# Modern Day Civil War.



## froggy (Mar 19, 2010)

The Woodhouse Civil War Over Health: Brothers Trade Barbs in High-Stakes Showdown | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News


----------



## JW Frogen (Mar 19, 2010)

Can't you all just wait for the next election?

Do it right.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

JW Frogen said:


> Can't you all just wait for the next election?
> 
> Do it right.



All this talk of Civil War rather than using the process our Framers gave us.  Apparently people who glory on death and destruction.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2010)

Civil War?

Just give us another excuse to kick their asses again


----------



## Cuyo (Mar 19, 2010)

This isn't a "Modern day civil war."  This is a "_Nothing_."


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> This isn't a "Modern day civil war."  This is a "_Nothing_."



You are right...but it is fun to what these talking point key words pop up in one place and suddenly start morphing all over the place.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> This isn't a "Modern day civil war."  This is a "_Nothing_."



What it really amounts to is the party that was voted out of power griping that they no longer get to call the shots


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you all just wait for the next election?
> ...



Um... you think this healthcare bill is using the process our Founders gave us??? When the people who govern refuse to actually use the process set up, how you expect anything but open rebellion?

This is insane. I don't want violence. But you've got to be stupid if you think this legislations going in above the board. And you've got to be stupid to think people are just going to bend over and take it.

You're policies will lead to violence. Stop forcing them on the people. If they have merit, the people will adopt it and we can avoid it. if not, let the Republic be. We are better off without your policies, then we are with them forced on us, even if they are good policies. Destroying the Republic is not a good idea.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JW Frogen said:
> ...



OK, you're a loony.

Too funny....Neg Rep'd for saying someone is a Loony for advocating Civil War over a health care bill.


----------



## beowolfe (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't a "Modern day civil war."  This is a "_Nothing_."
> ...



And that's it in a nutshell!


----------



## beowolfe (Mar 19, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JW Frogen said:
> ...




Yes, it is.  The constitution gives the House and the Senate the right to formulate the rules they will operate under.  The House created this thing call 'deem passed' and the Senate created this thing called reconcilliation.  Just because you dont' like the idea that they are being used on health insurance reform, don't confuse that with it not being a constitutional process.

It's not the policies that will lead to violence, there are just a lot of politically violent people on your side of this issue.  You all brought out your weapons even before the 2008 campaign was over.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> OK, you're a loony.



No. Im just not in denial.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Civil War?
> 
> Just give us another excuse to kick their asses again



You're the pussies too chicken shit to own guns.....

Besides...in November all of the Demtards will be out....once again.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you all just wait for the next election?
> ...



You mean like counting the yeas and nays?


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 19, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



and if the Supreme Court deems those rules UNCONSTITUTIONAL when they are challenged then the process MUST be started over.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you all just wait for the next election?
> ...



When did the framers give us "deem and pass"? Have you read Article 1 Section 7 of the constitution?


----------



## California Girl (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Civil War?
> 
> Just give us another excuse to kick their asses again



  What a fucking moronic statement.  Sometimes, you are sooooo stupid, its almost too funny.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You and your party may want to listen instead of making dumb ass comments like this...you can mark my words...some right wing nut job is planning another bombing somewhere for whatever reason....this could be the straw that breaks the camels back.

I'm no advocate for violence but I along with 57% of the rest of the country cringe when we listen to the lies and deceit being put forth by our President and his rubber stamp Congress.


----------



## csbarry (Mar 19, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And there in lies the problem; over time our Nation has become a Nation governed by the few in Washington, and not a Nation of the people, by the people, and for the people.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

Some of y'all need to grow the fuck up.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9VhD4SccSE]YouTube - Guns N' Roses - Civil War (Music Video)[/ame]


----------



## csbarry (Mar 19, 2010)

It's kinda spooky how Gunny knows just when to appear... ah?


----------



## csbarry (Mar 19, 2010)

California Girl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Civil War?
> ...



The best I can do is second that statement ...


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

csbarry said:


> It's kinda spooky how Gunny knows just when to appear... ah?



All this talk of war.  People get killed in wars.  

Stupid political hacks want to talk a bunch of crap and fight a war because the bureaucracy has convinced them there's a difference between one side and the other?  They're BOTH fleecing US.  

If anyone needs to go, it's the political parties that comprise the two-party system.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2010)

csbarry said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Bring it on ladies...

Love to have another chance to beat on those seceding sons-a-bitches


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you all just wait for the next election?
> ...



Ya cause for 8 YEARS the left did not demand Bush be assassinated along with Cheney? The left did not demand Bush be removed from power BEFORE any election, the left did not claim Bush stole those 2 elections. HYPOCRITE.

I and every other American has the right, the PROTECTED right to make any demands we want. To openly talk about what we might do if pushed to far. No one arrested you leftwing whack jobs when you were spouting off about Bush, Cheney, Rove and that entire Administration. But you would suggest that something be done when someone disagrees with Obama. HYPOCRITE.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't a "Modern day civil war."  This is a "_Nothing_."
> ...



JUST like for 8 YEARS we listened to you whine about stolen elections and evil Republican plots. HYPOCRITE.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > JW Frogen said:
> ...



I don't know...you might want to ask all the Congress' who have used it in the past.  And all the court decisions in the past that have allowed it.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



And all our calls for Civil War...doofus.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Name one bill that was deemed to pass!!!!!  ONE FUCKING BILL!!!!!


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yep...and calls for Bush's assassination.....  idiot!!!!


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I'm not a lady.  But I AM a Texan and you're a dumbass sheep.  You SHOULD be scared.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The House is going to ILLEGALLY and Unconstitutionally pass a bill with out a VOTE and then hope the Senate agrees to change it LATER. The loon is you people for thinking you won't pay a political price for your deceit and cowardice and illegal actions. You are the loon for thinking the American people will simple accept being lied to and cheated and denied their right to representation in Congress.

We fought the First revolutionary war over the British Governments taxation with out representation, this is the same thing. The Government has no legal right to force people to BUY health insurance. The Government has no authority to tax States differently for the same services. It is Unconstitutional to tax us differently from people in different States as the Health Care bill doe4s. It is ILLEGAL.

It is ILLEGAL to claim one has passed a bill without a vote. That removes the peoples right to proper representation as promised by the Constitution. THAT is reason enough to revolt. I doubt we do, but it is REASON enough.


----------



## csbarry (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



What a tough and fair and balanced individual you are ... never mind, I thought you were someone else.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Duck and weave , Is counting the yeas or nays the way to go or not?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



The MAJORITY won't be fighting to secede they will be fighting a corrupt illegal Government and their lackeys for the Country to be returned to a Representative Republic. Ohh and unless you are at least 170 YOU never beat anyone's ass to begin with. Dumb ass.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 19, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Notice the complete lack of a response for this question....why?  Because the left wing dopes are now blurring the line between "deemed to pass" and reconciliation.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Civil War?
> ...



So, the Congress will be 100% Republican?   Yeah....  This is BOOKMARKED!


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > csbarry said:
> ...



Yeah...you're really scary on a Message Board, Clerk.  You gonna paper cut us into submission?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I am more then prepared to fight for my Country. If a revolution starts and I agree with it I am already armed and have a stockpile of ammo. But thanks for being another dumb ass. By the way, the only CLERK here would be you.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Gunny said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > csbarry said:
> ...




Why would you care?  You guys are going to secede and become your own country anyways.


Soon.

Please.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Absolute proof the liberals do not support this Country or its people.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I'm sure you do...in that bunker under your house.      Another "end of the world" loony.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I'm not the one advocating secession.

I'm not the one advocating civil war.

But I am not going to stand in the way of those who wish to leave.   In fact, the sooner the better....because I DO love my country and think we will be the better for unloading Texas.  We should have listened to Andrew Jackson and never taken it on in the first place.   It's been nothing but a headache.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I wouldn't be so quick to say please.  Might want to look at what this state contributes to the national economy first.  We're still solvent.  

