surely they meant the firearms they knew. Carry a flintlock lately, Mr unfettered?

But as I say, I want you to make your point, for the betterment of ALL our understanding. Please. go on up int a courtroom with your six shooter twirling on your trigger finger. PLEASE. As they take you down and taze you raining blows upon your head, PLEASE tell them your rights are being infringed. In a couple of years, when you get out of jail, just to prove how you showed them you'll not be fettered, do it again. See how much your anger, arrogance and selfishness has changed the common sense ways of doing things.

You are out there man. Even most gun owners I know admit there are well respected limits. You, you just want it to be all about you.Ben ####in' franklin.

But you never answered me. Do you believe your individual rights over rule a business owners rights if he doesn't want your gun in his establishment? How do you suppose your rights are above his?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not calling for a revolution. But I do think this country is heading down a path to insolvency very quickly, and it's not just Obama and the democrats that caused this problem. The whole idea of shifting the cost of government to a smaller and smaller group of people will be our death knell.

I don't know where you got this stupid idea that I'm a "conservative." I just enjoy pissing you off.

You're defending the guy who is calling for revolution. If you don't support it, then just call this idiot an idiot and be done with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...