All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Dem's have less than 1300 voting. Repos have over 100,000. Dem's split 50 50 Bernie and the Beast.

    At this point any single repo except Gilmore who scored 11 only could beat both the demo's

    Iowa is voting none of the above.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's good...they just called the caucus:
    Cruz 28, trump 24, Rubio 23 Carson 9 and Paul 5

    I like Paul also but I don't know why others don't get it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I always read your stuff.

    Iowa poll results under NEW So Far any Republican except Gilmore could beat both Hillary and Bernie....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hahahah...you been readin my stuff?

    exactly...only 2 parts of a 3 part equation.

    We could call them Pre-Google trans-humans!
    That would be funny if it weren't so scary...that's why I say that this is a Fight for Conscious Human Life.
    I would like to tie in Johns speech into the new book somewhere. That speech hit's one in the gut.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yea.
    I was referring to the liberal penchant for not recognizing the authority of the authors and making it up to suit themselves...and they call themselves "intellectuals" I call em "Antilectuals".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't see any need for misunderstanding it's all quite intentional. After all these days there are no comebacks or paybacks for intentional violations or blatant appearances of impropriety. certainly not when holding, running for office if it's the US Congress or Oval Office. As Mark Twain AKA Samuel Clemens remarked Congress is America's only true home grown criminal class and Obama was a Senator was he not? On purpose. Of course. Why not?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Gonzotr 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    First, I gave you a thumbs up, MichaelAarethun. I was referring to the author of the article. I like your responses, and reasoning.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I know!...agree with all and many are discussing these changes but If you notice that most are either omissions in the original, some that got past us and the majority are just plain misunderstood...abet purposely I wonder.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'd settle for just getting it back in it's present form for starters. But I'm not against a national discussion on a. format of changes and b. discussing needed changes and then making an omnibus sort of amendment for the States to consider....after of course including them in the conversation.

    Obvious examples are changing people to citizens in the census. Adding the word education OR disbanding the Department of Education. Legally defining natural citizen. Changing the format of bills and acts before the Congress to include a cover sheet with Title, One paragraph statement of scope and intent, limiting scope to one subject, citing constitutional authority, Cost, and how funded? Just to name a few. Redefining free speech to actual speech in some form of communication not the means of paying for it. If one lined out everything then asked the States to prioritize and selected only those with some reasonable chance of passing it would clear up or out the deadwood. What else. Free and open elections with secret ballots with no limitations on numbers of candidates, All parties have to pay for their own primaries. voting at age 18 for any volunteer member of the military and 21 for college student, That should put a laugh in your day .....No forcing the laws of one state on the entire nation....Limits on exective orders such as an automatic repeal upon time certain or change of administration.... repeal income tax replace with end urser consumption tax, government may not go in debt without a. declared war or a Katrina size national disaster AND must pay it off as the first part of the following years budget.

    Damn...that is almost a complete rewrite.

    term limits.

    any enlistment promises as to pay or benefits to the military must be honored in full.

    damn long list....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yea, it calls for a complete re-write so that even an ignorant, useless liberal progressive idiot could understand it!..for one thing...and as I understand it, there are question about some of the amendments, 14?,17? and I am sure we should look at some others as well...many came down the pike after Pike (as in Albert) not to mention teddy and woodie and the creatures from Jeckle Island as well.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Keep going ...you are on the right track. Starting somewhere does not mean continuing in the same way. It indicates a need for a fresh start.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    i didn't say that at all. Try reframing a different way. The statement is clear and factual. 85% of your former choices for elected office voted FOR suspending the Bill of Rights. Now you have to figure out who else to vote for. Nothing about States Rights another illusory urban myth and nothing in history supports your stance except the advent of creeping socialism. OR were you referring to Obeyme? It was a bit unclear.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Gonzotr 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It seems what he is saying, is, If we had not brought up free speech, and states rights, and so on, the subject would have never come up and we would be the better. 200 years of history has proven Him wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 6 months ago
    The author's argument against the Bill of Rights is almost identical to his argument against the Constitution. He appears to be a popular, radical, anarchist libertarian intent on discrediting government in any form or under limitations. But in his criticism of both, he makes some very basic and probably purposeful misinterpretations, connections, and insinuations concerning the intents and purposes of the leaders and guiders of the development and acceptance of both, as well as the impacts on citizens and states.

    I won't argue the entire presentation except for his interpretation of the Bill of Rights' intent of 'establishing rights.' Practically, that may well be the way many Supreme Courts have looked at them as ways to get around the intent of the Constitution, but the original intent was not to 'establish' rights, but to further limit the reach of Gov't and an attempt to keep Gov't out of the lives of individuals.

    I've often thought that the name 'Bill of Rights' was and is one of the most insidious semantic games ever played on the American people. A better name might have been the 'Bill of Gov't Nevers'. Instead, the argument is often made, based on the name, that citizens are limited to only those rights listed in the 'Bill of Rights' subject to the Gov't needs.

    These 'word play games' and their effects on the freedoms of individuals are perfect examples of AR's adamant choices over word usage and original definitions such as 'selfish'.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Except, of course, if you are an enemy combatant captured in the Middle East. Then you are given all of the "rights" we have lost through the Patriot Act.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The funding bill past by Congress instead of shutting down the government ha ha on Dec 30th Big Speech by Obeyme that evening. Lots of stuff on the various sites .....I think the fireworks took precedence. One portion discussed were his announcements on fighting terror. He failed to mention he is the chief terrorist. The national budget for the current FY. That was the authorization bill not the funding bill but the part I'm interested in needs no funding.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 6 months ago
    All laudible except for one small minor tiny detail. The Bill of Rightrs was abrogated on Dec 30th even more than it was done away with in previous years stretching back to 9/11 and the various Patriot Acts.

    So what good is something laudible which was voted out of existence by the not only the Executive Order but by an 85% in favor act of congress?

    Take note....for once.

    The portion of the patriot act rules for apprehension or arrest are not longer limited to suspicion of terrorism with no probable cause required......

    It now adds Suspicion of Support of Terrorism

    People arrested under the provisions of the Patriot Act enjoy zero civil rights or which amazingly enough stem primarily from the Bill of rights.

    No Miranda Warnings
    No right to an attorney
    No attorney
    No trial
    No judge
    No jury of peers
    Any sentence the DOHS decides to use.
    No review of sentence
    Confiscation of anything and anything ok
    No warrants for arrest of course or for search and seizure.
    No appeals

    Not limited to any particular group of people.

    Now go pat your discussion on the back.

    It's an excellent review of history... no longer applies when the black shirts come pounding on your door.

    along the suspension of the bill of rights and civil rights anywhere within 100 miles of the borders or coastlines.

    How do you win when you give up from the start

    Terrorist 1 USA 0
    US government 1 USA 0

    Why is everyone so shy and timid at addressing those questions?

    In case you want a reference it was one of the add ons in the funding bill voted into approval and quickly signed by Der Fuhrer on New Years Eve

    Now aren't you so very proud of yourselves. 85% of Congress and Obeyme. just turned your discussion into a big pile of nothing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 6 months ago
    I do not necessarily agree but will capitulate that we had to start somewhere...after all, just how experience was society, mankind in general, at self rule? Self Rule in a way that does not harm others or the general welfare of society as a whole. Not very as I see it.
    I might have opted for more control against government intrusions of a sort we've see since Teddy and Woodie...especially where the populous has been dumbed down, our health has been relegated to idiots only concerned with symptoms and profit and not cures and the perversions of mediums of trade.
    There somethings that should never change.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 6 months ago
    Anyone who has not carefully examined the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, as well as the original submissions from the state representatives can't understand the original intent of the words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is a false claim that the Constitution is derived from the Bible, but one thing from that epistle did influence the perception of the Constitution: the idea that any durable government had to be based on certain absolute principles.

    The only credible serious Constitutionalist Presidential candidate is Rand Paul, despite claims by others to that title. Unfortunately, the public perception has been colored by decades of progressive propaganda about a "living" transmutable Constitution. Like relativistic morality, that view countenances no absolutes.

    It is ironic that a nation unique in the history of humanity in being founded on the concept of a government subject to the wishes of the individual citizens is mutating into a collectivist institution. The collectivists/statists need the Bill of Rights, which emphasizes individual liberty, to be suppressed in order to pursue the collective need as a priority.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I gave you a point. Jamestown The original colony and Plymouth Colony both had such people until the leaders in each gave them an ultimatum work and eat or don't work and don't eat. That began the work ethic. Didn't last long.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo