Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:53 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:56 pm 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:10 pm
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
Please remember this a rival of Cong. Ron Paul & Debra Medina is also going to be a rival of Gov. Huckabee!!If Cong. Paul doesn't run in 2012 we can get his backers let us start forming a coalation with them NOW!!!! :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:54 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 1993
Location: Iowa
Likes: 6
Liked: 13
Gen.Lee(1861) wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised that Mitt is behind the scenes of this and there is talk of Rick Perry is going to run for President. I'm wondering he would run as the conservative canadate in the GOP primaries...


Hmmm. That makes me think. Perry might be setting up a run for V.P.

Ya know, some people enter the Presidential primary season to run for President, and some enter to run for Vice President, or a cabinet position. I think Tim Pawlenty is probably running for V.P. I think Duncan Hunter was probably running for Sec. of Defense or V.P. last time. I think Bill Richardson was running for V.P. or Sec. of State last time.

Perry may be setting up to run as Romney's V.P. because Mitt will need somebody from the South to help with regional weakness.

[Romney/Perry 2012] <<<<<<who wants to make this bumper sticker? :D

_________________
'If you drive God out of the world then you create a howling wilderness' --Peter Hitchens


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:00 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 4803
Location: Texas
Likes: 90
Liked: 259
Quote:
[Romney/Perry 2012] <<<<<<who wants to make this bumper sticker? :D


Two peas in a pod. Perry is the Texas version of Romney.

_________________
ConservTexan

http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:44 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 1993
Location: Iowa
Likes: 6
Liked: 13
ConservTexan wrote:
Two peas in a pod. Perry is the Texas version of Romney.


Hmmm. Peas in pod?

ImageImage

_________________
'If you drive God out of the world then you create a howling wilderness' --Peter Hitchens


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:00 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
Fort Worth 912 President comes out in support of and to the aide of Debra Medina!

http://www.medinafortexas.com/getPost?p=274

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:37 am 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:10 pm
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
VertiCon wrote:
ConservTexan wrote:
Two peas in a pod. Perry is the Texas version of Romney.


Hmmm. Peas in pod?

ImageImage

God Help us if that is the GOP ticket I just might vote for Barrak Hussain Obama!! I can't believe I said that!!! :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:50 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 4803
Location: Texas
Likes: 90
Liked: 259
I have been listening to Mark Davis's morning show. He does seem like a Perry backer, although he has said good things about Medina.

Quote:
Mark Davis: Can Medina recover from unmitigated disaster?

06:47 PM CST on Thursday, February 11, 2010
(WEB EXCLUSIVE)

If I had not developed considerable respect for Debra Medina, I would not bother to offer urgent advice on how to save the political future she may have torpedoed Thursday morning.
Also Online

Talk show host Glenn Beck asked if she was a "9/11 truther" – that is, a member of the deranged community that says the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by terrorists hijackers but rather a U.S. government hungry to spark a nation to war by killing its own people.

Her answer was an unmitigated disaster. What we have to figure out now is what she has revealed. Was it just a profoundly clumsy misstep on the path of a neophyte candidate, or was it a genuine willingness to give benefit of the doubt to one of the most demented beliefs of our day?

"I don't have all of the evidence there," she answered, using breath she should have used to instantly dismiss the insane ravings of people so far gone that they believe the jetliner impacts into the towers are diabolical concoctions meant to hide the truth: government sabotage.

It got worse. "I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard, there are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there."

In the dampened quiet of the morning snowfall, two sounds rolled across the Texas prairie: the collective gasp of sensible people who thought they were backing a sensible candidate, and the sickening thud of a once-promising campaign dashed against the rocks.

Can it be saved?

Only if she stops the bleeding immediately with a tourniquet fashioned from deep humility and skillful self-correction.

That presumes that she is not in fact tolerant of the 9/11 "truth" psychosis. If she is, then she has little business in polite society, much less high elected office.

But I'm going to give her benefit of the doubt. She has not struck me as a lunatic in any other way, and we have spoken often. That leaves the only other possibility, which is the nightmare combination of an unexpected question about something she was wholly unprepared to address, leading to an unthinking ramble into unintended territory.

Problem is, given time to examine the hole she had dug, she issued a statement that contained precisely none of the contrition her supporters desperately needed to hear.

Her press release should have contained about 30 words: "I am so sorry. I was exhausted and my brain had turned to jelly. Let me make clear today and forever that in no way do I share the inexcusable conspiratorial fantasies of these people."

Instead, after offering perfunctory comfort that she did not harbor their beliefs, she said the question was a "surprise" because it is not relevant to the campaign. Wow. One hopes that someone seeking to run a state is not so easily bamboozled by a subject plucked from the topical periphery.

Then: "The real underlying question here is whether or not people have the right to question the government."

No, that is most certainly not the question. Despite its execrable views, the truther cult has every right to spew its pathological delusions. The question is whether Debra Medina has committed political suicide.

"She is not a 9/11 truther" was the single-sentence reply to the e-mail I immediately sent her campaign. Fair enough, but not good enough. Rationality requires not just a certificate of non-membership in that disturbed subculture. It requires instant and clear condemnation for a set of beliefs that are an unparalleled combination of baseless venom, stunning gullibility and juvenile stubbornness.

If she is of the proper mind on this, why did she not say so immediately? Since newcomers to the punishing world of campaigning often make stupendous mistakes, she needs to own up to this one and make it right. The people who viewed her as a worthy voice for courageous, populist conservatism are waiting.

Mark Davis is heard weekdays from 8:30 to 11 a.m. on WBAP-AM, News/Talk 820. His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com.



http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... d181a.html

_________________
ConservTexan

http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:52 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
Glenn beck himself voiced questions about the events of 9/11.
Legitimate questions do not make one a truther.
To have questions is not being a truther.
Saying things like 9/11 = inside job makes one a "truther".

Beck, Ye hypocrite! The main reason why I posted this youtube is
to show that Glenn Beck needs to admit to being a more of a truther than he accused Debra Medina of ever being. I'm not agreeing with any conclusions presented except Glenn Beck just proved himself a hypocrite and a truther using the standard he emplayed in his attempt to smear Debra Medina. The part where Beck begins voicing his questions is at about 1 minute into the video. Even if Medina did have questions, it clearly does not make her any more a truther than Beck. Besides, the question was irrelevant in the context of a State Governor's race in Texas. New York, perhaps, 8 years ago, perhaps, but not today in Texas.


_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:25 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Well in the spirit of keeping the election about the candidates for governor and the views they themselves have considered important, here is Medina in her own words on Nullification, Interposition, and Secession from a rally August 29, 2009.

Particular interest to her choice of language starting at 3:00 (esp. 3:20)minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qO4K_wmJ94

I for one will again state, this is nonsense. But worse, it is dangerous nonsense.

Debra Medina is a Ron Paul disciple and organizer and her political views reflect the more extreme elements of that association. While wildly popular for some, once again we are looking at the rejection of the extreme notions and assertions put forward by that vocal minority. The voters of Texas will choose their poison in this race and the most recent set of polls (with Medina a more distant third) indicates that the flirtation with Medina the "unknown" will not survive the close examination of her beliefs and associations.

Good.

May God Bless Texas.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:23 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
Southern Doc wrote:
Well in the spirit of keeping the election about the candidates for governor and the views they themselves have considered important, here is Medina in her own words on Nullification, Interposition, and Secession from a rally August 29, 2009.

Particular interest to her choice of language starting at 3:00 (esp. 3:20)minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qO4K_wmJ94

I for one will again state, this is nonsense. But worse, it is dangerous nonsense.

Debra Medina is a Ron Paul disciple and organizer and her political views reflect the more extreme elements of that association. While wildly popular for some, once again we are looking at the rejection of the extreme notions and assertions put forward by that vocal minority. The voters of Texas will choose their poison in this race and the most recent set of polls (with Medina a more distant third) indicates that the flirtation with Medina the "unknown" will not survive the close examination of her beliefs and associations.

Good.

May God Bless Texas.


Good idea, since their smears have been totally discredited.
plan b not working...
back to plan a..

And lets add some name calling while we are at it too.

Ronald Reagan endorsed Ron Paul in his Congressional race and even campaigned for him.
Was Reagan being a Ron Paul disciple too?