Hope that doesn't twist your knickers.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Who is abvocating secession?  I advocate you nimrods get your partisan heads out of your butts and vote for people that represent the US Constitution instead of happily following the sheep's ass in front of you down the road.  

Allowing two parties to deadlock and control our politics and government is STUPID.  We have TWO choices.  Y'all are so busy choosing between those two you quit thinking for yourselves.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Right as if a craven like you would *EVER* fight in a war for your country.
I can see you voting to send others to war, but not actually risking your yellow hide.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

Go ahead and take those table scraps you get tossed your way like a good little dog.  I'm SURE you'll be cared for.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



*I don't know*...you might want to ask all the Congress' who have used it in the past.  And all the court decisions in the past that have allowed it.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Gunny said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Glad to hear you are solvent.   Maybe that will remove all reservations you all might have about leaving.   Bye.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Gunny said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



That I have no problem with, if that is what you are advocating.  But you and I know that not everyone here is advocating for a legal, elective solution.   We have Bunker Clerk for example...loading up, ready to go postal.


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 19, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Wrong, talk of another revolution has been around since the 70's.  In truth it's too late.  That's why the immigration laws were changed in the 60's.  They stopped bringing in people from first would nations who wouldn't put up with crap and would fight for their rights and started bringing in people from 3rd world nations who are used to doing whatever they are told.  All this in an effort to diffuse the unrest among Americans.  Plus, in the 70's they started a campaign to convince Americans to limit their children to no more than two per family due to over population.  We are now living in an America that is 1/3 foreigners.  The revolution will not happen.  A civil war is still possible as those who are American are rather upset at the numbers of foreigners that are coming in and taking over their country.  Of course it's too late and they will lose.  We lost when our own government took 5 days to get to the Katrina victims and then marched through their homes and took away their guns.  We lost when an official of the Mexican government announced to American citizens "This has been and will again be Mexico" and our government did nothing.  Nope, america is already gone.  Long live Cascadia.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I kinda thought you were a bit better than baseless rhetoric.  You lefties take a knucklehead appealing to a crowd and run with it if it;s someone on the right; yet, you ignore the crap your party puts out.  Goebbels would be proud of Obama on healthcare so-called "reform".

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Fascinating  assertion.  Where do you get that from?



> Plus, in the 70's they started a campaign to convince Americans to limit their children to no more than two per family due to over population.  We are now living in an America that is 1/3 foreigners.  The revolution will not happen.  A civil war is still possible as those who are American are rather upset at the numbers of foreigners that are coming in and taking over their country.  Of course it's too late and they will lose.  We lost when our own government took 5 days to get to the Katrina victims and then marched through their homes and took away their guns.  We lost when an official of the Mexican government announced to American citizens "This has been and will again be Mexico" and our government did nothing.



What did you expect our government to do?  Assassinate him?



> Nope, america is already gone.  Long live Cascadia.



So, you don't care what happens in Used-To-Be-America, right?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Gunny said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Goebbels?       Where's that Godwin smilie?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So?  Let them?  It will amount to about what John Brown seizing Harper's Ferry Arsenal amounted to.  

The problem with a free society is it allows idiots to be free as well as the sane.  I advocate that our government does not represent us, nor the US Constitution.  They represent themselves.  We have a process for removing them and people would quit listening to their divisive crap and actually vote for someone will to uphold the Constitution, we can make a change without a single round going downrange.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 19, 2010)

Gunny said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I can't argue with that.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> I'm not the one advocating secession.
> 
> I'm not the one advocating civil war.
> 
> But I am not going to stand in the way of those who wish to leave.   In fact, the sooner the better....because I DO love my country and think we will be the better for unloading Texas.  We should have listened to Andrew Jackson and never taken it on in the first place.   It's been nothing but a headache.



Who is advocating civil war? We just arent naive enough to think that it wont happen when you try to oppress a free people.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 19, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Who is advocating civil war?


The Yankees who want someone else to pay for their health care.


----------



## froggy (Mar 19, 2010)

Gunny said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



We need a 9 month probation, if they don't work out fire em.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

froggy said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



First off, my idea of campaign finance reform is there is no campaign finance at taxpayer expense.  Period.  No special interest groups, period.  Hell, they spend a 18 months out 4 years campaigning.

I'm also against the electoral college.  The will of the people is subverted by it.  Obama wouldn't have even been the Dem nominee had the superdelegates voted the will of thier constituents.  

And BOTH sides need to quit letting the f-ing media choose the candidates.  McCain and Palin?  GMAFB.  They might as well have run Rdone and Chris.  Between the four of them there isn't a whole personality.


----------



## beowolfe (Mar 19, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...




So, that's what you wittle bwain has come up with as the rationale for the changes in immigration law in the 1970's, huh....

I guess it doesn't matter that prior to the 1970's the British who immigrated here were under a more socialist system than we ever will see here.  Or that the Germans, had only been free from their monarch and dictators for about 25 years.  But like I told someone else, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.


----------



## csbarry (Mar 19, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > csbarry said:
> ...



Never mind.


----------



## froggy (Mar 19, 2010)

We have no capable politicians, we need to cut out all the power they think goes with the job and the perks, and the lobbyist.etc,etc,etc.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 19, 2010)

csbarry said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Another Internet Bruce Lee.
I was addressing the cowardly little POS known as Rightwinger not you. But if we do cross paths I won't be intimidated by a has been like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 19, 2010)

csbarry said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What a stupid statement.  Your rage may be fueled by steroids, thus your chesticles have increased with your flute and rattle have shrunk. What a moron.


----------



## eagleseven (Mar 19, 2010)

Civil wars suck. Seriously suck.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



blah, blah, blah ....

Got anything intelligent to say?


----------



## beowolfe (Mar 19, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> Civil wars suck. Seriously suck.



Yes, they do.  Unfortunately we have posters and some citizens bantying the idea around as if it's a walk in the park.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> > Charles Stucker said:
> ...



Oh look ... Mr Fuckwad himself speaketh ....


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> Civil wars suck. Seriously suck.



War sucks.  People die.  Somebody kills them.  Lose/lose on the ground floor.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Civil wars suck. Seriously suck.
> ...



No, you have leftwingnuts projecting ....


----------



## beowolfe (Mar 19, 2010)

Gunny said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Only that, gauging from your post, the truth must really bite!!


----------



## beowolfe (Mar 19, 2010)

Gunny said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > eagleseven said:
> ...



We have them on both sides.  What do you think advocating succession means?  Civil war.

If you think it's only the left, just take a look here.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1R2GGLR_enUS330&q=succession+from+the+union&aq=0&aqi=g6&aql=&oq=succession+from+&gs_rfai=


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 19, 2010)

froggy said:


> We have no capable politicians, we need to cut out all the power they think goes with the job and the perks, and the lobbyist.etc,etc,etc.



capable politician. That's an oxymoron if i've ever heard one.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



YOUR truth?  Or reality?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 19, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> Civil wars suck. Seriously suck.



No kidding. And they start when people least expect it to.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



Probably want to read a post or two of mine.  I'm not on either side.  Oh and Mr Educated, the word wouold be "secession" ...

Grow some balls.  You think backing the current or past administrations of the US government is upholding and defending the Constitution of the US?  I got this West Texas swampland for sale .....


----------



## Care4all (Mar 19, 2010)

our past civil war was not that unexpected, was it?


----------



## Cuyo (Mar 19, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is ILLEGAL to claim one has passed a bill without a vote. That removes the peoples right to proper representation as promised by the Constitution. THAT is reason enough to revolt. I doubt we do, but it is REASON enough.



Thankfully, that's not happening here.

They're voting on the Senate bill and the overhaul bill simultaneously. _ THAT IS IT_.  There's no trickery, nothing unconstitutional, nothing unprecedented, nothing un-American about it.  It's not a new procedure.  It's been done literally HUNDREDS of times.


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 19, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



It's called logic, try it sometime.

No, I expected our government to go to the UN and demand that Mexico clarify their intentions toward our country, demand an apology from that representative of their country and then ship his a$$ back home.

Of course I care, I mourn for the loss of the America I knew.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 19, 2010)

Care4all said:


> our past civil war was not that unexpected, was it?



No.  It was about power and money, no matter what deflection people try to use.  So is anything that comes of this rhetoric.  

What sucks is the biggest firebrands, on BOTH sides, have no clue and never will.  They'll sit back in comfort while WE kill each other.  That's BS and the jackasses on BOTH sides of this need to just STFU.  

Who is the bigger war mongerer?  The ones threatening?  Or the ones taunting them?  That's EXACTLY what created the last US Civil War.  People listened to the rich "people" that allegedly represented them and started killing each other while the rich just sat home.

The whole topic annoys me.  The firebrands on either side suck.


----------



## beowolfe (Mar 19, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > Civil wars suck. Seriously suck.
> ...




The only 'surprise' civil war that I remember was the one in 1793 in France.  I don't think that the powers that were expected anything like that.  The US civil war simmered for years before it exploded into open war fare.  As did the Bolshevik revolution.


----------



## beowolfe (Mar 19, 2010)

Gunny said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > our past civil war was not that unexpected, was it?
> ...




Tallk about deflection!!!  HHAHA....our civil war was about the 'states right' to have or not have slavery.  I'd think the ones threatening succession are the bigger war mongers.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2010)

Civil war ....seems like it might be fun

We get the US Army....the cowardly secessionists can have the Tea Baggers


----------



## csbarry (Mar 19, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> > Charles Stucker said:
> ...



As for the statement in and of itself, had it been directed correctly, I said just what I wanted to say. However, because of a mis-read, I made a mistake. I've apologized to Charles and I hope he accepts it. Thing is, it had nothing to do with you. You need to keep your nonsense to yourself.


----------



## eagleseven (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Civil war ....seems like it might be fun
> 
> We get the US Army....the cowardly secessionists can have the Tea Baggers


What makes you think the US Military would remain united, in such a circumstance? Logistically, where would Washington raise the funds to supply the US Military? DC is beyond broke, and an army marches on its stomach.

Robert E Lee, along with most of the Confederate Officer Corps, were veterans of the Mexican-American War. The men who had fought together in California and Mexico, returned home to fight eachother.

Civil wars suck. Seriously suck.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Civil war ....seems like it might be fun
> ...



Here is my plan

We start off with some "Shock and Awe"
Pound them into submission for a few months

Then we move to the PsyOps phase
Nonstop tapes of Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann over the airwaves

Then we deny them their basic luxuries
Take away NASCAR, Country Music and Cheap Beer

They will be begging to return within weeks


----------



## Fenris Wolf (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You have me confused, is this supposed to be about the stereotypical southern person or just a typical secessionist?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 19, 2010)

csbarry said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > csbarry said:
> ...



While you don't have to apologize to me, anyone here has the right to correct your moronic statement.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 19, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Civil war ....seems like it might be fun
> ...



Oh, stop, please.  Your comments are seriously lame.  There will be no civil war of any kind, because the states right along with feds would stomp it out in under five seconds.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 19, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Jake is correct. All of this will be settled in the Supreme Court, the ballot box and without bloodshed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 19, 2010)

PP has the gist of it figured out, I believe.  When we rebelled in 1775, one out of four Continentals died, the highest percentage per capita rate for all of our wars.  The South, from northern Florida to southern North Carolina, roiled in its own civil war for more than three years, with more than 2,000 killed by their own neighbors, either in battle or banditry or ambush.

The attack by the South on the federal government in April 1861 ended only with the death of more than 600,000 American soldiers on both sides (the second highest per capita percentage rate of all our wars) and maybe another 50,000 to 80,000 dead civilians killed not only in the Border States but states such as Texas.

Our wars since 1866 against ourselves have been waged in the political arena, because (1) people generally don't die, and (2) if one side loses, it is guaranteed another chance in at least two years.  This is a great deal!  We can all run around and act like idiots, and no one dies.

Yes, this will be settled by SCOTUS, just as the economic recovery was in the New Deal.  Parts of the far-reaching AAA and NRA were killed by the Court, which also opined the constitutinality of Social Security.  This is how we war now.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 19, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Civil war ....seems like it might be fun
> ...



Again, you are so right.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 19, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Here is my plan
> 
> We start off with some "Shock and Awe"
> Pound them into submission for a few months
> ...



That's a really stupid plan.

If you ever forced the issue and actually tried to wage war against me, my family, and my brethren in the community. My plan would be simple. I'd shoot you. Then I'd go home and pray for the redemption of our souls.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 19, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my plan
> ...



Could it be you are conflating irony with a nonexistent threat, that leads to your own silly threat to something that does not, and won't, exist.  And you are the one who insists GB is sane.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 19, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> PP has the gist of it figured out, I believe.  When we rebelled in 1775, one out of four Continentals died, the highest percentage per capita rate for all of our wars.  The South, from northern Florida to southern North Carolina, roiled in its own civil war for more than three years, with more than 2,000 killed by their own neighbors, either in battle or banditry or ambush.
> 
> The attack by the South on the federal government in April 1861 ended only with the death of more than 600,000 American soldiers on both sides (the second highest per capita percentage rate of all our wars) and maybe another 50,000 to 80,000 dead civilians killed not only in the Border States but states such as Texas.
> 
> ...



You are so delusional. Human nature hasn't changed. The World hasn't changed. Just because we've had a relatively stable period of history doesnt mean it wont turn south and turn south fast. The more you make people dependent on government. The more you break up the family. The more you spend money you don't have, the more unsteady our society will be. 

Just because our Founders developed a system that works for the most part, doesnt mean it will work all the time. Especially when its now are corrupt as it is. 

Civil war will come if nothing is changed. Im not talking about left/right bullcrap. Im talking about people. People need to change on a widescale or we are seriously screwed. And making it harder for people to change, taking away their freedom. Silencing people. It doesn't help. It makes things worse. 

Pride comes before the fall and this fall is going to be huge. The fall of Rome lead to the Dark Ages. What do you think the Fall of America will lead to?


----------



## Si modo (Mar 19, 2010)

For many of us it is a sworn duty to ensure that those who plan to shit on the Constitution don't get a chance to do so.


----------



## JScott (Mar 19, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Civil War?
> ...



Speak for yourself pal. Just because youre a republican doesnt mean you have the market in guns


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 19, 2010)

Si modo said:


> For many of us it is a sworn duty to ensure that those who plan to shit on the Constitution don't get a chance to do so.



Amen brother.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 20, 2010)

JScott said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Sorry wus...this shit don't count...




and it's probably all you could afford anyway and all they'll let your sorry ass have since you like giving your entire fucking paycheck to someone else, let them spend it for you and tell your stupid ass what to do from cradle to grave.


----------



## eagleseven (Mar 20, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I hope you are correct.


----------



## eagleseven (Mar 20, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> PP has the gist of it figured out, I believe.  When we rebelled in 1775, one out of four Continentals died, the highest percentage per capita rate for all of our wars.  The South, from northern Florida to southern North Carolina, roiled in its own civil war for more than three years, with more than 2,000 killed by their own neighbors, either in battle or banditry or ambush.
> 
> The attack by the South on the federal government in April 1861 ended only with the death of more than 600,000 American soldiers on both sides (the second highest per capita percentage rate of all our wars) and maybe another 50,000 to 80,000 dead civilians killed not only in the Border States but states such as Texas.
> 
> ...


Why did we choose to fight eachother in 1861? 

We had the same core Constitution then as we have now, with the same basic government structure, and the same elections. Americans in the 1800s had no deathwish, as humans haven't dramatically changed in the past 200 years. General Lee himself wrote about the stupidity of a Civil War, up until the point at which it started.

What went wrong in 1861, and why won't it happen again?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 20, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> Why did we choose to fight eachother in 1861?
> 
> We had the same Constitution then as we have now, with the same basic structure. Americans in the 1800s had no deathwish, as humans haven't changed dramatically changed in the past 200 years. General Lee himself wrote about the stupidity of a Civil War, up until the point at which it started.
> 
> What went wrong in 1861, and why won't it happen again?



Because we are more "enlightened?" no that cant be it.

Because we've progressed beyond a violent society? That's a bunch of crock.

There is absolutely no reason why it wouldnt happen now. The idea that we are somehow better than people who came before us is absurd. In fact, i think they were far more clever and creative than we are.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 20, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> I hope you are correct.



I hope so too. He isn't. But I hope so.


----------



## Brubricker (Mar 20, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Civil war will come if nothing is changed. Im not talking about left/right bullcrap. Im talking about people. People need to change on a widescale or we are seriously screwed. And making it harder for people to change, taking away their freedom. Silencing people. It doesn't help. It makes things worse.
> 
> Pride comes before the fall and this fall is going to be huge. The fall of Rome lead to the Dark Ages. What do you think the Fall of America will lead to?




Let us know when decide to abandon your entire life and join up with the volunteer rebel militia. If the new Confederate army is truly on the verge of forming then you will certainly be the first in line to participate in field drills. Please tell us all about your new life as an armed rebel marching in the ranks of thousands of like-minded men with every one of you ready to do a real-life Pickett's Charge against the U.S. Army itself. 

When you start telling us those kinds of stories then maybe we'll believe you're more than just some fat-assed internet ranter posting from the warm comfiness of his easy chair. If you believe in this new rebel army of your dreams then man up or shut up. 

Why haven't you enlisted yet??? Hmmmm?????


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 20, 2010)

Brubricker said:


> Let us know when decide to abandon your entire life and join up with the volunteer rebel militia. If the new Confederate army is truly on the verge of forming then you will certainly be the first in line to participate in field drills. Please tell us all about your new life as an armed rebel marching in the ranks of thousands of like-minded men with every one of you ready to do a real-life Pickett's Charge against the U.S. Army itself.
> 
> When you start telling us those kinds of stories then maybe we'll believe you're more than just some fat-assed internet ranter posting from the warm comfiness of his easy chair. If you believe in this new rebel army of your dreams then man up or shut up.
> 
> Why haven't you enlisted yet??? Hmmmm?????



You really don't read do you? You people are seriously scary.


----------



## editec (Mar 20, 2010)

Lots of tough talk from our resident angry white men, I see,

FYI, The revolution is already happening.

But it isn't angry White boys with guns fighting it.

It's mostly angry minorities in gangs fighting the system, and they don't think of themselves as  revolutionaries.

All they want is their piece of the pie (and your piece too, I expect) but they have, as far as I know, no real revolutionary social agenda.

America won't have a revolution, I think.  We're too divided into opposing teams of idiots for that to happen.

And I don't think we'll have a civil war, either since the problem isn't evenly divided into STATE issues, as it was in 1860.

But we will have sporatic anarchy that we'll continue to call urban crime as slowly but surely less and less of the system works for more and more of us.

All the above, is, of course, based on the notion that this nation doesn't change its basica policies that are making more and more of us poor while fewer and fewer of us keep getting richer and richer.

That distortion of income equitey isn't going to last much longer, I suspect, before something comes along to knock our whole damned system into the dustheap of history.

Unjust societies don't last long, folks, in the modern world.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 20, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Here is my plan
> ...



You simple secessionist dog. We would hunt you down like the traitorous scum you are and force you to submit. You are facing the most powerful Army in the history of mankind. We will show no mercy against Traitors like you and your family.
GOD is on our side and will not lift a finger to help Traitorous scum....so your prayers will go unheeded. Ever hear of "One Nation UNDER GOD" you Traitor?    That does not apply to secessionists


----------



## Si modo (Mar 20, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Just change the date and a few nouns in these posts and one gets a flashback to the Bush administration.

I wonder how it feels to act exactly like those you hate?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 20, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > PP has the gist of it figured out, I believe.  When we rebelled in 1775, one out of four Continentals died, the highest percentage per capita rate for all of our wars.  The South, from northern Florida to southern North Carolina, roiled in its own civil war for more than three years, with more than 2,000 killed by their own neighbors, either in battle or banditry or ambush.
> ...



The Civil War occurred because two nations of whites so differed about the issue of captive labor that affected every aspect of our politics, our economy, our society, that it led to that horrible war.

Why won't it happen again?  The feds are much stronger than the states, and the states are much stronger than their citizenry.  Any such outburst would be put down with a violence that would make Waco look like a stroll the park.  The American public would overwhelmingly approve such governmental action to suppress sedition and treason.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 20, 2010)

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Rightwinger is too stupid to see the facts here Si...let the dumbass continue to show his true colors...


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 20, 2010)

editec said:


> Lots of tough talk from our resident angry white men, I see,
> 
> FYI, The revolution is already happening.
> 
> ...



I don't have a problem with this...except they* WANT ME TO EARN THEIR SHARE* because they are too fucking stupid and lazy to do it for themselves!!!!


----------



## eagleseven (Mar 20, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > What went wrong in 1861, and why won't it happen again?
> ...


Now _here_ is an issue worth discussing. The southern secessionists didn't believe Lincoln had the resolve to prosecute war against half of the nation. Lincoln didn't believe the Confederacy had the will to resist a Union invasion for more than a few months.

Both were wrong.

Would this President, and any future President, have the resolve to turn LA into Fallujah? His willingness to take it that far is precisely what would prevent a Civil War. The only reason why the states feel safe passing these anti-Federal laws is because they see a weak President, unable to control his Congress, let alone the states.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E7tp7chSoo]YouTube - iraq combat fallujah[/ame]

Some would argue parts of Compton already are a warzone.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 20, 2010)

I think, eagleseven, that the feds will use the federal code and its justice system to put stop to the state laws.  If SCOTUS agrees down the line, then a US Marshall is like a god when s/he walks into the state offices anywhere and demands the officials do such and such.  They know if they refuse, special ops is not far behind, only focusing on the officials whereabouts.  Heavens help them.


----------



## eagleseven (Mar 20, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> I think, eagleseven, that the feds will use the federal code and its justice system to put stop to the state laws.  If SCOTUS agrees down the line, then a US Marshall is like a god when s/he walks into the state offices anywhere and demands the officials do such and such.  They know if they refuse, special ops is not far behind, only focusing on the officials whereabouts.  Heavens help them.


I do agree, the legal precedent is there for the Feds to clamp down on the states. So it would remain a question of the executive's resolve, which changes with the changing executives.

I don't see the SCOTUS supporting the states on this issue, either.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 20, 2010)

Bush would have put the states down.   Joe Biden would also.  I am not sure that BHO has caught on about raw power and its use.  You can't be loved by everybody, even when one is doing right (perhaps particularly when one is doing right).


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 20, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush would have put the states down.   Joe Biden would also.  I am not sure that BHO has caught on about raw power and its use.  You can't be loved by everybody, even when one is doing right (perhaps particularly when one is doing right).



The thing is...once he crosses that line....and he will if it get's to a situation where there are mass riots etc...he's done as President.  Every single death no matter what side they're on will be blamed on his failure of leadership that led the country down this road...he's ultimately accountable for what happens on his watch.

I don't think it will come to this at this point in time....right now it's up to Americans to exercise their rights at the ballot box and for Congress to fire Pelosi and Reid.  Those 2 ass wipes are wholly responsible for the division and hatred circulating around the country.


----------



## csbarry (Mar 20, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You made no attempt to correct me; you opened your mouth and shit came out.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 20, 2010)

csbarry said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > csbarry said:
> ...



You were incredibly obnoxious and wrong, and got kicked in the face for it.  Get over it.


----------



## froggy (Mar 20, 2010)

The best thing americans could do for america is vote the entire bunch out of office,start fresh and let them know we're not letting a handful sell our great country out from under us.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 21, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Like all traitorous secessionist scum, we would force you into submission until you beg for forgiveness


----------



## csbarry (Mar 21, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Taking into consideration the ridiculous comments you post, one would have to believe you are living and breathing around Bayonne or Jersey City, or you live someplace else and you're huffing.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 21, 2010)

csbarry said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Both Bayonne and Jersey City are wonderful communities who love their country and would not consider seceeding from the greatest nation in the history of mankind


----------



## eagleseven (Mar 21, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Both Bayonne and Jersey City are wonderful communities who love their country and would not consider seceeding from the greatest nation in the history of mankind




Must be the fumes.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 21, 2010)

eagleseven said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Both Bayonne and Jersey City are wonderful communities who love their country and would not consider seceeding from the greatest nation in the history of mankind
> ...



Call  it what you want......but they are loyal Americans unlike those secessionist scum traitors


----------



## Fenris Wolf (Mar 21, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You can call them traitors all you want but, they are better Americans than any of the treasonous socialist scum that has been and is in office now. You can rant and rave how evil they are, but when the Federal Government is broke due to of out of control government spending with entitlement programs and since the government will no longer have the authority to collect federal revenue in those states, you will see just how little power and authority they will posses. There won't be money to pay the jack-booted thugs or those black ops that give you wet dreams at night. Those same scumbags that you praise so highly will be forced to let go of non-essential employees in an attempt for congress and executive members to hold on to their precious benefits that they voted for themselves. It will force the Federal Government back to the size it needs to be, small, unobtrusive, and of little threat to the people, like it was intended.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 21, 2010)

Well, Feral Wolf, you are snarling.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 21, 2010)

Fenris Wolf said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eagleseven said:
> ...



Anyone who would turn their back on the greatest nation in the history of mankind is traitorous scum who deserves what they get. To dishonor real patriots who fought and died for liberty all so you can deny health insurance to 37 million Americans shows you for the scum you are.
I hope you do secede and feel the wrath of real Americans


----------



## eagleseven (Mar 21, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Can you say "secessionist scum" seven times fast?


----------



## bodecea (Mar 21, 2010)

Fenris Wolf said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eagleseven said:
> ...



Actually, that will be a great day for the Federal government...because those states get more in Federal aid than the Federal government collects from them.  So...the Federal government will come out ahead.  This is a wonderful opportunity to save some money....and to give the citizens of Red states to love their Republican leaders even more.

Please, please let this happen.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 21, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Fenris Wolf said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Doesn't matter....Secessionist America hating scum deserve no mercy. Bring down the might of the US Military upon them....then deny them HEALTHCARE


----------



## Fenris Wolf (Mar 21, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Fenris Wolf said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



True patriots who fought and died for liberty would be rolling in their graves right now to hear you say that what we have now was their vision. I know a good number of veterans right now that are quite agitated by the direction our country is heading. I have no problem with people trying to change the insurance industry, however, this is a states issue, not a federal one. What the democrats are trying to do is get a piece of the pie and line their pockets, plain and simple. Every time the federal government meddles with something, they end up screwing the pooch every time. The states aren't threatening to secede because of the health care bill, but you know this and you're trying to make it something it is not. Sometimes turning your back and ignoring is the best way to handle a brat throwing a temper tantrum. I hope that the country resolves it's issues before it comes to this but if it does, you can rest assured it won't be a one sided victory for your storm troopers.


----------



## Fenris Wolf (Mar 21, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Fenris Wolf said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes, please let it happen. Then when these states are exceeding the prosperity of the others and doing it themselves, then eveyone on the outside looking in can see how federal oversight has been standing in the way of success. You make it sound like this grant money is just handed down with no strings attached. There is no free money, sorry, contrary to what ever makes you feel warm and bubbly inside, there are terms and conditions that are restrictive to the recipient. The Federal Government has not nor will it ever come out ahead even if it does not spend another dime ever again. Revenues generated through taxes will only cover roughly around 30% of the national deficit. Now that just completely smoked your little nugget didn't it.


----------



## Douger (Mar 21, 2010)

bodecea said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you all just wait for the next election?
> ...


Yep. You were framed all right.


----------



## Douger (Mar 21, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> csbarry said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They were considering seceding from Switzerland ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of tough talk from our resident angry white men, I see,
> ...



Hey dumb ass, it is we liberals who are supporting you lazy conservatives. The Red states are net recievers of federal funds, the blue state, net senders. 

So why don't you get off of your keyboard and go out an earn a living instead of living off of my taxes? You Conservatives are such lazy wimps.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2010)

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Well, let's see, the Bushies used the reconciliation process to pass big tax cuts for the very wealthy, and created huge deficits, which was a factor in creating the economic debacle we are currently digging out of.

We are using the process to make sure that health insurance is available to over 30 million more Americans, in a manner that actually will reduce the deficit, according to the CBO. 

Hmmm.....................................


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

Fenris Wolf said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Fenris Wolf said:
> ...



You have shown yourself not to be patriotic at all. Real American patriots do not threaten to secede because the other side won an election or because a black man is your president. Real Americans understand about working within the existing political structure and not provoking a Civil War


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2010)

Si modo said:


> For many of us it is a sworn duty to ensure that those who plan to shit on the Constitution don't get a chance to do so.



That is the way I see it. So pull your pants back up. And stop the really stupid talk about guns. Just as many of we liberals have dd214s as you Conservatives.

The Health Care Bill is now the law. It was done legally, in just the same manner as the tax breaks for the very wealthy was done.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 22, 2010)

Fenris Wolf said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Fenris Wolf said:
> ...



Actually, just the opposite.  As with all Federal aid, there are always strings attached.  So, it is totally legal to withhold said money if the states do not comply with those "strings."   So, the federal government can withhold any aid to these states just. like. that.   And whild the taxes from said states may cover about 30% of the budget, federal aid to those same states saved will be MORE than that 30% lost.  Yes...that DOES completely smoke my nugget.  Thanks for asking.

Now...we look forward to you guys following thru.   Please.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You talked about using a process the "framers" gave us. I asked a simple question about the deem and pass process and you, like a typical left wing retard answered " I don't know". Name one instance where deem and passed was used to pass a bill.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Fenris Wolf said:
> ...



The US military is sworn to uphold the Constitution.  Since the President and Congress are not doing that, wouldn't the military be on the side of the Secessionists?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Secessionist scum traitors are no longer covered by the Constitution. They will be hunted down like all other traitors to this great nation


----------



## Nonelitist (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Like most of us would have thought, you have more anger toward some of your fellow Americans than you do for terrorists.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Must have missed that new amendment.  We are here and we are many.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



No, you are not.

Secession is an act of traitors. By seceding, you are renouncing the Constitution and are no longer US Citizens.

If you want to continue to be covered by the Constitution, you need to work within its framework to meet your objectives and win a majority vote


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I am working within the Constitution.  It is Obama and Congress that seem to have forgotten.  It is okay, we'll remind him.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...




If Obama and the Congress are not working within the Constitution, then the document contains checks and balances to ensure that all legislation complies. That is why we have courts. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow Secession as a means to adress your objections.

If you choose that method you are traitorous scum and deserve no protections


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 22, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey dumb ass, it is we liberals who are supporting you lazy conservatives. The Red states are net recievers of federal funds, the blue state, net senders.


Once more with the third type of lie
From Twain - "There are three types of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Some of the things indicated by your red/blue statistics
1) More idle wealthy folks live in liberal areas and they pay heavy taxes. Not surprising since idleness breeds mental sloth and Liberalism appeal to the mentally lazy. 
2) Most of the military folks come from conservative areas. Again not a surprise since liberals value their lives too highly to value their nation much (except as a source of dole).
3) Liberal retirees move down south where it is warmer and their Socialist security checks travel with them.
4) more actual manufacture goes on in conservative states and it is cheaper so the Fed purchases from them more than the overpriced garbage produced by lazy liberals.
5) The Mexican border is mostly in conservative states and the cost of patrolling that border is far higher than the portions of the Canadian border which lie adjacent to liberal states, as no Canadian in thier right mind would want to move in with US liberals..
6) Conservative states have lower population density so the federal payments toward maintaining the Interstate system, based on miles of road, are higher per capita than in Liberal states where they breed like maggots in rotting meat. 

I could go on, but the conclusion to be drawn is clear; the liberal states should all secede and good riddance.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Bring it on ladies...
> 
> Love to have another chance to beat on those seceding sons-a-bitches


You are still a complete coward RW.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 22, 2010)

cock stucker sure is in full excuse mode today!  Time to dust off that johnny reb outfit he's been keeping in the closet!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia, and New York along with Rhode Island-- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all. 

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."


----------



## Shogun (Mar 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I hope you try.  seriously.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2010)

Sometimes I get the impression that people think America became through some universal drive to throw the British out.  Tories were plentiful during the Revolution.

The Civil War had a fair share of sympathizers on both sides.  What is clear is that great divides were present in these cases and a nation divided cannot stand without a unifying force.  That force may be one of war or a great unifier, sometimes both.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


I fully support your attempt at seceding.   It might even be amusing.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 22, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Sometimes I get the impression that people think America became through some universal drive to throw the British out.  Tories were plentiful during the Revolution.
> 
> The Civil War had a fair share of sympathizers on both sides.  What is clear is that great divides were present in these cases and a nation divided cannot stand without a unifying force.  That force may be one of war or a great unifier, sometimes both.



I guess it's time to whip out the iron for a new patch on your weekend warrior gear, eh dude?

go get your domestic terrorism on!


----------



## Toro (Mar 22, 2010)

I just want to know when it is about to start so I can war profiteer...


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2010)

I'm not interested in violence as a solution.  I think the health care reform has started a movement to simply help the government fall under its own weight.  More of a resistance movement.

Want to have a go at Cap and Trade?  Go for it.  Immigration reform?  What is taking you so long?  The faster you can totally screw up the better.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bring it on ladies...
> ...



I am a loyal god loving American who detests traitorous scum who would turn against their own country.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're an idiot, but I think you already know that. Fact is dumbass, secession is not unconstitutional nor unAmerican as I've already stated in another post. But you liberal idots seem to be allergic to facts.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Charles Stucker said:
> ...



Secession is a denunciation of the United States of America.

Thos who advocate it or engage in it deserve to be treated like the traitors they are. If they engage in armed insurrection against this country, they should be hunted down like dogs


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> I am a loyal god loving American who detests traitorous scum who would turn against their own country.



And a coward who would send others to die to protect your way of life.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I am a loyal god loving American who detests traitorous scum who would turn against their own country.
> ...



YOU LIE!  Like the traitorous America hating scum you are

It would not be the fine soldiers of this great nation that would die. It would be the traitors who turned against their own country


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If you believe that then you know nothing of the constitution.


United States President James Buchanan, Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union December 3, 1860: "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force." 
*United States President Thomas Jefferson: "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate*.' " 
The right to liberty, free association and private property 
Consent as important democratic principle; will of majority to secede should be recognized 
Making it easier for states to join with others in an experimental union 
Dissolving such union when goals for which it was constituted are not achieved 
Self-defense when larger group presents lethal threat to minority or the government cannot adequately defend an area 
Self-determination of peoples 
Preserving culture, language, etc. from assimilation or destruction by a larger or more powerful group 
Furthering diversity by allowing diverse cultures to keep their identity 
Rectifying past injustices, especially past conquest by a larger power 
Escaping discriminatory redistribution, i.e., tax schemes, regulatory policies, economic programs, etc. that distribute resources away to another area, especially in an undemocratic fashion 
Enhanced efficiency when the state or empire becomes too large to administer efficiently 
Preserving liberal purity (or conservative purity) by allowing less (or more) liberal regions to secede 
Providing superior constitutional systems which allow flexibility of secession 
Keeping political entities small and human scale through right to secession


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 22, 2010)

That was all settled in 1865.  So the discussion is like masturbation: feels good but remains sterile.

Beat on, 7th Texas Cavalry.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> That was all settled in 1865.  So the discussion is like masturbation: feels good but remains sterile.
> 
> Beat on, 7th Texas Cavalry.



Spoken like a true idiot troll. If it was settled then your dumbass brethren wouldn't keep saying it's unconstitutional DUMBASS!!!


----------



## csbarry (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're sheep dip ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > That was all settled in 1865.  So the discussion is like masturbation: feels good but remains sterile.
> ...



If you wish to call yourself "dumbass" is your business.  I am not saying it.  However, it is dumbass to consider that secession was constitutional.  The war decided that it was not.

Now go hunker in the compound at Overton and shiver in fear.  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHH, the feds are coming for you.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




NONE of this has anything to do with the US Constitution and the right to secede

LIE ON you traitorous secesionist scum


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Prove that secession is unconstitutional.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It's a list of justifiable reasons to secede. 

Educate yourself.

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States.  Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"including Abraham Lincoln himselfmay have ever said).


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Because once you secede you are no longer covered by the US Constitution

You are viewed as a Traitorous dog and treated accordingly....just like last time


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Don't have to because the burden of proof is on you as it was on my Southern knucklehead ancestors for being so stupid in the first place.


----------



## Zona (Mar 22, 2010)

froggy said:


> The Woodhouse Civil War Over Health: Brothers Trade Barbs in High-Stakes Showdown | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News



Texas, secede.  Those who want to stay in America, move to Kansas or something, the rest of you, secede.    Its what you said you wanted, righty?

Good luck.  

(Sore losers).


----------



## Zona (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Let em go.  This way, Mexico can get Texas back.  Kewl with me.  Lets see how fast they call on the United States of America for protection then.  

They were cool with spending all that money on a war based on a lie, but for us to help ourselves out is unheard of?  Damn.

Sore losers.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Link.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



In other words, you got nothing!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

Zona said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



What war was based on a lie?

And please provide proof of said lie.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 22, 2010)

Zona said:


> Let em go.  This way, Mexico can get Texas back.


Mexico could not hold Texas in 1835, when they had a top general and veteran troops, what makes you think they could do better now when they can't even take out the drug dealers in their own country?

You are right in one thing though - the nation would be *FAR* better served by allowing states which decided to secede to leave peacefully than by listening to cowardly traitorous scum like Rightwinger who want ever more socialism and centralized power.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Sigh . . . you made the claim.  Offer convincing evidence.  Hint: you haven't.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 22, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



My claim is seccession is not unconstitutional and even you should know that one cannot prove a negative.

By the way,  you "sigh"  like a little girl.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 22, 2010)

Government without the consent of the governed is tyranny.
Forcing states to remain in the union is akin to removing the right of people to consent or not. 
Thus secession *SHOULD* be allowed. 

However the proponents of *BIG* government realize they would be out of luck if states could follow the will of their people, hence they try to deny the people their right as enumerated by the 10th amendment.


----------



## Zona (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The President of the United States said there were WMD's.  He is he one responsible for us going to war based on that lie.  

HE IS RESPONSIBLE, ACCOUNTABLE AND WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS KILLING ALL THOSE PEOPLE BASED ON A LIE.  Period.


----------



## Zona (Mar 22, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Let em go.  This way, Mexico can get Texas back.
> ...



You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now?  Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.  

You mention someone who wants socialism and yet you are good with states seceding.  Wow.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Some people claimed that about 150 years ago. Tried to back it up with guns. And they got the shit kicked out of them. Be silly to do a repeat of that.


----------



## Cuyo (Mar 22, 2010)

Zona said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Ya sure, they'll take down the whole damned Mexican army with their shotguns n' huntin' rifles.

You forget, if you secede, you don't get_ our_ army anymore.  

I'd love it myself, looking forward to elections without 34 guaranteed electoral votes for the Party of Failing Values.


----------



## Toro (Mar 22, 2010)

Zona said:


> You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now?  Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.



I'd still bet on Texas.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2010)

Toro said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now?  Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.
> ...



I wouldn't bet.  I'd show up (with lots of friends in tow).


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 22, 2010)

Toro said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > You mean to tell me you actually think texas could beat the entire country of mexico now?  Seriously.....you do know they have armies in Mexico...its not 1835 dude. Personally, I would love to see it and see how fast texas begs us for help.
> ...



Mexico has 100 million people and an active Army. Texas has red neck secessionists. Mexico would kick their asses


----------



## Fenris Wolf (Mar 22, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Charles Stucker said:
> ...



I'm willing to bet that the state of Texas has more guns than the country of Mexico has soldiers, just let that sink in. Now with a regular army having to follow the Geneva Convention's weapon and munition restrictions would certainly hinder their capabilities of a force trying to overtake someone elses homeland by force when they're exploiting every weakness they have. Another factor to consider that would occur in this "what if" is that those hunting rifles have qualities that far exceed the capabilities that military small arms could ever compete with when properly incorporated. Ever heard of the term "turkey shoot"? This would lead to more weapons available to the Texans due to the amount of battle-field pick-ups, that is if they didn't get lost when they fell over dead in the Rio Grande in a failed invasion. Now since they are free and independent of U.S. Federal control they can now import or smuggle in foreign military grade weapons for little of nothing. Now here's another hypothetical, after Texans kick Mexico's ass 2.0, should they take Mexico City and then annex the country as part of the Texan empire or just settle for currently recognized boundaries? Historically speaking any nation that invades another and meets civilian resistance always looses. It's the reason we won WW2, the people wanted us there, the reason we lost Vietnam, some didn't want us there and the rest could give a shit less about the politics and government.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2010)

Fenris Wolf said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Does the Mexican Army even show up without being bribed first?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Very good! The sigh was from my  little girl, who asked, "Is the man kooky?"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 22, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Very good! The sigh was from my  little girl, who asked, "Is the man kooky?"

I told her, "No, of course not.  He just likes to dress up in grey uniforms."

You made the claim; the proof is yours to provide.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Mexico has 100 million people and an active Army. Texas has red neck secessionists. Mexico would kick their asses


Texas has ~25 million, a better industrial base, and no need to mount the *LOGISTICS* required to enter enemy territory if they are on the defense. Mexico does not have the logistical ability to mount such a long offensive; Texas is bigger than Germany, with plenty of urban terrain to tie up attackers.
And finally Texas has a lot more veterans than many states as well as the Texas National Guard - units which are military you hapless fool.


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 22, 2010)

Don't mess with Texas isn't just a saying bub.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 23, 2010)

Zona said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



You're an idiot.

Once you understand one crucial fact, that numerous prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We're not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here's a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002: 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others 

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002 

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998 

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002 

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002 

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002 

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002 

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002 

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating Americas response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002 

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002 

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 

"Saddams existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraqs enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002 

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administrations policy towards Iraq, I dont think there can be any question about Saddams conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002 

So if Bush lied then so did all these people including the Brits and all the non-American intelligence agencies.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Show me where in the constitution it states that once a states joins the union it cannot secede.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 23, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



And you an idiot and you little girl is sure to follow in Daddy's footsteps. A negative cannot be proven you stupid fuck!!


----------



## Zona (Mar 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




The Mexican army is a little larger than it was 150 years ago duffis.  You honestly think the entire country of mexico cant beat Texas if they seceded now?  Are you serious? 

Please Texas, secede!  That would be great.  America, if you hate it, leave.  Good luck and see ya.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 23, 2010)

Zona said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Oh and another fact you seem to ignore is the President cannont launch a war against anyone without Congressional approval. But I assume you're too fucking retarded to understand that. 

Has any one told you that you looked like Sean Hannity? Except Hannity doesn't dress up in the nazi regalia that you seem to wear so proudly.


----------



## Care4all (Mar 23, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



the congress gave up their power to declare war and GAVE IT ALL to george bush in the iraqi resolution....no one from congress determined to go to war, they did not even declare war, as per our constitution with 2/3's vote in the house and senate, they gave up this duty and power, and as said, gave it ALL to gwb....to be the decision maker on it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 23, 2010)

Zona said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



It wouldn't matter how large Mexico's army is, because Texans have proven that even when outnumbered, 187 Texans against 900 Mexicans solidiers, Texans kicked ass!


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 23, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



We have not declared war since WWII.... so don't go with your bullshit Bush Derangement Syndrome.... your little hero JFK was about as much into your conspiracy tale as GWB, considering Vietnam


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Mar 23, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Fact is no war was ever declared against Iraq. But I was speaking in generalities when I stated that the President alone could not declare war and you seem to be in agreement with that statement. Another fact is the United States has engaged in extended military combat that were authorized by Congress, but short of a formal declaration of war i.e. The First and Second Barbary Wars, Intervention in the Russian Civil War, Vietnam War, Gulf War and Iraq War.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 23, 2010)

Zona said:


> America, if you hate it, leave.  Good luck and see ya.


I don't hate America; I despise socialism, a failed concept still embraced by too many fools. 
If the socialist Democratic party turns the USA into another socialist quagmire then I will want my state to leave. Because the USA will no longer be the nation which our founders brought into being and only by saving a place where traditional values of hard work and integrity are respected will there be any hope that America can ever be revived.


----------



## Zona (Mar 23, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




WHO WAS PRESIDENT WHEN WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR WMD'S.  I guarentee you, you and your party would blame Obama if he started that damn war.  You do know you guys say the Aphgan war is "his" now.   Sound familiar?

I was in the service during this time, and I can tell you for a fact we all thought we were fighting Iraq because we thought they had something to do with 9/11 as well.

THAT IS THE PRESIDENTS RESPONSIBLITY.  PERIOD.

Oh and fuck Hannity.


----------



## Zona (Mar 23, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > America, if you hate it, leave.  Good luck and see ya.
> ...



THIS IS THE END OF AMERICA AS WE KNOW IT.  Same exact thing said when they started social security, Medicare, equal rights, giving the women the vote etc etc 


Keep saying it and stay on the side of No.  You are going down in history (once again) on the wrong side.


----------



## Zona (Mar 23, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Over a hundred years ago!  Seriously.  Wow.


----------



## Douger (Mar 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Like Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Colin Powell, Ollie North, Geithner, Bernanke and Greenspan ?.............


----------



## rikules (Mar 23, 2010)

Nonelitist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Since I have heard cons say that the REAL ENEMIES of America are the liberals at home it is fair to say that they are guilty of the same thing.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 23, 2010)

Zona said:


> Keep saying it and stay on the side of No.  You are going down in history (once again) on the wrong side.



Gee a lot of British warned the Empire they were going in the wrong direction in the late 19th century, and what do you know they were right.
The common fool in Britain poo-pooed them, calling them alarmist fools, but the *alarmists* were right. 

The health care bill threatens to drive the US into horrific multi-generational debt. But all the socialist idiots can do is pat themselves on the back and proclaim a job well done. You might have to rethink your moronic stance about socialism being a good thing when the US loses its superpower status because of socialism induced debt.


----------



## rikules (Mar 23, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



regardless of what they were sworn to uphold we can at least assume the following;

MOST of the military are conservatives
MANY of the military leaders are evangelical christian conservatives
the air force academy is being run by evangelical christians
evangelical christians/conservatives havce a tendency to PROMOTE THEIR OWN into influential positions while removing as many "undesirables" (liberals, moderates, sane and rational people) as they can
MOST policemen are conserevative
ALL militias are conservatives

I can see where a secessionist movement might attract a LOT of the military

or even a coup.

As long as they believe they are RIGHT and their enemies are ....ENEMIES of GOD and America...
they could easily justify the worst behavior


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 23, 2010)

rikules said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You left out that our Military are loyal Americans and have sworn to uphold the Constitution. Those who secede are not covered by our Constitution

They will still be secessionist traitors and will not have the Military equipment and logistics support to sustain themselves. They will be relentlessly hunted down like all traitors are and they will die a cowards death


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 23, 2010)

The Tea Party somehow has this romantic view that they are the moral equivalent to the Patriots of the American Revolution.

However, their tactics, rhetoric and actions place them closer to the Southern racists who protested the Civil Rights legislation. Both thought the Constitution was on their side and both thought they were patriotic, both screamed about States Rights, both screamed about secession, both blamed the Liberals for all their problems. 

History will look at both with disdain


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 23, 2010)

A professor of history I know has his students argue whether the Dems and the Pubs today are the equivalents of the Patriots and the Loyalists then.  Apparently the young Pubs identify with the Loyalists.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> They will be relentlessly hunted down like all traitors are and they will die a cowards death


It must take a super sized serving of gall for a craven like you to talk of cowardice.


----------



## Maple (Mar 23, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Yes, but it won't be for long, only 7 more months until doom's day for the dems. This country will go red from sea to shining sea.

How many people died because they HAD health insurance??????????????? 

You libs crack me up when you stand up there and say- so- and so died because they had NO health insurance. You seem to think that if you have health insurance and health care that you won't EVER DIE. Sorry, but God isn't listening, and he's not on board with Obamacare. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL


----------



## Maple (Mar 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Tea Party somehow has this romantic view that they are the moral equivalent to the Patriots of the American Revolution.
> 
> However, their tactics, rhetoric and actions place them closer to the Southern racists who protested the Civil Rights legislation. Both thought the Constitution was on their side and both thought they were patriotic, both screamed about States Rights, both screamed about secession, both blamed the Liberals for all their problems.
> 
> History will look at both with disdain




We are patriots, and the only thing that history will disdain is the bankrupting of this country by a bunch of liberal lunatics who actually think we can afford another entitlement program when the ones we have are unfunded and bankrupting the country already.

 BTW- Walgreen's and Walmart across the country are not allowing any new medicaid prescriptions, that's been government run for years. The cost of filling scripts is a lose - lose situation for them.

How many people have died because they HAD health insurance and access to medical care???


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 23, 2010)

Maple said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Tea Party somehow has this romantic view that they are the moral equivalent to the Patriots of the American Revolution.
> ...



Self answering: far less than those who did not.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 23, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Source?
I can show how you could be wrong
5 million people have health care and receive treatment; all should survive, and would even without any treatment. 5% get treated by quack doctors and die as a result, that is 250,000 dead because they got treatment.
1 million people do not have health care and do not receive treatment. Half of those do not have serious conditions and survive easily. Half have serious conditions and only 60% of them survive. That yields 200,000 dead from lack of health care.

In that situation more died from having bad health care than died from not having health care. 

So we really need a link for your source.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 23, 2010)

In other words, you have no evidence for your statement that more will die with insurance than without.  No need to talk to you further.


----------



## froggy (Mar 23, 2010)

Promising no money from healthcare bill will go to abortions is what got it passed, so all pro-lifer deserve the credit for the ins. bill passing.


----------



## Cuyo (Mar 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Tea Party somehow has this romantic view that they are the moral equivalent to the Patriots of the American Revolution.
> 
> However, their tactics, rhetoric and actions place them closer to the Southern racists who protested the Civil Rights legislation. Both thought the Constitution was on their side and both thought they were patriotic, both screamed about States Rights, both screamed about secession, both blamed the Liberals for all their problems.
> 
> History will look at both with disdain



Well said, grasshopper.  Well said.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 23, 2010)

Charles Stucker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



Just cannot keep from continueing to prove yourself an idiot, can you.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 23, 2010)

Maple said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Tea Party somehow has this romantic view that they are the moral equivalent to the Patriots of the American Revolution.
> ...




You will be remembered for the radical element you allowed to take over your movement, for your insensitivity to sick people, for harrassing a man with Parkinsons disease, for infiltrating town halls and refusing to let others speak and for your racist underbelly


----------



## saveliberty (Mar 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Gee Maple, you've been really busy.  I wish I could manage my time as well.  Perhaps you will be remembered as someone who asked for no entitlement from his country.  That requested fiscal responsibility be exercised for the benefit of every American.  That saw the financial ruin of our country meant less opportunity for America and less ability to provide health to any person here.  That was colorblind and deaf to the shrill alarms of those who merely sought to gain control over your life and future.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 23, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



Isn't Maple on government assistance?


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Mar 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Likewise....and as an added point of order...no matter how many times you and other sychophants try to pin racism and bigotry on the Republicans....know this...the Democrats and people like you will ALWAYS and FOREVER OWN THE RACIST POLICYS THIS COUNTRY HAD, HAS NOW AND THOSE IT TRYS TO FIX.  All that Dixiecrat shit from the 60's is nothing but lies.  Ask The Grand Cleagle of the Senate and KKK recruiter....Mr. Byrd. (Democrat)


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Mar 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're such a fucking fool. You get what you work for in this Country you mentally ill dipshit. You think you can shoulder World Poverty? LOL!!! I laugh at your pipe dreams. You're a fucking unrealistic, clueless moron. Weak minded people like you bring down Nations with your fantasy World. ~BH


----------



## Fenris Wolf (Mar 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Tea Party somehow has this romantic view that they are the moral equivalent to the Patriots of the American Revolution.
> 
> However, their tactics, rhetoric and actions place them closer to the Southern racists who protested the Civil Rights legislation. Both thought the Constitution was on their side and both thought they were patriotic, both screamed about States Rights, both screamed about secession, both blamed the Liberals for all their problems.
> 
> History will look at both with disdain



You version of the civil war is remedial at best. The Union was under the control of Lincoln who was a Republican Conservative who was indifferent to the abolitionist movement. He was fear-full that European nations would attack the rest of the Union in a weakened state. Which could have been possible since the French, along with a few other nations, were involved with commerce almost exclusively with the south and also supplied them during the war. The Confederacy was under the control of Jacksonian Democrats who were pro-slavery. 
Secession is a American as apple pie, after all our country was founded on secession for a tyrannical government.
President Buchanan even said it is unconstitutional to use force to coerce a state to stay in the Union in 1860.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 24, 2010)

The anti-secession folks must want to be British subjects again. After all sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. No one alive voted to join the United States. No one (or very few) who fought on the side of the continentals during the Revolutionary period voted or volunteered to colonize America with grants from the English crown. So either a local populace has NO right to self determination (and hence must submit to tyrannical rule by a distant government) or it does. If it does, then the colonies had a right to rebel and states have a right to secede. If not, then go live in England you Tories.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 24, 2010)

Fenris Wolf said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Tea Party somehow has this romantic view that they are the moral equivalent to the Patriots of the American Revolution.
> ...





At least I know the difference between the Civil War and the American Revolution.

Your concept of the Civil War and Lincolns role is skewed by your revisionist visions


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 24, 2010)

Charles Stucker would have been a very good Tory in the War of Independence.  He couldn't be a Patriot with how he believes today.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 24, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Charles Stucker would have been a very good Tory in the War of Independence.  He couldn't be a Patriot with how he believes today.



I'm the one who *DOES* believe in local self determination. You are the one who supports the distant repressive regime. 
Local self Determination = Patriot
Distant Tyrant = Tory

Hope this clears things up for you, I realize you are helplessly ignorant, but every fact counts. Perhaps one day you will be a real man.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 24, 2010)

You better go read George Washington, John Adams, and others about your silly philosophy.


----------



## Charles Stucker (Mar 24, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You better go read George Washington, John Adams, and others about your silly philosophy.



As I recall, and you can correct me if I am mistaken, but George Washington, commander of the Continental Army during the revolution was fighting on the side of local self determination was he not?


----------