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:23 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Southern Doc wrote:
Well in the spirit of keeping the election about the candidates for governor and the views they themselves have considered important, here is Medina in her own words on Nullification, Interposition, and Secession from a rally August 29, 2009.

Particular interest to her choice of language starting at 3:00 (esp. 3:20)minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qO4K_wmJ94

I for one will again state, this is nonsense. But worse, it is dangerous nonsense.

Debra Medina is a Ron Paul disciple and organizer and her political views reflect the more extreme elements of that association. While wildly popular for some, once again we are looking at the rejection of the extreme notions and assertions put forward by that vocal minority. The voters of Texas will choose their poison in this race and the most recent set of polls (with Medina a more distant third) indicates that the flirtation with Medina the "unknown" will not survive the close examination of her beliefs and associations.

Good.

May God Bless Texas.
Far be it from me to avoid venturing into territory where I have little clue - why change a habit now that has been such a tremendous help in developing my humility? :lol: But I also learn this way so I will jump in with both feet & hopefully avoid having them wind up in my mouth!

It appears to be pretty clear that the Founding Fathers intended the states to be able to tell the federal govt. where to get off - nullification & interposition may have a tainted history, but isn't that more an issue of how they were used than the fact that they were used?

What I'm getting at is that, in the clip you provided, Medina gave examples of nullification that included the healthcare mess that they're even still trying to force on us - several aspects of it are unconstitutional such as the fine for not having adequate health insurance. Don't the states have the legitimate right to refuse to accept such a thing?

And why should this be taken as anything more than the same kind of saber-rattling that Perry was playing with not too long ago?

Also, I realize this Clyde Wilson is a bit controversial in his own right, but what do you think of this brief interview where he discusses nullification & interposition?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson32.1.html


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:09 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Quote:
melopa
Good idea, since their smears have been totally discredited.
plan b not working...
back to plan a..

And lets add some name calling while we are at it too.

Ronald Reagan endorsed Ron Paul in his Congressional race and even campaigned for him.
Was Reagan being a Ron Paul disciple too?


Well Reagan also supported for office; FDR, Truman, Stevenson, and JFK, as he only became a Republican in 1962. And I also recall that Paul ran as the 1988 Libertarian Presidential Candidate in large measure because he was so disappointed with Reagan. Huckabee, Rush, and RedState all campaigned for McCain in 2008 after the all opposed him earlier. I also recall that Reagan died in 2004. Context is a pretty important factor in the fluid enviroment of politics.

Reagan, I suppose, was doing what most do. He found the candidate he could support in a given race. That is not discipleship.

Disciples follow someone's model of life, beliefs, or philosophy. I assume that most here agree, in large part, with the model of life, beliefs, and philosophy of Mike Huckabee. At least so in the political realm. Thus this site is called "Huck's Army." The "Daily Paul," where you will find much cheerleading for Medina, is a site open to all, but dedicated to his beliefs and philosophy.

While I certainly welcome any and all at Huck's Army, and encourage folks to consider Huckabee even if you disagee with him in significant ways, it is important that we not attempt to "redefine" his "brand" to fit our own particulars. For example, Huckabee is a major supporter (and probably the best realistic hope) for supporters of the Fair Tax. Because he has affixed their issue to his standard, they rally to him and are most welcome fellow soldiers for a shared goal.

But all of these supporters issues do not affix to Huckabee simply because he supports Fair Tax reform. They do not enjoy the right to affix to his standard whatever issue they may want Huckabee to carry into battle for them. Only Huckabee has that right. He did so with Fair Tax and will certainly do so with other issues, but I doubt his "brand" will change too much.

Which takes me to this: Huckabee has been very direct as to where he stands in relation to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party/conservative America and what he thinks wrong with their beliefs and philosophy:

Quote:
Interview May 26, 2008

What can the party do to reverse course?

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff." But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-mari ... 03556.html


I stand with Mike on this.

Melopa, do you?

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:42 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Southern Doc wrote:
Well in the spirit of keeping the election about the candidates for governor and the views they themselves have considered important, here is Medina in her own words on Nullification, Interposition, and Secession from a rally August 29, 2009.

Particular interest to her choice of language starting at 3:00 (esp. 3:20)minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qO4K_wmJ94

I for one will again state, this is nonsense. But worse, it is dangerous nonsense.

Debra Medina is a Ron Paul disciple and organizer and her political views reflect the more extreme elements of that association. While wildly popular for some, once again we are looking at the rejection of the extreme notions and assertions put forward by that vocal minority. The voters of Texas will choose their poison in this race and the most recent set of polls (with Medina a more distant third) indicates that the flirtation with Medina the "unknown" will not survive the close examination of her beliefs and associations.

Good.

May God Bless Texas.
Far be it from me to avoid venturing into territory where I have little clue - why change a habit now that has been such a tremendous help in developing my humility? :lol: But I also learn this way so I will jump in with both feet & hopefully avoid having them wind up in my mouth!

It appears to be pretty clear that the Founding Fathers intended the states to be able to tell the federal govt. where to get off - nullification & interposition may have a tainted history, but isn't that more an issue of how they were used than the fact that they were used?

What I'm getting at is that, in the clip you provided, Medina gave examples of nullification that included the healthcare mess that they're even still trying to force on us - several aspects of it are unconstitutional such as the fine for not having adequate health insurance. Don't the states have the legitimate right to refuse to accept such a thing?

And why should this be taken as anything more than the same kind of saber-rattling that Perry was playing with not too long ago?

Also, I realize this Clyde Wilson is a bit controversial in his own right, but what do you think of this brief interview where he discusses nullification & interposition?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson32.1.html


Dear "fellow soldier" of "Huck's Army," I realize that every militaristic of violent statement is not to be taken literally and that political and polemical rhetoric has a grand history.

But there is a point when the nature of something changes.

At that point rhetoric becomes demagoguery.

To tie this to a recent disbute here at HA; Justice Potter Sewart famously commented that the transition from "art" to "pornography" was clear. He said simply, "I know it when I see it."

Personally I've always liked the barbed quip; "What is the difference between pornography and art?" "Pornography is in focus."

Medina's rhetoric, in my view, is crystal clear. She means it. She really does believe that the state of Texas is part of a "compact" of States, that it has the right to secession, that it has the right to interpret the meaning of the Federal Constitution and the laws it will choose to obey and the laws it will choose to nullify.

These are all notions with a storied past, and they can be presented in a compelling way. They are endlessly debated in academic circles to this day. But they are extreme. They are discredited by history. They have never prevailed. They have led to division. They have led to blood shed. They are too easily put in the service of demagogues.

Finally. This language is completely impractical.

If we want a Federal Government to devolve power back to the states (which I favor strongly) it can only come by way of electing officials who go to Washington for that purpose. If we want the Court to step back from its position in policy making, we must elect Senators who only confirm judges who intend to do so.

Defiance at the state level, makes for a grand ole fist shaking time. But it will accomplish nothing.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:50 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
I stand with Mike on this.

Melopa, do you?

Yes, Doc. I'm more of a Ron Paul Republican than a true libertarian, yes, there is a difference. Hardcore libertarians are as bad as hardcore religious nuts.

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." He is not so much concerned with the libertarian candidate Ron Paul's Republican supporters as he is with a strain of mainstream fiscal-conservative thought that demands ideological purity, seeing any tax increase as apostasy and leaving little room for government-driven solutions to people's problems.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1859539,00.html

********************************************************************************************************************
Mike in an appearance on "Red eye"

Bill Schulz: "Who is the celebrity or politician that you assumed you would have had nothing in common with or might not have liked that you have since come to know and befriend."

Mike Huckabee: "Ya know I actually had a great relationship with Ron Paul during the presidential race. We had a lot of different opinions on a whole lot of things but I respected him because I knew that he had convictions. He knew where he stood and he didn't really care if anybody liked it. I respect that, I like that in a person."



**********************************************************************************************************************

There are a lot of us out here that have come to see the flaws and the evil in what I feel is the real threat... Globalists. And we're not all libertarians either. We make opposition to those who would surrender one iota of our sovereignty the most important factor in choosing who we support. I was with Mike in 2007 until he associated himself with the CFR, especially with their president, richard haas. So far this go around, Mike has not been advised by such traitors. I think present events have influenced him and he sees the real threat to our sovereignty.
At least I hope so.

There is much I disagree with whether it be Gov. Mike Huckabee or Dr. Ron Paul. Mike has a chance at the presidency, hence my support for him, at least as long as he steers clear of the globalists.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:56 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
So Doc, are you saying then that you believe the states should submit to something like that healthcare mandate if it gets passed? At least until the national political scene gets changed around enough to do something to stop it?

What if you have a situation where not enough states object to an unconstitutional mandate to get rid of it?

How far should the federal govt. be allowed to go before a state draws a line in the sand?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:27 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
So Doc, are you saying then that you believe the states should submit to something like that healthcare mandate if it gets passed? At least until the national political scene gets changed around enough to do something to stop it?

What if you have a situation where not enough states object to an unconstitutional mandate to get rid of it?

How far should the federal govt. be allowed to go before a state draws a line in the sand?


The laws of the government of the United States are supreme in all the states.

If enough citizens object to those laws then it will be reflected on the national level.

States are not in the position to draw a line in the sand.

Since the Civil War the Constitution has been read as WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA (one word) and not as we the people of the STATES of america united (which is what John C. Calhoun, and the nullification group argued). The supremacy clause prevails.

The citizens of the nation are sovereign and responsible for their United government.

The only "number of states" which I believe would be sufficient to nullify the Federal governments act would be a sufficient number to alter the Constitutioon by Amendment or call a second Constitutional convention, both of which are provided under the terms of our Constitution (3/4 of States under Art. V). By the time you reach that number it is unlikely that the government would still persist in its policy. We see that roughly 55% opposition in public opinion to ObamaCare has caused its wheels to come off without the need of any State roadblock.

One cannot say the Pledge and support these doctrines. The Republic for which it stands, ONE Nation, under God,indivisible,...that word was specifically placed in the pledge as a creedal statement against the doctrine of secession. That is also why the Pledge was unpopular in many Southern states for years after its introduction in 1892.

We are E Pluribus Unum - out of many ONE.

Let us leave behind any talk of disunity. We are a nation and we cannot separate as a protest or solution to our political discontent or abuse.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:32 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
Southern Doc wrote:
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
So Doc, are you saying then that you believe the states should submit to something like that healthcare mandate if it gets passed? At least until the national political scene gets changed around enough to do something to stop it?

What if you have a situation where not enough states object to an unconstitutional mandate to get rid of it?

How far should the federal govt. be allowed to go before a state draws a line in the sand?


The laws of the government of the United States are supreme in all the states.

If enough citizens object to those laws then it will be reflected on the national level.

States are not in the position to draw a line in the sand.

Since the Civil War the Constitution has been read as WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA (one word) and not as we the people of the STATES of america united (which is what John C. Calhoun, and the nullification group argued). The supremacy clause prevails.

The citizens of the nation are sovereign and responsible for their United government.

The only "number of states" which I believe would be sufficient to nullify the Federal governments act would be a sufficient number to alter the Constitutioon by Amendment or call a second Constitutional convention, both of which are provided under the terms of our Constitution (3/4 of States under Art. V). By the time you reach that number it is unlikely that the government would still persist in its policy. We see that roughly 55% opposition in public opinion to ObamaCare has caused its wheels to come off without the need of any State roadblock.

One cannot say the Pledge and support these doctrines. The Republic for which it stands, ONE Nation, under God,indivisible,...that word was specifically placed in the pledge as a creedal statement against the doctrine of secession. That is also why the Pledge was unpopular in many Southern states for years after its introduction in 1892.

We are E Pluribus Unum - out of many ONE.

Let us leave behind any talk of disunity. We are a nation and we cannot separate as a protest or solution to our political discontent or abuse.



http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/pledgehist.htm
The original Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all," was written in September of 1892 by Francis Bellamy for The Youth's Companion" magazine in Boston. The phrase was printed on leaflets and sent to schools throughout the United States.

Ah, your comrade, Bellamy...
And a couple of liberals, no less.

In 1892, a socialist named Francis Bellamy created the Pledge of Allegiance for *Youth's* *Companion*,
a national family magazine for youth published in Boston. The magazine had the largest national
circulation of its day with a circulation around 500 thousand. Two
liberal businessmen
, Daniel Ford and James Upham, his nephew, owned
*Youth's* *Companion*.


Doc, where are you coming from?

indivisible,...that word was specifically placed in the pledge as a creedal statement against the doctrine of secession

Put in by a professing Socialist. How conservative of you.
Socialists, like Communists, do prefer a STRONG federal government.
To better oppress us, I dare say...


When I was a kid, we had some Jehova's Wittnesses in class who would not say the pledge. We wrongfully gave them a hard time for not pledging.
After learning where the pledge came from, I would rather have recited the
Declaration of Independence instead

.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:32 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Quote:
Doc, where are you coming from?

indivisible,...that word was specifically placed in the pledge as a creedal statement against the doctrine of secession

Put in by a professing Socialist. How conservative of you.
Socialists, like Communists, do prefer a STRONG federal government.
To better oppress us, I dare say...



as did Lincoln the first Republican President who suspended the writ, freed private property by fiat and preserved the Union by force of arms. As did Washington, the only U.S. President to physically take the field in command of the Army against his own people to put down tax protesters. As did Jefferson when his earlier scrupples about the central government being limited to only enumerated powers evaborated in the face of an opportunity to expand the nation with the Louisiana purchase. As did Teddy Roosevelt who "took the canal and left congress to debate."

All of them ended up on Mt Rushmore and if you actually think you can make political hay out of the notion that the pledge of Allegiance is a communist plot well...good luck with that. :roll:

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:34 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Southern Doc wrote:
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
So Doc, are you saying then that you believe the states should submit to something like that healthcare mandate if it gets passed? At least until the national political scene gets changed around enough to do something to stop it?

What if you have a situation where not enough states object to an unconstitutional mandate to get rid of it?

How far should the federal govt. be allowed to go before a state draws a line in the sand?


The laws of the government of the United States are supreme in all the states.

If enough citizens object to those laws then it will be reflected on the national level.

States are not in the position to draw a line in the sand.

Since the Civil War the Constitution has been read as WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA (one word) and not as we the people of the STATES of america united (which is what John C. Calhoun, and the nullification group argued). The supremacy clause prevails.

The citizens of the nation are sovereign and responsible for their United government.

The only "number of states" which I believe would be sufficient to nullify the Federal governments act would be a sufficient number to alter the Constitutioon by Amendment or call a second Constitutional convention, both of which are provided under the terms of our Constitution (3/4 of States under Art. V). By the time you reach that number it is unlikely that the government would still persist in its policy. We see that roughly 55% opposition in public opinion to ObamaCare has caused its wheels to come off without the need of any State roadblock.

One cannot say the Pledge and support these doctrines. The Republic for which it stands, ONE Nation, under God,indivisible,...that word was specifically placed in the pledge as a creedal statement against the doctrine of secession. That is also why the Pledge was unpopular in many Southern states for years after its introduction in 1892.

We are E Pluribus Unum - out of many ONE.

Let us leave behind any talk of disunity. We are a nation and we cannot separate as a protest or solution to our political discontent or abuse.

Hey, Doc! Hope my timing is not inopportune, but I just wanted to let you know that I have been mulling over your response when my neurons have space & time to wander (that's why it takes me so long! :lol: )

This morning my brain switched gears & instead of thinking about what the govt. might do began thinking about what the govt. has done - if ever there was a time for states to rebel against the federal govt seems like Roe v. Wade would have been enough reason to do it.

Yet by that point our country had changed & been thru so much - the Civil War - civil rights - we have evolved to some extent (both for better & for worse) and we do think of our union as one nation rather than an affiliation of like-minded states. The prospect of violence against our fellow countrymen truly is abhorrent.

I do think we are best off working thru the system (& hopefully working to improve it). Still, if someone manages to change that system to the point that we are unable to function as a legitimately representative democracy, then submission would be a mistake.

Saw a quote somewhere recently (might have even been here! might have even been from you!) & as usual, my memory is fuzzy so I can only give the gist of it. It was by a Russian who said that if they had known what the Communists were going to do to them, they would have grabbed their pitchforks and everything they had & fought them to the death - but instead they submitted and thereby lost everything.

So I agree with you - to an extent. But I still believe there is a legitimate argument for drawing a line in the sand at some point. The question is what that point should be.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:41 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
Southern Doc wrote:
Quote:
Doc, where are you coming from?

indivisible,...that word was specifically placed in the pledge as a creedal statement against the doctrine of secession

Put in by a professing Socialist. How conservative of you.
Socialists, like Communists, do prefer a STRONG federal government.
To better oppress us, I dare say...



as did Lincoln the first Republican President who suspended the writ, freed private property by fiat and preserved the Union by force of arms. As did Washington, the only U.S. President to physically take the field in command of the Army against his own people to put down tax protesters. As did Jefferson when his earlier scrupples about the central government being limited to only enumerated powers evaborated in the face of an opportunity to expand the nation with the Louisiana purchase. As did Teddy Roosevelt who "took the canal and left congress to debate."

All of them ended up on Mt Rushmore and if you actually think you can make political hay out of the notion that the pledge of Allegiance is a communist plot well...good luck with that. :roll:


What we all don't need is condescending eye rolling.
That attitude. which sadly is a tactic of our leaders and the media they influence. is exactly what our country can not afford.
It's not worth my time or yours either. Too much is at stake.
Communist plot? I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.
I hope you are for real, because I would like to level with you.

In reality, I'm venting my frustrations on how helpless a people we are becoming. Powerless to legally and civilly effect the change we need, not the change we are getting.
A lot of us are not as smart as you and can't see a safe way out, but understand that something is terribly wrong. Hence a lot of rick perry like rhetoric.
*****************************************************************************************************************

This is where I fear we may be headed and forceful actions by government could well hasten it on and be the biggest mistake they could ever make.
I fear where this is heading if our lives keep coming under more and more control by a clearly out of control government. Due to my own personal circumstances, I will probably not survive to see the worst, but clearly many will. Choosing not to ever ever resort to violence myself, i must sit it all out, but over 14 million firearm purchases took place last year, and clearly many were for multiple weapons each. I believe this January alone had over 2 million.

Millions of veterans, some of which are actually being put on terror watch lists and actually being demonized in reports sent to law enforcement are waking up and smelling the coffee. Patriots in the military and law enforcement see whats coming and have leaked many similar to the miac reports.

I am glad that on a large scale, great restraint is being exercised by the people.
(horrible actions by individuals whose lives have been ruined non withstanding)
I sincerely hope that Joe Stack's reprehensible act is not a harbinger of future events. God forbid that.
I don't like us going overseas to kill everyone in endless wars, but if irresponsible actions by an overbearing government ever sets off this domestic powder keg it could make the middle east or even the civil war you often speak of look like a child's GI Joe play set.

Honest open dialog without disinfo campaigns or demonetization of the american people need to be taking place yesterday.


I pray, but nothing seems to be getting any better.
I do not want nor would ever participate in anything violent that i see coming.
Violence would be the worst thing that could happen.
I want the same things avoided as you, but thought you may also want to consider that an ever growing feeling of powerlessness of the people can result in the very thing we both want avoided at all costs.

I haven't even touched on the economy and what could be triggered by a devaluation of the dollar which clearly can happen if monetary policy does not change. And I don't mean the constant gradual erosion that has resulted in a dollar from 1913 being worth less than 5 cents today. A worst case scenario could possibly play out like this: Imagine it happening; you suddenly find out you have a week to exchange any money, getting 1 dollar for every two or three you have, your bank accounts being automatically adjusted. It would get real ugly, real fast. Besides the violence it could trigger at home, we would have to suddenly, and without time, have to pull back on much of the 700 plus military bases we have in over 100 countries, giving priority to places where we are already engaged in conflicts. Will the gov be quick to get all our troops safely home to a country they were clearly responsible for ruining? It may not be in their self interest. Not to mention how vulnerable that could make us to attack by real threats, not just Muslims in caves.

I don't know if this makes any sense, but sometimes I think that powerless, disenfranchised people sometimes become the very thing they are constantly being accused of. Could there be any truth to that?

I would sincerely like to know your thoughts on all this.

And please, honest dialog, no eye rolling.
I am a retired engineer from a fortune 100 corporation, responsible for the network operations in some of the largest corporations out there.
These guys would rather trust you with their newborn baby than their operation. What I have presented here, I have researched and documented as best as I could. As professionals in our respected fields, enlighten me as this is clearly more your area of expertise.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY