# The Civil War Of 2016: U.S. Military Officers Told To Plan To Fight Americans...



## paulitician (Aug 11, 2012)

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future. It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. Its a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Armys Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas. They claim that the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment, not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isnt a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil. This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Bensons case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016 - Washington Times
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 11, 2012)

It's a dream of the left, it's what they say when they aren't saying the tea party is dead.

More likely is obama making a speech after he loses the election that he won't let criminals take over the government and undo everything he's done and order to immediate arrest of prominent republicans.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It's a dream of the left, it's what they say when they aren't saying the tea party is dead.
> 
> More likely is obama making a speech after he loses the election that he won't let criminals take over the government and undo everything he's done and order to immediate arrest of prominent republicans.



obama lives in a conspiracy world don't you know?


----------



## GuyPinestra (Aug 11, 2012)

2016 is too far in the future...


----------



## bodecea (Aug 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It's a dream of the left, it's what they say when they aren't saying the tea party is dead.
> ...


----------



## Sallow (Aug 11, 2012)

They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It's a dream of the left, it's what they say when they aren't saying the tea party is dead.
> 
> More likely is obama making a speech after he loses the election that he won't let criminals take over the government and undo everything he's done and order to immediate arrest of prominent republicans.



People better start taking the Socialists/Progressives more seriously. Americans have been warned. It started when they declared anyone opposed to them and their agendas, are to be labelled "Anti-American Terrorists." It's not like they're doing this so secretly either. Napolitano & her Homeland Security Gestapo have publicly proclaimed this. This is how it starts. They are very serious.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 11, 2012)

You got it wrong..

The evil GUBMINT is planning a takeover as soon as Obama loses in November

You heard it here first


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 11, 2012)

bodecea said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Your life is irony


----------



## paulitician (Aug 11, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> You got it wrong..
> 
> The evil GUBMINT is planning a takeover as soon as Obama loses in November
> 
> You heard it here first



Take it up with your fellow Socialist/Progressive assholes. This is their envisioned and planned scenario. Guess you didn't take my advice about reading posts first before posting your predictably boring & snotty replies. Oh well, ignorance is bliss i guess.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 11, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It's a dream of the left, it's what they say when they aren't saying the tea party is dead.
> ...



He lives in a world fueled by cocaine paranoia.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



The conspiracy for obama is that anyone who doesn't agree with him is an enemy of his dream world that he would like to transform America into.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Such accusations about Whineylittlereb.....but you may be onto something....


----------



## OODA_Loop (Aug 11, 2012)

_&#8216;If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun&#8217;_

- Barack Obama


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 11, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Don't be bitter because I can take your woman.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 11, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It's a dream of the left, it's what they say when they aren't saying the tea party is dead.
> ...



At some point the left will be forced into taking action consistent with their words.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 11, 2012)

Maybe tea party extremists shouldn't "seize control of South Carolina," whatever the fuck that means, then.


----------



## Zxereus (Aug 11, 2012)

Question is, would the military fight for Obama when it's against American citizens ?

I know of several family members and friends who have discussed this sort of thing, and all of them pretty much are the same. There is no way they would do it.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 11, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Yeah, too many are dismissing this. This is their vision & plan. It's not just some fantasy or 'Conspiracy Theory.' They are currently at work implementing their plan. They're in the process of attempting to condition minds to accept the idea of justifying our Military attacking fellow Citizens. They are serious. It's not a joke.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 11, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



as you sit on your fat nosey nancy ass like a priss and bitch about it on the internetz? Forgive people for not taking your gumption too seriously, bro.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 11, 2012)

Zxereus said:


> Question is, would the military fight for Obama when it's against American citizens ?
> 
> I know of several family members and friends who have discussed this sort of thing, and all of them pretty much are the same. There is no way they would do it.



It's a very tough call. An order is an order.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 11, 2012)

G.T. said:


> Maybe tea party extremists shouldn't "seize control of South Carolina," whatever the fuck that means, then.



South Carolina.....  Almost as funny as North Carolina.


----------



## GuyPinestra (Aug 11, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> > Question is, would the military fight for Obama when it's against American citizens ?
> ...



Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers &#8211; Guardians of the Republic


----------



## paulitician (Aug 11, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Zxereus said:
> ...



I hear ya, but how many would disobey an order?


----------



## Politico (Aug 12, 2012)

I laughed. I cried. Mostly laughed.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2012)

Zxereus said:


> Question is, would the military fight for Obama when it's against American citizens ?
> 
> I know of several family members and friends who have discussed this sort of thing, and all of them pretty much are the same. There is no way they would do it.



As soon as one of those gun nuts kills one of their buddies, soldiers will retaliate with a vengeance


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2012)

Obama has said we're the enemy


----------



## bodecea (Aug 12, 2012)

Zxereus said:


> Question is, would the military fight for Obama when it's against American citizens ?
> 
> I know of several family members and friends who have discussed this sort of thing, and all of them pretty much are the same. There is no way they would do it.



Good to know they wouldn't pull a "Kent State".


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2012)

Those who take up arms against their country are traitors

Our soldiers would treat them accordingly


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2012)

I think a lot of the military would support the effort.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 12, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You are getting things confused with Bush's 'You are either with us or against us'.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I think a lot of the military would support the effort.



then theyre retarded.

if you think we're in a state of necessary armed revolt, fuck are you doing abo0o0t it?

egg sack, leigh.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 12, 2012)

NoNukes said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



The difference is, Bush was talking about foreign countries, obama is talking about Americans.


----------



## NoNukes (Aug 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Bush was talking about anyone who opposed what he was doing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2012)

NoNukes said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



and you think obama is somehow different than bush? explain.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 12, 2012)

Sallow said:


> They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.



9/11 was planned long before Bush ever took office and was in motion long before he became President. What you must have meant is if Clinton had taken the Middle East seriously.
Or are you claiming the 9/11 terrorists did not start planning until Bush was elected and did not start assembling training and intel gathering till he was in office?

Ohh and be specific what policy or policies did Bush implement between Jan 2001 and September 11 2001 that caused the attack?


----------



## Douger (Aug 12, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.
> ...


AHA !
 You knew !
&#8220;A New Pearl Harbor&#8221;


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I think a lot of the military would support the effort.



They didn't before...

In the past when we had rightwing terrorists taking up arms against our country and bombing innocent civilians, our soldiers had no problems putting them down.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I think a lot of the military would support the effort.
> ...



The only wing I recall that blew up buildings who were identified as a left or right wing is the weather underground an d they were left wing.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 12, 2012)

NoNukes said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Bush was talking specifically about the Afghanistan coalition.   

obama on the other hand is talking about Americans but not the occupy shitters who are the only ones that vandalized and destroyed property, but those Americans who might vote against him.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 12, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Terrorists are no longer defined by bombing innocent civilians, but by voting against democrats.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



There was a time in our history when our extreme right wing resorted to terrorism in enforcing their twisted views. They resorted to firebombing churches, schools and lynching those who opposed their views

The federal government stepped in to stop them and no troops refused


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Care to identify those right wingers of the past?

OH you're talking about robert byrd and his group. got it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



true.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You got it......Extremist right wing who resorted to terrorism to fight against government policies on civil rights

US troops were called in and had no problem taking up arms against the terrorist. 

Evidently, the Oath Keepers would not support their countrymen if it came down to that


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Those would be democrats.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 12, 2012)

Sallow said:


> They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.



In the less than 1 year he had in Office before it happened? Doubtful, Perhaps if Clinton ad in the Several Years before the attack when it was in the Planning stages.

Dumb Shit.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Right wing extremists


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The only wing I recall that blew up buildings who were identified as a left or right wing is the weather underground an d they were left wing.
> ...




Because they saw the Justice in what they were doing, See what happens when you ask the All Volunteer, Mostly Conservative Military of today to turn on Americans simply because they don't agree with Liberals. lol

Oh and just a note, most of the people doing the lynchings and Fire Bombings back then, were Democrats.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2012)

Charles_Main said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Southerners.

Both Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans supported the right wing terrorism. In fact, Northern Democrats were among the leaders in fighting for civil rights. Stop trying to turn a North South issue into a Democrat Republican issue


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 12, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
> 
> At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future. It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. Its a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
> 
> ...



I'm at least happy to note that the military officer who co-wrote this  highly partisan drivel is retiring; I'd hate to see an officer with such views of military policy in command of anything.

Second, use the regular army?  What the hell does the good colonel expect to need in such an event as he postulates-a full heavy division? Helicopter gunships? Would he like a squadron of B-52s to prep the AO first?  Or maybe he'd just like to use a tactical nuke?Yeah, I can see it now; heavy-handed, massive overkill on a situation that maybe would require a National Guard MP company to handle; I can't think of anything which could be better calculated to de-legitimize both the federal government and the military - actually DO something like that, and you'd have a full blown guerrilla war in two weeks' time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So Robert Byrd was a right winger?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Bill Ayers wasn't a southerner


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



During the short time he belonged to the Klan he was. As he aged he  moved to the center and actually became liberal on many issues.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You don't get to be one of the leaders of the klan and be a short timer. sorry.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Link


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 12, 2012)

Not only did democrats protect slavery historically, but they intend to restore slavery today.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Link for what?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Aug 12, 2012)

Nutters sure do love to fantasize about civil war.


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Those who take up arms against their country are traitors
> 
> Our soldiers would treat them accordingly



That scenario, cartoonish as it was, hardly sounds like "taking up arms against their country"; sounds more like a local dispute to me. Then again, when your president calls any and all of us who won't vote for him "the enemy", maybe not. I suppose the author of this, like you, would love to turn troops against your political foes, while you, of course, sit on the sidelines and enjoy watching the massacre. You remind me of the kind of damnyankees who cheered on their boys in blue against my ancestors 150 years ago; of course, they paid a substitute to do their fighting, killing and maybe dying, for them; some things never change.  I can't help but wonder if you'd have the same enthusiasm for fratricidal combat, if the other party was in power, and controlled the military....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Those who take up arms against their country are traitors
> 
> Our soldiers would treat them accordingly



Since congress gave the president sole authority to pick his cabinet without any congressional oversight we have become a nation of no elective representation since it will be those cabinet members and heads of departments who will be making the rules and regulations we are to follow. I think at that time revolt is all you have left.


----------



## tjvh (Aug 12, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Um... Abe Lincoln was a Republican.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Those who take up arms against their country are traitors
> ...



The cabinet is part of the Executive Branch and is confirmed by Congress


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

I think it all comes down to what would precipitate the "insurrection" 

If you had a President whose favorite expression was "Bypass Congress" and the People revolted in response to Obama casting about like a Dictator, then maybe the military would do their duty and defend the people against the domestic enemy, but not he one the Progs wanted

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peECAPrA_2g]Barack Obama "Bypass Congress" Dictator? YOU DECIDE (Original) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2012)

Except...you dont do dick but complain about it on teh internetz. what courage of conviction.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

Conservatives beware. The Socialists/Progressives are in the process of getting you labelled 'Anti-American Terrorists.' And they've been pretty open about doing it too. It's not a secret.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Conservatives beware. The Socialists/Progressives are in the process of getting you labelled 'Anti-American Terrorists.' And they've been pretty open about doing it too. It's not a secret.



what are you going to do about it, commando?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Conservatives beware. The Socialists/Progressives are in the process of getting you labelled 'Anti-American Terrorists.' And they've been pretty open about doing it too. It's not a secret.



They're reporting us to their Fearless Leader, just like they do in every other Progressive Mecca: Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea, Cuba and their hometown the USSR but when they had a real strong Democrat Leader like Stalin


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

No, Progressive aren't Fascists.  No, not at all, no Fascism here. Where do people get these strange ideas?


----------



## Douger (Aug 13, 2012)

"OMG ! OMG ! Why did you shoot him ? He was unarmed !"
Sorry mom, just following orders. Dad was on the terruh watch list. 
Chukluk-chuklunk.....and you're a known accomplice.
Gawd Blass murka.
*BANG !*


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

Douger said:


> "OMG ! OMG ! Why did you shoot him ? He was unarmed !"
> Sorry mom, just following orders. Dad was on the terruh watch list.
> Chukluk-chuklunk.....and you're a known accomplice.
> Gawd Blass murka.
> *BANG !*



Yes, how many in the Military would follow these orders? Personally, I think a great many would.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2012)

smells like vagina in here. it's getting quite pussified this past week, all these dudes acting like their country has been taken over, and only have the gumption to sit and gossip about it on the internet like little fucking bitches.

sitting there in their moth-ball smelling disgusting living rooms, looking up the day's propoganda articles and can't wait to get on boards and tell everybody, like little prisses. 

police state - and you cry on the internets while doing nothing.

progressive commies taken over government and "its over!" - and you cry about it on the internet, is the extent of your fightback. 

sad.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > "OMG ! OMG ! Why did you shoot him ? He was unarmed !"
> ...



Just think of how many Progressive children will turn their parents in!


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > "OMG ! OMG ! Why did you shoot him ? He was unarmed !"
> ...



You think a great many in the military would shoot their own fathers?

The guys who risk their necks so you can sit here like an effeminate clown on the internet? Those guys, would shoot their own fathers you say? What a piece of shit, you really are.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Aug 13, 2012)

Military officers take an oath to protect and follow the US Constitution, not the POTUS....so he would make a serious mistake trying to put himself above the Constitution with the military. He would be locked away in some hole if he tried.


----------



## regent (Aug 13, 2012)

Spent a brief time in the military police and one of training programs was crowd control, we used bayonets and advanced on the make-believe crowd using bayonet thrusts. The military has often been used to control civilians, think of the Whiskey Rebellion, the bonus veterans, Little Rock and others. The primary job of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States. The questions politicians have, is how can I capitalize on this event to make the other political party look evil.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

regent said:


> Spent a brief time in the military police and one of training programs was crowd control, we used bayonets and advanced on the make-believe crowd using bayonet thrusts. The military has often been used to control civilians, think of the Whiskey Rebellion, the bonus veterans, Little Rock and others. The primary job of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States. The questions politicians have, is how can I capitalize on this event to make the other political party look evil.



Good points. It's all about forcing agendas on others. Unfortunately, that's what our Nation has become. Very few Americans fight for real Freedom & Liberty.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Spent a brief time in the military police and one of training programs was crowd control, we used bayonets and advanced on the make-believe crowd using bayonet thrusts. The military has often been used to control civilians, think of the Whiskey Rebellion, the bonus veterans, Little Rock and others. The primary job of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States. The questions politicians have, is how can I capitalize on this event to make the other political party look evil.
> ...



You don't fight for that.


----------



## bodecea (Aug 13, 2012)

regent said:


> Spent a brief time in the military police and one of training programs was crowd control, we used bayonets and advanced on the make-believe crowd using bayonet thrusts. The military has often been used to control civilians, think of the Whiskey Rebellion, the bonus veterans, Little Rock and others. The primary job of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States. The questions politicians have, is how can I capitalize on this event to make the other political party look evil.



I.E. Kent State.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Those soldiers would have every right to disobey an order considering it would be illegal to attack US citizens...

It's the left who are brainwashing people into their domestic terrorist cult - they're the domestic threat - they're the ones who dream of using the military to enforce their tyrannical laws.....

I'm quite certain the strong majority of the military would disobey orders to attack civilians. Hell I'm sure many would just take their guns and flip sides - that's what I would do.

Besides - it was standing up to oppressive authoritarian government that birthed this nation. 

They say history repeats itself and that is 100% true.... People or societies never learn from their past out of pure ignorance and those societies always repeat those past mistakes.....


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

"...an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens."

God damn right I would want the army to go in and take control of the city back from an "extremist  militia.  Who in their right mind would support a militia taking over a town and holding it's elected offical hostage?


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

regent said:


> Spent a brief time in the military police and one of training programs was crowd control, we used bayonets and advanced on the make-believe crowd using bayonet thrusts. The military has often been used to control civilians, think of the Whiskey Rebellion, the bonus veterans, Little Rock and others. The primary job of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States. The questions politicians have, is how can I capitalize on this event to make the other political party look evil.



Quite so. This is why, in those  exercises, your primary objective was to disperse the crowd; inflicting casualties was secondary, and if avoidable, undesirable. There is a large difference between using the military abroad, and using it on home soil. Abroad, you want to use overwhelming force and maximum violence; "shock and awe", so as to win quickly; the destruction involved is secondary as it is being done on enemy soil. At home, the opposite applies; here you don't want to use a sledgehammer to swat a fly (that may be OK outside, but in your own house, it tears up the walls and the furniture); you do not want to tear up your own infrastructure, nor (for political reasons, if nothing else) do you want to create even the appearance of a "massacre". Bod brought up Kent State, which is a good case in point; there, you had a small National Guard unit that panicked and fired (as much over a crowd as into it). Even though having the troops there was reasonably justified, the shooting was not, and even the relatively few casualties that resulted were seen as the result of massive "overreaction". For purely pragmatic reasons, if not moral ones, you don't want that.

I've seen enough combat, to know that you do not want that on American soil, unless it is absolutely unavoidable. I caution both sides on this; it is a horrible thing to contemplate, yet I have seen some on both sides here take a rather cavalier attitude toward the possibility. The thought of my beloved army being dragged into such a hideous thing is repugnant to me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected.  But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town. 

The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.



paulitician said:


> Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
> 
> At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future. It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. Its a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
> 
> ...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected.  But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.
> 
> The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.
> 
> ...



Sounds like Socialist/Progressive wishful thinking. This stuff is very disturbing.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Spent a brief time in the military police and one of training programs was crowd control, we used bayonets and advanced on the make-believe crowd using bayonet thrusts. The military has often been used to control civilians, think of the Whiskey Rebellion, the bonus veterans, Little Rock and others. The primary job of the President is to enforce the laws of the United States. The questions politicians have, is how can I capitalize on this event to make the other political party look evil.
> ...



And today people are brainwashed into believing tyranny is liberty.... That tyrannical laws are actually liberation laws.... That eliminating liberties is actually liberating because those said liberties are occasionally abused.

I could care less if liberties are abused. You don't let a few spoiled apples ruin liberties for all...

That's why those who seek to destroy the Bill of Rights are the domestic enemy - not those defending those liberties.... Politicians that legislate tyrannical laws are the domestic enemy.... Just because 535 people all concur on a law and that said law is not challenged that doesn't mean that said law is "legal" considering that law violates the Bill of Rights - even more so those tyrannical laws set legal precedent for more tyranny.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.
> ...



Ah the old blame it on clinton routine.......

Following the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the new president sent stringent anti-terrorism legislation to Congress as part of his first crime bill, including new deportation powers and a federal death penalty for terrorists. The passage of portions of that legislation many months later was the last time he would enjoy real cooperation against terrorism from congressional conservatives. When he sought to expand those protections in 1995 after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, he was frustrated by a coalition of civil libertarians and anti-government conservatives, who argued that his overreaction posed a threat to constitutional rights. 

No anti-terrorism legislation reached Clintons desk until more than a year later. Thanks to an increasingly obstreperous Republican majority on both sides of the Capitol, law enforcement officials were denied new authority for roving wiretaps and new powers to monitor money laundering that Clinton had requested. All that would have to wait until after Sept. 11. 

Back then, Sullivan was among those who accused Clinton of having shredded civil liberties in the war on terrorism, a concern that no longer seems to disturb him. His memory of the actual legislation is pretty dim, anyway. He wrongly claims that the administrations 1996 bill focused on domestic terrorism rather than dealing with the real threat from al-Qaida. Among that bills most controversial provisions were new powers to turn away suspect immigrants, swifter deportation procedures and a new deportation court that can view secret evidence. 

Recalcitrant Republicans, led by then-Senator John Ashcroft, later defeated another potentially crucial White House initiative. Along with computer-industry lobbyists, they rejected proposals to tighten controls on encryption software and to ensure that law enforcement officials could crack the kind of coded messages found on the laptop owned by Ramzi Yusef, the man who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Intelligence experts believe that encrypted computer links were probably used by the Sept. 11 plotters and their masters in al-Qaida. Some Democrats, no doubt swayed like their GOP colleagues by the generosity of industry lobbyists, joined the Republicans to deny this important tool to law enforcement. 

The Clinton administrations attempts to improve airport security were similarly obstructed in Congress. The Gore commission urged U.S. air carriers to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems, to upgrade poorly trained private security personnel and to install high-tech baggage-screening equipment. But action on key measures was stalled by lawmakers at the behest of airline lobbyists, and ultimately by the sluggish bureaucracy at the Federal Aviation Administration. Key senators on the Senate Aviation Subcommittee shot down mandated changes recommended by the White House and instead urged further study. (Eight of the nine Republicans on the subcommittee had received contributions from the major airlines.) 

While Clinton and Gore certainly share responsibility for failing to push Congress and their own bureaucrats harder, the aviation industry could rely on conservative ideologues and PAC contributions to stymie burdensome reforms. 

Among those attacking the Gore Commission recommendations, incidentally, was the New Republic, which noted that two billion dollars a year to guard against terrorism and sabotage would amount to a cost per life saved of well over $300 million. The cost of such libertarian dogma must now be measured in thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Even before the Gore Commission report, the Clinton administration had moved to place bomb-detection equipment in major airports and to upgrade background checks on airport personnel. Unfortunately, as Samuel Skinner, former transportation secretary in the first Bush administration, told an interviewer in 1996: [T]he airlines decided it was not in their short-term best interest to pay for these services from their own pocket, so they made a concerted effort to make sure that [they] didnt have to pay for this and didnt have to charge passengers for it. Also unfortunately, congressional Republicans had repealed a tax on airline tickets that would have financed high-tech improvements in baggage screening and passenger security. 

If corporate lobbyists pursued their own narrow interests at the expense of national security, so did Clintons adversaries on Capitol Hill. 

Among the most egregious was Senator Phil Gramm, who blocked an administration bill to close loopholes that let terrorist groups launder money through offshore banks. The Texas Republican denounced that legislation, now belatedly endorsed by the Bush White House as necessary to dismantle al-Qaida, as totalitarian. 

Don&#8217;t blame Clinton - Salon.com


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

This is incredibly disturbing, no matter which side is planning it. And make no mistake about it, both sides are very willing to concoct such plans. This is only proof of one side's attempt to oppress those who oppose their agendas. It can go both ways though.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Are you talking about yourself, paulitician, because nothing is inherently socialist or progressive or moderate or reactionary about a government fulfilling its constitutional duty to overthrow domestic terrorists.

Your kind of statements demonstrate why the responsible right wing cannot take you as a serious commentator on American affairs.



paulitician said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected.  But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 13, 2012)

GoneBezerk said:


> Military officers take an oath to protect and follow the US Constitution, not the POTUS....so he would make a serious mistake trying to put himself above the Constitution with the military. He would be locked away in some hole if he tried.



Look around you.  How many people believe that obama and the nation are interchangeable.  Dissent with obama is disloyalty to the nation.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> "...an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens."
> 
> God damn right I would want the army to go in and take control of the city back from an "extremist  militia.  Who in their right mind would support a militia taking over a town and holding it's elected offical hostage?



A more realistic scenario would be OWS taking over Wall Street and holding traders hostage..

The Tea Party never demonstrated any sort of violence yet the Tea Party is used as the faux aggressor in this fictional scenario?

Besides, why the hell would a libertarian militia take a town when there would be no strategic point in doing such? - it would be more practical to take over the local military base itself.... The military would have big fucking problems if a base was seized....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.



Mr.Nick said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

That's why we are not having an election?



Katzndogz said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> > Military officers take an oath to protect and follow the US Constitution, not the POTUS....so he would make a serious mistake trying to put himself above the Constitution with the military. He would be locked away in some hole if he tried.
> ...


----------



## GoneBezerk (Aug 13, 2012)

While you're busy telling your lies, please tell us about how Democraps put up barriers to prevent the FBI and CIA from sharing info they had on the 9/11 terrorists. 

You know, you liberal nuts that hate the intel community and FBI, that believe the FBI and CIA are nothing but troublemakers for Joe Schmoe "spying" on them 24/7.

Nevermind the handful of times Bill Clinton told the CIA to stand down on killing UBL in Afghanistan because of fear of his wives and children possibly dying in a raid. Yes, it is more important to let the #1 terrorists live than possibly harm his little kids in collateral damage.



BlindBoo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Are you talking about yourself, paulitician, because nothing is inherently socialist or progressive or moderate or reactionary about a government fulfilling its constitutional duty to overthrow domestic terrorists.
> 
> Your kind of statements demonstrate why the responsible right wing cannot take you as a serious commentator on American affairs.
> 
> ...



Like i said, this is Socialist/Progressive wishful thinking, and an awful affront to Freedom & Liberty. If they won't go along with your agenda, just label them 'Anti-American Terrorists.' It's as Un-American as it gets.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Your talking, pauli, is "wishful thinking" and nothing more.

You are no patriot, and your are no defender of freedom or liberty.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your talking, pauli, is "wishful thinking" and nothing more.
> 
> You are no patriot, and your are no defender of freedom or liberty.



This is your fellow Socialists/Progressives' plan, yet you're blaming me? Take it up with them. And then stop defending it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.

Let's keep matters straight here.

You are merely a fun sideshow on this  Board.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mean the authoritarian right wing that are on the same page as the authoritarian progressives?

That's why libertarians see no difference between most republicans and progressives - you're all for government and NEVER for liberty or the people.... You do as you're fucking told just like some little lap dog...

Because to you liberty takes a back seat to security....

This country wasn't founded on security it was founded on liberty...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.
> 
> Let's keep matters straight here.
> 
> You are merely a fun sideshow on this  Board.



Projection. And pretty weak too.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.
> 
> Let's keep matters straight here.
> 
> You are merely a fun sideshow on this  Board.



You're a big government authoritarian fuck that is extremely confused.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > "...an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens."
> ...



In the senario offered by the article doesn't say it was the Tea Party but a militia motivated by their goals, seizes a town.  The key here is 'Seizes a Town'  I don't care which extremist group or which town they take.  It would be up to the military to restore order in that town.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Lib-o-Pauli is gunning for more Fauxrageous stuff.  His premise is ridiculous.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I think it all comes down to what would precipitate the "insurrection"
> 
> If you had a President whose favorite expression was "Bypass Congress" and the People revolted in response to Obama casting like a Dictator, then maybe the military would do their duty and defend the people against the domestic enemy, but not he one the Progs wanted
> 
> Barack Obama "Bypass Congress" Dictator? YOU DECIDE (Original) - YouTube



So your position is that a president using executive orders is grounds for a military mutiny

What other grounds are on your list?


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 13, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It's a dream of the left, it's what they say when they aren't saying the tea party is dead.
> 
> More likely is obama making a speech after he loses the election that he won't let criminals take over the government and undo everything he's done and order to immediate arrest of prominent republicans.



idiot


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.
> ...



He's a useful idiot sock puppet that parrots his handlers talking points.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.
> ...



Not sure i would have summed it up that way, but accurate nonetheless.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I'd have to agree with you. You don't take a town, or seize it. You let the federal government take the first act of aggression. You must get the support of the public and attacking a town is not the way to do it.


----------



## grunt11b (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
> 
> At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future. It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. Its a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
> 
> ...



Wont happen, our military is full of troops with character, and turning their weapons inward would be an unlawful order that 90% would not agree to do. I think if anything like this would ever happen it would be UN troops that come in and do that, which would trigger a 3rd world war. Just my 2 cents, being a veteran and all.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



USMB Paradox:  The more a poster uses the term "LIBERTY" in their post, the less they actually support the concepts of libety


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

awe Bezerker doesn't like the truth.  What was the title of the last PDB before 9-11 that President Bush recieved?  How many times did they discuss al Quada and bin Laden?

Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Measures



GoneBezerk said:


> While you're busy telling your lies, please tell us about how Democraps put up barriers to prevent the FBI and CIA from sharing info they had on the 9/11 terrorists.
> 
> You know, you liberal nuts that hate the intel community and FBI, that believe the FBI and CIA are nothing but troublemakers for Joe Schmoe "spying" on them 24/7.
> 
> ...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Not as ridiculous as your wingnuts' premise. These are your fellow Socialists/Progressives who have concocted this plan.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

grunt11b said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
> ...



Our troops have already been ordered to point their guns at US born terrorists and they had no problem doing so


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.
> ...



How so? Please explain.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I think it all comes down to what would precipitate the "insurrection"
> ...



So if Obamafuck declared Martial Law for no fucking reason you would be fine with that?

That would only make Obamafuck president or rather dictator indefinitely.

Where do you draw the line???

Presidents just cant do whatever the fuck they want......


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



So you'd support an extremist militia that seized a town, disbanded the City Counsel, was holding the City's Mayor hostage and were stopping an searching vehicle on the interstate?

Yeah you go with that......


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.
> ...





Really motherfucker???

Name one position that I have taken that is not classical liberal??

Oh yeah, you're just talking out your ass now...

Now spare me your irrelevant one-liner response that will offer zero evidence to claim I don't understand or support liberty...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

Wait till the shoe's on the other foot. I'm pretty sure the Socialists/Progressives here defending this, will have a much different opinion. Once they're labelled "Anti-American Terrorists", you can bet they'll want to talk about Freedom & Liberty and the Constitution. Wait till others get a crack at their OWS movement. Their shallow dishonesty & hypocrisy will then be on full display. Give it some time. Just wait.


----------



## Douger (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> > "OMG ! OMG ! Why did you shoot him ? He was unarmed !"
> ...


Why would you expect murkin meatheads to act any differently than any other meathead in world history ?
What murkins have been being entertained by(shown their future) happening"somewhere else" would also surely happen in da land of the fee-home of the slave.
Meathead types are genetically pre-programmed to do anything they are told to do.
Remember that lunatic that dove into a bullet meant for Reagan ? Those types. The world is full of them.
murkins call them heroes.Intelligent people call them fools.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Again, a ridiculous wishful thinking premise. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this Bullshit.


----------



## grunt11b (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.
> ...



 That's odd coming from a person who supports a president who strips more liberty from the people daily through executive orders and failed legislation.


----------



## grunt11b (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



 Where "In America" has this happened?


----------



## grunt11b (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



 Of course he would be fine with it, until the guns where aimed at him and he realizes he was just part of the motor that drove the way to the end result, and now that they are done with him he is expendable as well.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Aug 13, 2012)

Some left-wing hack website is your evidence, you're a nutjob.

Uh, they held hearings that pointed back to Jamie Gorelick, a Clintonite, that created the CIA and FBI mess.

The head of the CIA's UBL task force says Clinton stopped them a handful of times from killing UBL.

Now go find some other bullshit website to cover up those facts, asswipe.



BlindBoo said:


> awe Bezerker doesn't like the truth.  What was the title of the last PDB before 9-11 that President Bush recieved?  How many times did they discuss al Quada and bin Laden?
> 
> Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism Measures
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



What do you call OWS??????

Sorry libertarians or anyone who would be willing to take on such an operation certainly wouldn't seize a town.... They'd seize a military base or an area that has some sort of strategic value or an area that has value to the government....

The whole faux scenario of seizing a town really shows how fucking dumb progressives are and what they believe is logical....


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I don't think the assholes who devised this plan are dumb. They desperately want it to happen. In fact, they may even work to make it happen in the future. Stay tuned.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Let me quote from your link:

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future. It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an *extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens.* Its a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

So I ask again would you support the group who seized the town or not?


----------



## whitehall (Aug 13, 2012)

The most important thing people should know is that any administration can get away with any violation of the Constitution as long as it has full support of the media. The media made excuses for big dumb Janet Reno's decision to invade a quirky religious compound with tanks and attack helicopters and poison gas. The lame excuse was that the Army taught FBI agents to drive tanks so the Army wasn't really in violation of the law. America believed the lie because the media accepted it.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

You've reduced the conversation to this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs]Jane you Ignorant slut - YouTube[/ame]



GoneBezerk said:


> Some left-wing hack website is your evidence, you're a nutjob.
> 
> Uh, they held hearings that pointed back to Jamie Gorelick, a Clintonite, that created the CIA and FBI mess.
> 
> ...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



And i say again, Socialist/Progressive wishful thinking. It ain't gonna happen, despite your fantasies. You just want to use this ridiculous scenario to silence anyone who opposes your agenda. But that's ok, when the shoe's on the other foot, i know you'll have a completely different opinion. I'm patient, i can wait for you to come around. But you should be standing up against this stuff right now.


----------



## g5000 (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
> 
> At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled &#8220;Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A &#8216;Vision&#8217; of the Future.&#8221; It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an &#8220;extremist militia motivated by the goals of the &#8216;tea party&#8217; movement&#8221; seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, &#8220;occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.&#8221; The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It&#8217;s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
> 
> ...



Here is the orginal article written by Benson and Weber.

This is not a US military sanctioned piece.  They even make mention of the Army's Operating Concept and state the Army has not considered operations within the United States.  

It is the _opinion_ of the authors that the Army should make such considerations.  And from there, they wander off into a pipe dream.

Here is Benson's mini-autobiography:



> Kevin Benson, Ph.D., Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired, is currently a seminar leader at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  He holds a B.S. from the United States Military Academy, an M.S. from The Catholic University of America, an MMAS from the School of Advanced Military Studies and a Ph.D. from the University of Kansas.  During his career, COL Benson served with the 5th Infantry Division, the 1st Armored Division, the 1st Cavalry Division, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, XVIII Airborne Corps and Third U.S. Army. He also served as the Director, School of Advanced Military Studies. *These are his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army or Department of Defense.*




The piece itself is amateur hour.  It's like a really bad novel that you throw away after reading the first couple pages.  I can only hope that Benson's seminars at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies are about how to sell Amway products to supplement their meager pay.


.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
You are the boards prime example of a poster who assumes liberty for himself yet denies it to those who believe differently


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Intelligent, right thinking Americans simply pat pat your libers on your silly little heads, Nick.



Mr.Nick said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your silly statements, Nick, demonstrate why the responsible right wing just chuckle and pat you on the head, before kicking your ass.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

That makes no sense at all, but you can be sure that local elites will not be allowed to overthrow constitutional authority and liberty.



Mr.Nick said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am no socialist/progressive and you are no defender of American freedom or liberty.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

This from the greatest sock puppet the board has ever seen?  How funny.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

There are no socialist progressives on the loose in America.

But chant that, if you take over a town, so the troops who defeat youcan have a good chuckle as they blind fold you in front of the brick wall.

You silly morons.



paulitician said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Try understand the truth, Nick.

If you revolt against the government, your neighbors will stand you against the wall before the Army gets to you.



Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Nick, you are no classical liberal.

A small-time gangster thug is all you are.



Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Sorry I don't see it as a left/right issue but an "extremist" verse "rule of law" issue.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

Ironically, the Left's beloved OWS will likely be a target in this absurd planned scenario. You can bet on that. And then they'll want to talk about Freedom & Liberty and the Constitution. Very dishonest hypocritical people.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Oh they're dumb...... If they believe the start of a revolution is taking over a town and holding the mayor "hostage" would be a good plan for a militia then they're dumb.

What would such a feat accomplish?

Now holding military assets hostage is a different story......

I would love to know what the military's plan would be if soldiers started to collectively revolt?


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Would you support the group who seized the town or not?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

If soldiers start to collectively revolt, the other soldiers will execute them before the sun goes down.

Soldiers never tolerate that extremist nonsense.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 13, 2012)

Is some idiot shitbagging terrorist rightwing nazi fuck warning about a civil war?

hope not for their sake, the US military will crush them


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 13, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> It's a dream of the left, it's what they say when they aren't saying the tea party is dead.
> 
> More likely is obama making a speech after he loses the election that he won't let criminals take over the government and undo everything he's done and order to immediate arrest of prominent republicans.



You are just as bad as the idiots that swore GW was going to declare himself King and refuse to leave office at the end of his term.  It's no wonder we are where we are with such idiocy being spewed from both sides.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Rule of law is the Bill of Rights - NOT "do as I say not as I do."

I don't understand how someone could be considered "extreme" for defending the Constitution?

How the hell is that extreme??


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



They would love it because they would simply label them "Tea Party Terrorists" and get to killing them. They are very serious. They're itching for a fight. And like i said, i wouldn't be surprised if they worked to make that fight happen. 

It's just like them allowing that 'Underwear-Bomber' on the flight, and Fast & Furious. They can not only allow things to happen, they can facilitate things happening too. There are very evil people in the world. They will do anything to force their agendas on the People. Nothing surprises me anymore.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Seizing control of a town by force of arms, disbanding it's elected City Counsel, holding the elected mayor as a prisoner and setting up check points on the highways into town is not defending the Constitution.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 13, 2012)

The tea party isn't taking over any towns, that would be OWS smashing store windows.

What I can see is obama saying "We can't let them win.  My work is not finished."


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

If rightwing terrorists revolt against the evil Obama making people get healthcare, then local authorities will put them in their place. Nobody will stand up for them and nobody will shed a tear if they end up dead


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

Remember, they allowed and facilitated that 'Underwear-Bomber' getting on that flight. And they did the same with their despicable Fast & Furious debacle. Some will do anything to force their agendas on others. They can make a confrontation happen. They've done it before, and they'll do it again. I see dark days ahead for this Nation. It's very sad.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Remember, they allowed and facilitated that Shoe-Bomber getting on that flight. And they did the same with their despicable Fast & Furious debacle. Some will do anything to force their agendas on others. They can make a confrontation happen. They've done it before, and they'll do it again. I see dark days ahead for this Nation. It's very sad.



Yes, they facilitated the shoe bomber, and little "Paulitician" the nutter conspiracy theorists on message boards know about it, but all the anti-Obama in office are just completely oblivious and let it slide. 

Sure dude, you're no nutter at all. Completely sane and rational.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The tea party isn't taking over any towns, that would be OWS smashing store windows.
> 
> What I can see is obama saying "We can't let them win.  My work is not finished."



In the senario put forth by the OP's article it is not the Tea party that took over the town but a hypothetical extremist group.

Leave the Tea Party out of it.  Would you support an extremist militia taking over a town by force?  If that happened (unlikely as it may be) would you support the US military taking the town back from the extremist?


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> If rightwing terrorists revolt against the evil Obama making people get healthcare, then local authorities will put them in their place. Nobody will stand up for them and nobody will shed a tear if they end up dead



That's what the British said.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> This from the greatest sock puppet the board has ever seen?  How funny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No original thought for a comment. petty why anyone wastes time with a predictable useful idiot such as you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Try understand the truth, Nick.
> 
> If you revolt against the government, your neighbors will stand you against the wall before the Army gets to you.
> 
> ...



useful sock try to understand the president is not the government and try to understand what was said. The people will drag sock puppets like you out into the street and hang you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Because you, kiddo, don't get to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.



Mr.Nick said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 13, 2012)

I love it, you racist hating fucks are now threatening to kill people on the internet

Jesus, you guys are caricatures of yourself , you dont understand that you are the problem, the rest of the planet and america will stand against you...

no shit, sorry


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

The concerned troll bigreb continues his sock puppetry, without saying anything of importance.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Nick, you are not the Patriots, and we are not the British.

Go play cowboys and indians with bigrebnc.  Sheesh.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Because you, kiddo, don't get to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't allow sock puppets to dictate what is constitutional either, the people will drag sock puppets like you out in the street and deal with your type.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The concerned troll bigreb continues his sock puppetry, without saying anything of importance.



nothing of original content the puppet needs to see his handlers before the people deal with him.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



You have no concept of the Constitution or it's purpose. The Bill of Rights are not laws. Laws are written and must conform with the Constitution as ruled on by the courts. 

You do not defend the Constitution, only your limited interpretation of it's scope


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


The right of the people to keep and bear arms would be?


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected.  But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.
> 
> The only sensible operation by U. S. military troops will be to treat their enemy as what they are, domestic terrorists, and summarily execute them on the battle field.
> 
> ...



Jake, that is just absurd! If it's a small, marginalized group, (seizing a small town would take a group of as few as 20-40 men with nothing but small arms and maybe a limited amount of Improvised explosives/incendiaries. That could be handled by civilian law enforcement (state and federal), with maybe a company of National Guard for backup. You don't need heavy armor, artillery or air support. Your answer is to go in, and just "summarily execute them all". Yeah, that's just the right thing to do; make martyrs out of them, maybe kill a few innocent civilians too. Remember Waco? You REALLY want to do something like that again, this time with the military involved? Sounds like the Russian or Chinese way of handling that, not ours.

Remember the last time we had something resembling a "revolution", back in the sixties and seventies?Why didn't we go after the the SDS and the Weather Underground with the military; I mean, after all, they were blowing up and burning buildings, many were armed, and they were openly advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. Now, we could have sent military hit teams to summarily execute the terrorists among them (which is exactly what Ayers, Mark Rudd, and the rest of their little group were), and put down their riots with tanks in the streets; we could have called in airstrikes. Know why we didn't? We didn't, because that kind of action risked creating popular support for their little uprising,which it fundamentally lacked. One goal of any real revolutionary movement, whether of the Left or of the Right, is to provoke massive government overreaction, with a view toward radicalizing everyone with the slightest sympathy for their cause. If that overreaction results in casualties among the innocent, all the better; more martyrs and sympathizers for the movement. You think losing the hearts and minds of the local population in a guerrilla war abroad is a bad thing? Try losing the hearts and minds of the American people in a civil insurrection here at home! Our system heavily depends on the VOLUNTARY cooperation of the citizenry; give a significant portion of the population at large reason to withhold that, and you have got a major problem.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > If rightwing terrorists revolt against the evil Obama making people get healthcare, then local authorities will put them in their place. Nobody will stand up for them and nobody will shed a tear if they end up dead
> ...



No it isn't and right wing terrorists have nothing in common with the American Patriots


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Which law is that?


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Correct. Any revolutionary movement of whatever political stripe would NOT seize a small town; it would go for a higher value strategic target. I won't go into what kind of target, primarily because I don't want to give any nutcases out there any ideas, but there are multiple possibilities; criteria would include ease of defending the target, its value, and the amount of disruption resulting from an attempt to re-take same that resulted in its destruction.

What makes the scenario outlined in this article even more absurd, is the fact that something of that sort (taking over a small town and establishing roadblocks), could easily be done without any casualties, or even a single shot being fired by the supposed "terrorists". You seriously advocate using heavy military force in THAT situation? Damn, some of you need to read the drivel you post and realize just how damned ridiculous and authoritarian you sound! I'm not even certain an order to open fire in THAT situation would even be lawful, much less morally legitimate, still less wise and prudent. Some of you would invoke martial law at the drop of a hat, without regard to the consequences. That's more than partisan hackery, hell, it's insanity!


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

And if this farfetched scenario doesn't happen on its own, you can bet they will work tirelessly to make it happen. Oh, the evil our Government is capable of. Most Americans are completely oblivious to it.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> And if this farfetched scenario doesn't happen on its own, you can bet they will work tirelessly to make it happen. Oh, the evil our Government is capable of. Most Americans are completely oblivious to it.



I am not worried

I have my trusty tin foil hat at the ready


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The tea party isn't taking over any towns, that would be OWS smashing store windows.
> ...



Unless they were committing mass murder, and/or there was absolutely NO other way to resolve the situation, ABSOLUTELY NOT! Turning the military on Americans, on American soil, is and ought to be an absolute last resort. Sounds to me like for you, it's the preferred option. God in heaven, where do you people get your ideas?


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > And if this farfetched scenario doesn't happen on its own, you can bet they will work tirelessly to make it happen. Oh, the evil our Government is capable of. Most Americans are completely oblivious to it.
> ...



Yeah, you used the ole 'Tin foil hat' insult before. Many times in fact. Get some new material. You're boring.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 13, 2012)

Sallow said:


> They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.


No doubt about it.  

And that is exactly why the conniving dolt did not employ such think tanks.  The 9/11 attack was a joyous occurrence for Bush and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he was well aware something of that nature was coming, which is why he replaced Richard Clark with Condoleeza Rice and why he paid no attention to FBI Agent Colleen Rowley's (et al) anxious warnings.  He wanted it to happen!

George W. Bush is one of American history's worst criminals and the sonofabitch should be turned over to the World Court -- which already has indicted him in absentia as a war criminal!


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That would be the Second Amendment. Planing to nullify that, by presidential or legislative fiat, then act on that nullification before the courts can rule on it, are you? Good luck with that.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 13, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > They are called "ThinkTanks". They are supposed to "imagine" scenarios of potential threats to the United States and derive solutions. Had George W. Bush employed think tanks that took middle eastern terrorism a bit more seriously or listened to the advice of the few that were, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.
> ...



Yes, these 'Think-Tanks' will be the death of us.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 13, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> Unless they were committing mass murder, and/or there was absolutely NO other way to resolve the situation, ABSOLUTELY NOT! Turning the military on Americans, on American soil, is and ought to be an absolute last resort. Sounds to me like for you, it's the preferred option. God in heaven, where do you people get your ideas?


It's already been done -- and not that long ago.  (Google:  "Hooverville - Gen. Douglas MacArthur)  

This is a major reason why I am opposed to an all volunteer army.  A conscript army is a Peoples' army because it is more inclined to disobedience.  I recall being constantly reminded by DIs at Parris Island that, _"You weren't drafted.  You asked to be here . . . !"_


----------



## GHook93 (Aug 13, 2012)

From your article:


> The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Armys Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas. They claim that the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment, not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.
> 
> The vision is hard to take seriously. As retired ArmyBrig. Gen. Russell D. Howard, a former professor at West Point, observed earlier in his career, I am a colonel, colonels write a lot of crazy stuff, but no one listens to colonels, so I dont see the problem. Twenty years ago, then-Air Force Lt. Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. created a stir with an article in Parameters titled The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012. It carried a disclaimer that the coup scenario was purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction.



They don't even take it seriously! And out government from the beginning of the country has planned for all different military intervention including insurrection! This is nothing new and I would be disgusted if our government didn't prepare for such thing! 

Second, why does if have to be Tea Party activist, WHO OBEY THE LAW and get permits for all there protest and events. It's the leftist OWS the engage in civil disobedience and they are 1000 fold more likely to try to take over a town and tey to -succeed it from the Union!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

You don't get to dictate anything, sockpuppet.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Because you, kiddo, don't get to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Your interpretation of that, puppet, is only your interpretation, not binding on anyone else and not authoritative for you either.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



It's just my way of reminding everyone that you are batshit crazy


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The second amendment is not a law. There are however, thousands of gun laws on the books


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 13, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Where did the idea come from?  Lib-o-Pauli's article of course.  (After all it is merely contingency plans isn't it, sort of a what if senario)  It sure as hell is not a liberal idea.  So under certain circumstanses you too would support sending in the military to take the town back.  What if this group had some heavy artillery and anti-aircraft weapons?  Would you support air strikes or cruise missile strike too?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Why?  A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities?  State they are the rightful government?

There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.

If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken.  Then they can be executed.



The Gadfly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Small Wars Journal is not particularly respected.  But it does offer a forum for considering the actions of an extremist militia effort to take a small town.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation.  One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."

What a bunch of crazees.



JakeStarkey said:


> Why?  A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities?  State they are the rightful government?
> 
> There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

BlindBoo said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Oh, I don't know; *what if *they had a twenty-megaton nuclear warhead? *What if* they had a squadron of F-18s? Reminds me of a line from an old book, "See Here, Private Hargrove": Sergeant, "Private Hargrove, what would you do if you saw a battleship coming over that hill?" Hargrove, "I'd torpedo it, Sarge!" Sergeant,  "And where the hell would you get a torpedo?" Hargrove, "The same place YOU got the damn battleship!" See how ridiculous playing "what if" can get? The fact remains, that there is nothing in the scenario as outlined that would justify military force in the first place, a point which you seem happy to overlook. I don't know which is worse, the people here itching for any excuse for civil insurrection, or the ones itching for any excuse to declare martial law, and turn the military on their political opponents; if you ask me, BOTH ought to be damn careful what they wish for! I've been saying that over and over here, and neither side seems to care. I'm beginning to think you are ALL crazy! What do you think combat is, a damn video game?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation.  One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."
> 
> What a bunch of crazees.
> 
> ...





> No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation. One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."
> 
> What a bunch of crazees.


Dumb ass that's what the government does.
Fast and the furious


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You're stupid, ignorant useful idiot.
So the Constitution isn't the law of the land?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > "...an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens."
> ...



That's a great point! 

Romney might have to call in the 101st to break up an OWS takeover.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It's part of the law of the land.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

Sounds like an OWS Rally. You may be right Jake.



JakeStarkey said:


> Why?  A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities?  State they are the rightful government?
> 
> There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation.  One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."
> 
> What a bunch of crazees.
> 
> ...



I didn't come up with the scenario, Jake, Col.Benson and Ms, Weber did.  The clear intent of the article they wrote is to be politically provocative.

By the way, last I checked, we don't even *summarily execute* Taliban insurgents in the field in Afghanistan, but I gather you think the army should summarily execute Americans here at home. I don't know what you're smoking or otherwise ingesting today, but your thinking has definitely become unsound.

P.S. Wasn't it your side that complained we were "executing enemy prisoners" in Vietnam?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.

If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.

My side?  I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry.  Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

OWS is on notice, Jake!  Well done!  Let's see them try to take over a NYC Park again and terrorize passersby. 



JakeStarkey said:


> I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.
> 
> If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.
> 
> My side?  I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry.  Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

I agree anybody better be on notice, although the dangers are far more from the extremist right or libertarians than from the pussy OWS.



CrusaderFrank said:


> OWS is on notice, Jake!  Well done!  Let's see them try to take over a NYC Park again and terrorize passersby.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It's a right - a civil liberty - hence law.

Gun control laws are tyrannical....

Your feelings on guns are moot considering the Second Amendment exists - what you or anyone else feels is "logical" is irrelevant, and that is something a lot of progressives don't comprehend...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2012)

Jake, give OWS your War Face!  Grrrrrrrr! Hear the anger in my voice!  Grrrrrrrrrrr!!



JakeStarkey said:


> I agree anybody better be on notice, although the dangers are far more from the extremist right or libertarians than from the pussy OWS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation.  One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."
> ...



Progressives want anyone who disagrees with their "big government knows best nanny state" bullshit dead.

Progressives have ZERO value for life, individualism or liberty.

These are the same idiots that support abortion but denounce the death penalty - they make no fucking sense. They're hypocrites and to them that is "logic."

OWS could hijack Wall Street and those idiots that did it would be heros and a libertarian organization could hijack a small town and that organization would be "domestic terrorists."

They're just partisan fucks and tyrants....


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The Constitution in itself, is not a law. It is a framework for which our government is built and is the basis of our laws. However, it is not enforceable in itself


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Go for it, CF.  


CrusaderFrank said:


> Jake, give OWS your War Face!  Grrrrrrrr! Hear the anger in my voice!  Grrrrrrrrrrr!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



If that's the case, why do gun laws exist?  How do we determine which guns can be sold, who can legally buy them, where and when you can fire them?

A right is not a law. However, laws must comply with those rights


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Ah, Nick, you are one on the insane ones here, for sure.  Rise up and you will be face down in the end.



Mr.Nick said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

bigreb has never understood the Constitution, so understand you will have to work with him.



rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one sane came up with such a ridiculous situation.  One of the loonies (bigrebnc, nick, gadfly, pauli) came up with the idea then try to blame it on their "enemies."
> ...





rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





Really? Then explain the tyrannical SCOTUS purpose???


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Interpret the constitution and whether laws passed by the other branches comply with it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Read Article III of the Constitution, Nick, and get back to us.

You guys can barely read much less understand.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Gun laws exist because tyrants have zero respect for the Bill of Rights (see Chicago)...

The SCOTUS only ruled against the city of Chicago on their tyrannical Second Amendment position - yet Daley refused to comply.

When fucks like that makeup a majority - you're going to have tyranny.....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Correct, the Constitution exists only in the context of its _case law_, its that case law which establishes the limits of government authority and the limits of our civil rights. All laws must conform to Constitutional case law and laws (or parts of laws) which are offensive to the Constitution are invalidated accordingly.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



You mean weather or not laws contradict or outright violate preexisting laws?

Sorry to break your mind but the Bill of Rights are our founding laws - our founding rights and liberties....


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.
> 
> If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.
> 
> My side?  I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry.  Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.



Jake, I served too, including a combat tour as an infantry officer in Vietnam; and I cannot think of anything so odious, as having to order my men to open fire on Americans in the streets of an American town here at home! Only in the gravest extreme, when civilian law enforcement had exhausted all efforts and utterly failed to resolve a situation like the one outlined, would I do such a thing; even then, I would do it with the deepest personal and professional regret. I would not wish to be on* either *side of such a conflict, a position I have stated repeatedly here. You, apparently, would relish it.

One might well ask, if we ever come to a day when only military force used against our own people here at home will keep the nation together, whether what we would have become, as a nation and a people, would be worth it. An authoritarian, garrison/police state, whether of the Right or of the Left, with the constitution we swore to support and defend in tatters, hardly seems a worthwhile objective.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Really? are you that fucking stupid calling the Bill of Rights "case law?"

If you haven't noticed its called the Bill of Rights for a fucking reason...

Your post is nothing than more proof that progressives hate liberty and the Bill of Rights.

Case law my ass 500,000 + men and woman have died for those ideas and you have the fucking audacity to call it "case law?"


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Is it, or is it not, your position, that government may pass a law which on its face violates the constitution, and enforce that law anyway, until the courts order it to stop? . Specifically, is it your position that the federal government may enact total firearm confiscation, and enforce it, until the courts get around to stopping it? Is that what you advocate? A simple yes or no will suffice.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



They are not laws, they are rights

You cannot arrest someone for violation of the first amendment. The bill of rights is directed at the government, not the people.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Yes


----------



## Douger (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They have you right where they want you.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



If politicians can manage to do that then they can ban Free Speech, Freedom of Press and Religion... Once they do that they can raid your home to make sure you're buying the appropriate amount of veggies from company X etc.... Of course by then we will all be reading the "Red Book" and it will be mandatory to hang the portrait of dear leader above your brainwashing machine aka TV...

All it takes is one domino to knock the rest over...


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



At least you're honest with your tyranny....

You're the reason why presently this country is so fucked up.

You don't deserve your freedoms......  People died for those ideas and you support a regime that would destroy them with authoritarian fashion...

You're a piece of shit coward and will always be one.... That's a fucking fact.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Odious?  Putting down domestic terrorists who turned their backs on the Constitution, on electoral and constitutional process?

I would have no professional or personal regret for putting down rats who soiled Old Glory by rebellion.



The Gadfly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.
> ...


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Thank you for the clarification. Now, perhaps you can explain, if you progressives can disarm the people before the courts can rule on it, just what constitutional remedies the people would have, when the law is overturned. ANY? In fact, if not in law, you would have effectively deprived a great many people of their constitutional right; is that your intent?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Read Article II, carefully.

Yes, the People have the opportunity to overthrow the government, and will face the consequences for failure.



The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Odious?  Putting down domestic terrorists who turned their backs on the Constitution, on electoral and constitutional process?
> 
> I would have no professional or personal regret for putting down rats who soiled Old Glory by rebellion.
> 
> ...



Then you would have been OK with the military being ordered to hunt down and kill members of the Weather Underground? After all they openly tried to overthrow the UNited States government. How about the rest of the "revolutionaries" of the "New Left"-did THEY not "soil Old Glory be rebellion"? Should we have summarily executed them too?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2012)

Far left or far right.  The SLA got what they deserved.

If you can't do the job, troop, resign the commission.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am infuriated that Americans believe they can summarily rise up against the government.
> 
> If you think the Colonel and the Lady are social progressives, go for it.
> 
> My side?  I served for twelve years, active duty, airborne infantry.  Rise up against our country, be ready for what happens.


If you were still in the Airborne, and if there were such an uprising today, and if you were ordered to participate in armed suppression, would you respond obediently without concern for the _reason_ for the uprising?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



I'm allowed more than a one word answer now?

It is not just progressives, it is conservatives

If you pass a law it is constitutional until ruled otherwise. It can be implemented as it works it's way through the courts. If you were damaged you have redress through the court system to be made whole

That is the way our government has worked for 235 years. What are you proposing instead?  Second Amendment remedies?


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Far left or far right.  The SLA got what they deserved.
> 
> If you can't do the job, troop, resign the commission.


No argument with the SLA (and others), but then, we let civilian law enforcement handle that, didn't we?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



Read the Constitution you claim to carry with you. It provides roles and responsibilities for each branch of government. It provides for a powerful weapon for we the people to handle government tyranny. Not the gun....but the vote


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I'm asking how (or IF) you propose rearming the people after you are found to have unconstitutionally disarmed them?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



$$$$$$


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 13, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yeah, which we both know means nothing, if they cannot use the money to buy arms equivalent to those you unconstitutionally deprived them of. By the time the SCOTUS ruled against you, the firearms dealers would be out of business, the government and law enforcement would have contracts for all domestic production, and you'd use U.N. small arms treaties to prevent importation. It would cost you, but the American people would be disarmed, and totally at the mercy of government, a trade any statist would be happy to make. Slick, but utterly transparent, which is why, if you try it, you'll likely have widespread resistance to contend with. That resistance would not have to be violent; it could range from hiding weapons, to passive resistance to all voluntary cooperation with government (the path I prefer). What are you going to do, when the people figure out that no more than 30-40% of us can bring the country to a screeching halt? What; you thought only the Left paid attention to what can be done with large-scale civil disobedience? There's more than one way to fight you people. The Left in America has some built-in vulnerabilities, and I can assure you there are people who have put considerable thought into how to exploit those for maximum effect, if we really need to; and I don't think even people like Jake will obey orders to shoot unarmed people. (I KNOW I wouldn't!) Your and Obama's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is far from a done deal.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 13, 2012)

paulitician said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


Why?  Do you advocate moving forward in major situations without as much in-depth thought and consideration as possible?  

Such reasoning is why the Libertarians never have and never will progress beyond a certain point.  They have some good ideas but they seem to not give any thought to those ideas they hold strongly to but simply are not feasible.  Such as the notion that a society as massive and complex as the U.S. could survive without the constraints and controls of a proportionately sizeable (but well controlled) government and adequate taxation.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 13, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Why?  A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities?  State they are the rightful government?
> 
> There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.
> 
> If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken.  Then they can be executed.


Jake,

You need to be much more specific about the circumstances and motivations in these hypotheticals.  Mainly because there are some extremely relevant and important historical examples of such occurrences as you've mentioned above which need to be examined very closely before making assumptions about them.

For one example, if this were the early 1700s your observation and commentary would typically issue from a loyal Colonial subject of King George.  A Tory.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 14, 2012)

Easily answered.  Notify the town that martial law is in effect, that any who surrender will be treated humanely but not IAW the Geneva Convention only as criminals, and any inhabitant taken with a weapon in hand will be summarily executed.  Perfectly acceptable when dealing with treason.



MikeK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Why?  A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities?  State they are the rightful government?
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You just got pawned.
ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigreb has never understood the Constitution, so understand you will have to work with him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another bitch get's pawned
ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Three bitches getting pawned 

ARTICLE VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



Save me from your hypothetical pity party.  

First of all, our current political structure and supreme court interpretation prevents any gun legislation from passing. Secondly, there are 200 million guns in circulation. Confiscation would be impossible

You posed an unlikely hypothetical situation about what would happen if your guns were unconstitutionally taken away. I responded with what your rights are as a citizen

Your paranoid rant about evil Obama taking away your precious guns is pathetic


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Pawned?  How much did you get for me?

Your ability to understand your own Constitution reflects why the radical right is such a threat to our form of government

"This Constitution AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF"

The Constitution is not enforceable in it's own right. Laws must be passed to implement it's conditions. Name a statement in the Constitution that is a law.


----------



## Douger (Aug 14, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcnHdrMyYLU&feature=related]Sergeant Major&#39;s Moto Cadence - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




I am really astounded at that you came back to this post and try to justify your stupidity article 6 in the Constitution says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I don't know how much more simple it can be. The actual words supreme law of the land should be a dead give away.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Your inability to understand the role of our Constitution is not surprising based on your posts

Let's start with an easy one. Explain how the Second Amendment is a law in and of itself


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




What does this mean?

The supreme law of the land


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



How do you arrest someone for violating the second amendment?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What does 
The supreme law of the land mean?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You did not answer the question. If the second amendment is a law, how do you prosecute someone for it?  How is it implemented? How is it enforced?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I'm not answering your stupid question, their is no answer for your question because the Constitution says it's the supreme law of the land, and you can't get pass that.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 14, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.http://www.drudgereport.com/




How fucking stupid.

Why would you need the Armed Forces to dislodge a bunch of diabetes-ridden, fat White retirees?

I'm sure that South Carolina LE is up to the task, along with the FBI.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.http://www.drudgereport.com/
> ...



Andy and Barney may have to call in Goober


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I think what I outlined is very much what many so-called "progressives" would LIKE to do. That is the logical conclusion to the line of thinking you've displayed here. Whether they actually COULD do it is of course another matter. The reality is, that such a move would fail for the same reason a revolt from either end of the political spectrum would fail: at present our society is split pretty much evenly (as I expect the coming election will show; whichever side wins, it will be by a narrow margin).It's quite difficult for any drastic action, whether by a faction of government or a faction of the population, to succeed without overwhelming popular sympathy, if not outright support.

The truth in that last sentence above is what makes this whole debate about using imposition of martial law to crush a small domestic revolt a pile of rubbish. A petty revolt like that in the scenario outlined in the article referenced in the OP could not sustain itself in the current climate. Unless it were especially violent, it would burn itself out in a matter of days with little or any bloodshed. Unless it is creating casualties, the most desirable objective is to contain it until it collapses. That's fundamentally a law enforcement problem, not a problem requiring *the use of military force the same way military force is used abroad* (which is precisely what Col. Benson and Ms. Webb advocated in their article). Our military are not a police force, and no one in his right mind wants to use martial law in an American town or city, except in the gravest extreme. Using the military otherwise presents the risk of having military forces producing unnecessary bloodshed on our own soil, with popular outrage the inevitable result. The amount of public anger over the actions of the ATF and FBI at Waco should give everyone a small example; imagine how much worse the reaction would have been, had that been done by our Armed Forces instead. For that matter, Imagine what would have happened, had the National Guard shooting at Kent State been repeated on college campuses all across the nation-far from quelling a potential uprising, something like that would have generated considerable sympathy for an even larger one. Excessive force, however tempting to some, however expedient it may appear, is something the American people instinctively dislike and distrust. It's the reason paramilitary style law enforcement action draws so much public fire. Whether such actions actually ARE bad, they LOOK bad, and are easily perceived as illegitimate; moral considerations aside, that is simply counterproductive.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



You're wasting your time with that one.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2012)

Gun Rights, like Abortion is here to stay

Each side would like to step up restrictions and some on the fringe may want an outright ban.......but it ain't gunna happen

Hypothetical extremist revolutionary scenarios make a nice diversion but Americans are too fat and lazy to actually follow through


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Gun Rights, like Abortion is here to stay
> 
> Each side would like to step up restrictions and some on the fringe may want an outright ban.......but it ain't gunna happen
> 
> Hypothetical extremist revolutionary scenarios make a nice diversion but Americans are too fat and lazy to actually follow through


Thing about abortion it's affects two people. but hell you can't comprehend that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land how would you be able to understand abortion.


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I hate to burst your bubble, but we do have some very professional law enforcement  agencies down here, your stereotypical view notwithstanding.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Gun Rights, like Abortion is here to stay
> ...



says blithering idiot


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Don't you know that Andy and Barney are from NORTH Carolina?  You know what hicks they are


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Take your foot out of your mouth 
What will the thing inside a mother become when born? Fish horse dog cat bird or human?
And as the Constitution being the supreme law of the land it's written in the Constitution that way. So as I said remove your foot from your mouth.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Don Knotts was born at Morgantown, WV
At lest this hick knows the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and your stupid to try an argue that it isn't.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 14, 2012)

bigreb, you are a moron...you can talk all day long to anybody you want, but you are a moron

sorry


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> bigreb, you are a moron...you can talk all day long to anybody you want, but you are a moron
> 
> sorry



I'm laughing my ass off at your stupid shit. Really don't stop.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 14, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > bigreb, you are a moron...you can talk all day long to anybody you want, but you are a moron
> ...



Speaking of going backwards, you and J Edgar, pretty happy about murdering MLK Jr are you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > ConzHateUSA said:
> ...



OK short bus where exactly =was I wrong?
Constitution the supreme law of the land
unborn human child will be a human.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 14, 2012)

Everyday you prove that anti-evolution is a fact: you get more stupid.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Gun Rights, like Abortion is here to stay
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 14, 2012)

The Constitution is not a law.  It is a document or charter of governance.  Congress uses it as a guide to create law.

Abortion and gun rights are facts of the 21st century: neither will be banned.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitution is not a law.  It is a document or charter of governance.  Congress uses it as a guide to create law.
> 
> Abortion and gun rights are facts of the 21st century: neither will be banned.
> 
> ...



Why do you like to get bitch slapped?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land article 6 of the Constitution says so and your opinion does not override the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Everyday you prove that anti-evolution is a fact: you get more stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



every post you write proves you're an idiot, most here know that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 14, 2012)

Nah, nobody thinks that of me but many do of you.

Hey, you were right about Article VI.  Anothe proof of evolution.  You must be sliding up and down the chain of humanoid from and to chimp.  You are on the upbeat for a moment, huh?


----------



## MikeK (Aug 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Easily answered.  Notify the town that martial law is in effect, that any who surrender will be treated humanely but not IAW the Geneva Convention only as criminals, and any inhabitant taken with a weapon in hand will be summarily executed.  Perfectly acceptable when dealing with treason.


But you haven't answered my question.  What you've done instead is paraphrase your intention to exercise military force against a recalcitrant group of citizens without considering what provoked their action.  This leaves open the possibility that some form of tyrannical oppression, such as that which has provoked what we've seen in Libya and now Syria, is responsible -- in which case you would be advocating un-democratic tyrannical suppression.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nah, nobody thinks that of me but many do of you.
> 
> Hey, you were right about Article VI.  Anothe proof of evolution.  You must be sliding up and down the chain of humanoid from and to chimp.  You are on the upbeat for a moment, huh?



Jakes lie of the day.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 14, 2012)

Your question does not deserve an answer because of it's very nature.

We have constitutional, electoral process for determination of problems.

Do you really believe that America will witness a problem like Syria or Libya?

Really really?

Sheesh.



MikeK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Easily answered.  Notify the town that martial law is in effect, that any who surrender will be treated humanely but not IAW the Geneva Convention only as criminals, and any inhabitant taken with a weapon in hand will be summarily executed.  Perfectly acceptable when dealing with treason.
> ...


----------



## MikeK (Aug 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your question does not deserve an answer because of it's very nature.
> 
> We have constitutional, electoral process for determination of problems.
> 
> ...


Having observed the gradual militarization of our police agencies, and having watched the _appointment_ of a President by the Supreme Court, I would not discount the possibility.  But whether or not you believe it could happen is not the point.  The question refers to a hypothesis.  But if you'd rather not answer it the reason why is obvious.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 14, 2012)

What is obvious is that you ignore we have constitutional, electoral process, and anyone who wants to go "southern" as they did in 1860 and 1861 deserves only the wall.


----------



## William Joyce (Aug 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Why?  A band of domestic terrorists take over and terrorize a town, perhaps murder the elected officials and military authorities?  State they are the rightful government?
> 
> There is no need for prisoners from people who defy the Constitution in such a situation.
> 
> If it makes you feel better, summary courts-martial can be held as the rebels are taken.  Then they can be executed.



All these bold predictions that the U.S. military will "crush" and "execute" the American people don't seem to account for the fact that most of the military rank-and-file is composed of conservative people who positively VOMIT about what's happening to our country.  

They will of course indicate if asked that they'll obey orders.

Right up until the moment of shooting.


----------



## William Joyce (Aug 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> What is obvious is that you ignore we have constitutional, electoral process, and anyone who wants to go "southern" as they did in 1860 and 1861 deserves only the wall.



The average Englishman sitting around the breakfast table in London would have LAUGHED OUT LOUD at the thought that the American revolutionaries could have defeated the best funded, organized and trained military force in the world.


----------



## William Joyce (Aug 14, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> We have constitutional, electoral process for determination of problems.



What country do you live in?

I live in America.  We have no such thing here.  We have little things like elections that are set up to create the impression of "choice", but the choices have already been made for you a long time ago.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh really?



So libertarians are not patriots? really? where do they differ from the founders in ideology?

How are my fellow libertarian brothers and sisters different?

Yea keep on frivolously accusing me of pixie dust bullshit...


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 14, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Translation:  Andy and Barney are _North _Carolina.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 14, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Dammit!


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 14, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> bigreb, you are a moron...you can talk all day long to anybody you want, but you are a moron
> 
> sorry


It only takes a month of joining this place to come to this conclusion.

At first you want to give him the benefit of the doubt since he's not an asshole who just flings poo.  He's just totally ignorant of the actual facts of almost every current event.  He's a RushSean, bubble-living wingnut and you just have to learn to skim and scroll over his posts.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 14, 2012)

William Joyce said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > What is obvious is that you ignore we have constitutional, electoral process, and anyone who wants to go "southern" as they did in 1860 and 1861 deserves only the wall.
> ...


Yes, but they were pompous and prissy.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 14, 2012)

Mr.Nick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Nick said:
> ...



Libertarians would make real patriots puke

A real patriot has a stake in the game. Willing to give up all for a cause
Libertarians only care about themselves

Real American Patriots


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2012)

Jake, should the military be called to stomp down the New Black Panther Party and their call for violence on the RNC?


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 14, 2012)

If Pauliticians paranoia comes to pass it will be beciase of the continued decline of life quality in the USA.
Troops may be needed to protect the rich and corporations.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 14, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



And the same bunch nearly cleaned our clock in 1812.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 14, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > William Joyce said:
> ...


They toughened up!


----------



## bodecea (Aug 14, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jake, should the military be called to stomp down the *New Black Panther Party *and their call for violence on the RNC?



All two of them?    I'd like to think we really don't need the military for that....but you know....the Republicans are really, really frightened.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 14, 2012)

bodecea said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Jake, should the military be called to stomp down the *New Black Panther Party *and their call for violence on the RNC?
> ...


I have the same impression.  

The Black Panther Party of the sixties, the ones who marched with shouldered shotguns and rifles, were a relatively formidable presence.  But all I've seen of the contemporary version are the two pathetic characters standing outside a voting poll armed with nightsticks and wearing GoodWill clothing.  Anyone who is intimidated by that pair of losers deserves to be.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 15, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> If Pauliticians paranoia comes to pass it will be beciase of the continued decline of life quality in the USA.
> Troops may be needed to protect the rich and corporations.



Read posts first, before typing such asinine replies. This is not my vision or plan. It's not my paranoia.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 15, 2012)

bodecea said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Jake, should the military be called to stomp down the *New Black Panther Party *and their call for violence on the RNC?
> ...



Oh, so you're just hung up on the numbers? Well, you shouldn't be. And i assure you, they have more than two members.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 15, 2012)

bodecea said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Jake, should the military be called to stomp down the *New Black Panther Party *and their call for violence on the RNC?
> ...



That's what happens when you drop in on the middle of a conversation and decide your 2 cents will make a difference. So between you and Jake the combined value of your ideas just shot up to 2 cents

Jake was four square in favor of have federal troops crush insurrectionists who interfere with the proper functioning of government and I want to know if this meets the Starkey Standard


----------



## paulitician (Aug 15, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



For him and many others, it would depend on who's conducting the insurrection. For example, i'm pretty sure he would hold a completely different opinion if the Military were called in to put down his OWS brethren. 

And unfortunately, that's how most Americans view Freedom & Liberty. More Americans need to start approaching the issue differently. You have to fight for Freedom & Liberty for all. You can't just fight for it only when it's politically convenient to do so. Because that's a very dangerous slippery slope.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 15, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Libertarian Patriot


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 15, 2012)

Well, our 2 cents is more valuable, though, in currency of thought than Frank's dollar.

Whether OWS or militia mutts rise up, such must be crushed without mercy.



paulitician said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 15, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jake, should the military be called to stomp down the New Black Panther Party and their call for violence on the RNC?



You aren't really expecting an answer from jake are you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 15, 2012)

Already answered.  OWS, Black Panthers, milita mutts, or the NC nuts, rise up and get crushed.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Jake, should the military be called to stomp down the New Black Panther Party and their call for violence on the RNC?
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Well, our 2 cents is more valuable, though, in currency of thought than Frank's dollar.
> 
> Whether OWS or militia mutts rise up, such must be crushed without mercy.
> 
> ...



Jake the political useful tool of the political elite don't start a campaign without them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitution is not a law.  It is a document or charter of governance.  Congress uses it as a guide to create law.
> 
> Abortion and gun rights are facts of the 21st century: neither will be banned.
> 
> ...



Why do you like to get bitch slapped?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land article 6 of the Constitution says so and your opinion does not override the Constitution.

The Constitution is the law of the federal government, it tells the feds what it can and can't do, that's what makes it law of the land.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 16, 2012)

Your opinion overrides nothing, bigrebnc.

You rise up against the government, you get shot down.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your opinion overrides nothing, bigrebnc.
> 
> You rise up against the government, you get shot down.





bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is not a law.  It is a document or charter of governance.  Congress uses it as a guide to create law.
> ...



It's not an opinion turd.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 16, 2012)

If you rise up against America, bigrebnc, you will be be put down.  Simple fact.

Note: alter the quotes again, bigreb, and I will report you.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's not an opinion turd.





JakeStarkey said:


> Your opinion overrides nothing, bigrebnc. You rise up against the government, you get shot down.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> If you rise up against America, bigrebnc, you will be be put down.  Simple fact.
> 
> Note: alter the quotes again, bigreb, and I will report you.
> 
> ...





JakeStarkey said:


> Your opinion overrides nothing, bigrebnc.
> 
> You rise up against the government, you get shot down.





bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is not a law.  It is a document or charter of governance.  Congress uses it as a guide to create law.
> ...



It's not an opinion turd


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 16, 2012)

You rise up against the Constitution, bigrebnc, you will be put down.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You rise up against the Constitution, bigrebnc, you will be put down.



What's stopping you from going after the government? since they have already done that?
And according to you it's not the law so no biggie right?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 16, 2012)

Got you, huh?

bigrebnc fail here.  Good to see you admit it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 16, 2012)

Got you.  Again.  What is new?

What I don't understand is why you hate America?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 16, 2012)

Answer the question, bigrebnc: why do you hate America?  Why do you want to rise up against the greatest country in the history of the world?  Why won't you accept the Constitution as the supreme law of the land?


----------



## The Gadfly (Aug 16, 2012)

As long as we're kicking around unlikely hypotheticals, Jake, what would you do, if there were a non-violent popular uprising? No shooting, no bombing, just massive civil disobedience and non-cooperation on an unprecedented scale. That may be unlikely too, but it would arguably be easier to organize than an armed revolt. Going to send in the troops and start shooting people for that, too? I think you'd have a hard time with that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 16, 2012)

_A la_ Gandhi?  That is something the Palestinians have never understood.  Instead of the _infantas_, they simply should have sat down and protested in Israel and the territories, without violence.  The Israelis would have capitulated eventually under world pressure to some sort of two-state solution that would have guaranteed a divided Jerusalem and some sort of right of return.

We saw what happened when the Chicago police went into Grant Park after the protesters.  That and Tet cost the USA the support of its own people to continue the war in the mode of General Westmoreland.

If your sort of dream massive nonviolent protest occurred, the voters would have changed the government before armed insurrection of serious proportions occurred.  There would be no reason to "send in the troops" on popular constitutional, electoral change.

If armed revolution occurred, then the _insurrectos _will go to the wall.  Finis.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 16, 2012)

I see the bigrebnc is simply spamming a repeat loop of his deranged thinking, occasioned by his deranged drinking.

Got ya, reb.    Step off, son.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I think a lot of the military would support the effort.



Re....tard.........


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2012)

Another one of the deranged 'revolution' threads. Damned fools, do they think that Americans are going to revolt for their looney toon visions?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 16, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
> 
> At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future. It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. Its a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
> 
> ...



Obama said his plan "is working".  I guess they are planning on having unemployment at 25 - 50 %, and more people living in poverty.  It will only be after they slaughter the independent people over 65 (either at the social security offices or thru Obama care boards) that the younger, easier to manipulate crowd will fall on their knees and bow to the intellectual elites that plan on telling the American public when to jump and how high.


----------



## jack113 (Aug 16, 2012)

logical4u said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
> ...



Bush created the Northern Command to take over civil law when the unrest starts and Obama activated it and it is already to go. All the people supporting these actions are traitors including homeland security and TSA employees.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 16, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> As long as we're kicking around unlikely hypotheticals, Jake, what would you do, if there were a non-violent popular uprising? No shooting, no bombing, just massive civil disobedience and non-cooperation on an unprecedented scale. That may be unlikely too, but it would arguably be easier to organize than an armed revolt. Going to send in the troops and start shooting people for that, too? I think you'd have a hard time with that.



Americans are too fat and lazy to do even that


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2012)

The last time we had major civil insurrections, the Civil Right push and the Vietnam Protests, the people with the guns lost in the end. And the people that trying to change the system succeeded.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 16, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The photo was probably taken during the Civil Rights struggle in the South where most segregationist politicians were democrats. Al Gore's father, senator Gore was a segregationist.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 16, 2012)

First they came for the Tea Party...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I see the bigrebnc is simply spamming a repeat loop of his deranged thinking, occasioned by his deranged drinking.
> 
> Got ya, reb.    Step off, son.



I see you can't answer a question which means your just the broad troll.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Ah, yes, but why would you want to.  I'm guessing that mare's been rode hard and put away wet a few times to many to be of any great value.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 17, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Zxereus said:
> 
> 
> > Question is, would the military fight for Obama when it's against American citizens ?
> ...



Some orders are illegal.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 17, 2012)

GuyPinestra said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Zxereus said:
> ...



Will the Oath Keepers stand against those factions declared "terrorist" by government, or will they direct their efforts against a terrorist government that would turn the military and law enforcement on the its citizens?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

When terrorists, right or left, rise up against the lawful and proper constitutional, electoral government, the American people will put the terrorists to the wall.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Just because I can.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



If they turn agaiinst their government they will be traitors and treated as such

What has gotten the Oath Keepers all fired up?

Its not confiscating weapons....its healthcare. They are ready to revolt against their country because of mandatory healthcare


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > GuyPinestra said:
> ...



No it's not you fucking hack, it's the disregard of the Constitution by this administration and the government in general that have oathkeepers like me and others fired up. 
If the government starts firing live rounds into protesting group's would you support it?


----------



## jack113 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > As long as we're kicking around unlikely hypotheticals, Jake, what would you do, if there were a non-violent popular uprising? No shooting, no bombing, just massive civil disobedience and non-cooperation on an unprecedented scale. That may be unlikely too, but it would arguably be easier to organize than an armed revolt. Going to send in the troops and start shooting people for that, too? I think you'd have a hard time with that.
> ...



America has the government it has asked for since the Reagan takeover. Americans are their own worse enemy. Americans do not know the meaning of organized protest and do not have the guts to take their government back.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



Bull Shit

There has been no violation of the Constitution other than a black liberal is President

Oath Keepers are partisan hacks who manage to pop up whenever a Democrat is elected President

Where were the Oath Keepers when Bush was President?  There has been no bigger Constitutional violation than the Patriot Act


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc is a wannabee unAmerican hack who wants to overthrow constitutional, electoral government, but knows what will happen if he plans to or makes an overt act to do so.

His cowardly aspirations come out as blustering ineptness.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Bullshit nothing you fucking lying hack, since you aren't part of the oathkeepers you don't know a god damn thing about them. You're just assuming, suggest you shut the fuck up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Oathkeepers, if they violate their sworn oaths, will be held accountable, tried, and could be executed if found guilty.

You, bigrebnc and the other wacks of the group, do not decide what is law without accruing its awesome weight on your worthless backs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc continues to demonstrate his cowardly ineptness and is now spamming.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> The last time we had major civil insurrections, the Civil Right push and the Vietnam Protests, the people with the guns lost in the end. And the people that trying to change the system succeeded.



Guess you are ready to bow to Obama, and declare him your Messiah?  He said his plan is working, how far are you willing to hurt the country to support someone that does not even know the history of this country or understand "individual" freedom?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> When terrorists, right or left, rise up against the lawful and proper constitutional, electoral government, the American people will put the terrorists to the wall.



What if the "gov't" is not following the Constitution?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > gallantwarrior said:
> ...



That will be "only" some protests.... the occupiers will be a welcome diversion to destroying the American economy via gov't chronyism.  The will be very selective in those they choose to suppress...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

logical4u said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > When terrorists, right or left, rise up against the lawful and proper constitutional, electoral government, the American people will put the terrorists to the wall.
> ...



According to jake the government doesn't do that .


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Did the "black liberal as President" take an oath to uphold the laws of the land?  Has he done that?  Did he usurp the power of the congress with his illegal alien policies?  Has he upheld DOMA?  Has he protected the southern border (or any border for that matter)?  
He has told us his plan is working.  We must assume that means more unemployment, more living below the poverty line, more living on food stamps, and the more productive people being punished.  Is that what you (YOU) are supporting?  Your vote will tell.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Oath Keepers are Traitors. No other way to describe those who advocate and prepare for armed insurrection against their country

If they cared about our Constitution, they would use their Constitutional rights to redress their grievances. Our founding fathers gave citizens strong weapons to control their government and it didn't involve guns. A strong first amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, rights to assemble and most importantly.....a citizens right to vote


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2012)

Oh, where is my little foil hat, little foil hat, little foil hat


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2012)

The people yapping about an armed rebellion are the losers that cannot function in our present system. They hope by the destruction of that system, and the following choas, that their 'true worth' will be recognized, and they will be on the top echelon of the next system. Of course, they will continue to be losers in whatever system follows, if they survive, for the same reasons they are losers in the present system.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They didn't take another to protect and defend the president they took an oath to defend the Constitution. You're a traitor not us.



> Our founding fathers gave citizens strong weapons to control their government and it didn't involve guns.



Yes they did but since those checks and balances no longer exist we no longer have that weapon.



> freedom of the press


What good is freedom of the press when the press has become a propaganda machine for the government?



> rights to assemble



President Obama Signs &#8220;Anti-Protest&#8221; Bill H.R. 347


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Cowardly drivel from the board's biggest coward, bigrebnc.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc continues to demonstrate his cowardly ineptness and is now spamming.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

You are not the one to decide that.



logical4u said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > When terrorists, right or left, rise up against the lawful and proper constitutional, electoral government, the American people will put the terrorists to the wall.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Cowardly drivel.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Checks and balances are in full force. Look at what Congress is doing. Oath Keepers are traitors in that they choose to ignore the Constititional will of We the People and threaten armed insurrection because their candidates have not been elected

The very fact that they rise up only when Democrats are in office shows they are partisan hacks


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cowardly drivel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have spammed those two words on a regular basis without anything to support your opinion and those two words. I suggest you stop spamming those two words. You're a cowardly troll but fuck dude grow a fucking pair and be a man .


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

logical4u said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > When terrorists, right or left, rise up against the lawful and proper constitutional, electoral government, the American people will put the terrorists to the wall.
> ...



That is why we have a court system
 Its is up to the Courts to apply the Constitution......not a bunch of gun nuts who have never read it


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





> Checks and balances are in full force.


No they aren't Justice Roberts just proved that.



> Look at what Congress is doing.


As allowed obama to by-pass congress with executive order after executive order. Just passed the dream act without the vote of one congressman. yep we have our Checks and balances.

When you say traitor you need to look into that mirror and their you will see a traitor of the Constitution if you support this current president.


----------



## 007 (Aug 17, 2012)

_"If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U. S. membership in the U.N.; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; No American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We can get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited."
_
&#8213; CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are not the one to decide that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who is?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What if the courts are not doing their jobs (holding the other branches accountable)?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> _"If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U. S. membership in the U.N.; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; No American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We can get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited."
> _
> &#8213; CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL



Damn...what a sick vision Ron Paul has for this country


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

logical4u said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Congress appoints judges. Historically, when they don't like the direction that the courts have taken they appoint Judges who reflect their views


----------



## jack113 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The patriot act is treason against the constitution. The congress broke it's oath to serve and protect the constitution when they voted for it. Bush broke his oath of office when he signed it. Bush was guilty of treason along with Cheney and Rove when they outed a CIA agent and went unpunished.

Americans are being very foolish in playing politically correct and thinking their is any difference in the two parties.

Obama went in to his transition meeting with Bush and had some principles when the meeting was over he come out a full blown neocon.


----------



## 007 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > _"If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U. S. membership in the U.N.; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; No American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We can get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited."
> ...



Yup... that would ruin your welfare wouldn't it slick?


----------



## 007 (Aug 17, 2012)

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that...* "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

jack113 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Bush turned over his presidential suit to obama that's all.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that...* "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"*



Yes that's it words from the founders of America.


----------



## 007 (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that...* "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"*
> ...



It's speaking of the PEOPLE...* "IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT."*

The leftists here love government reb. They live for the government, they look to government to solve all their problems, and they don't really give a damn how many freedoms they lose or how oppressive and out of control or big the government might get. They trust government implicitly like good little brain washed sheep. They're just the kind of mindless idiots a tyrannical government needs to grow and exist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



I look to the government rider to do one thing, get the fuck out of my way and let me make money my way. I may go back to working for a check as soon as obama is gone, but we'll see.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that...* "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government"*



Yes

And a Continental Congress of all the states was formed to address those grievances. It was not a bunch of nuts running around with guns


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Is that really the best you got?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Not you.  You are entitled to your opinion and to your vote.



logical4u said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are not the one to decide that.
> ...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 17, 2012)

Once they get done killing & imprisoning the Tea Partiers, who will they come for next? The Socialists/Progressives defending this, really should think about that a bit.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

paulitician said:


> Once they get done killing & imprisoning the Tea Partiers, who will they come for next? The Socialists/Progressives defending this, really should think about that a bit.



I thought I told you to put your Tin Foil Hat back on!

Do it.........NOW


----------



## paulitician (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Once they get done killing & imprisoning the Tea Partiers, who will they come for next? The Socialists/Progressives defending this, really should think about that a bit.
> ...



Lame insult. Take a creative writing class. Your insults are very stale. Get some new material.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

paulitician said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



How about this?

You are a paranoid nutcase who thinks the evil GUBMINT is out to get you and post endless repetitive rants about a tyrannical government imprisoning innocent Tea Baggers


----------



## paulitician (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yeah, you've used that insult before too. Got anything else?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

paulitician said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Ron Paul wears ladies underwear


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Ron Paul wears ladies underwear


----------



## paulitician (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Ok, so you're done. No need for you to loiter in this thread anymore. Bye.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 17, 2012)

dont cry, ayn rand, ron paul, paul ryan, all believe rich people need to be coddled, should not pay any taxes and that everyone else should serve them and die if they cant afford food or medicine

this is a fact


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Pauli, Ron is a nice guy but a loser.  I don't know whether you are nice or not, but you are a loser, too.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 17, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> dont cry, ayn rand, ron paul, paul ryan, all believe rich people need to be coddled, should not pay any taxes and that everyone else should serve them and die if they cant afford food or medicine
> 
> this is a fact



Copy-Cat RW Wingnut. You guys got nothin.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pauli, Ron is a nice guy but a loser.  I don't know whether you are nice or not, but you are a loser, too.



Yup, you guys are done. All out of material. Good time for you dunces to exit the thread. Have a nice day.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Don't cry for America, Ayn Rand, America takes care of itself just fine.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

You as well.



paulitician said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli, Ron is a nice guy but a loser.  I don't know whether you are nice or not, but you are a loser, too.
> ...


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 17, 2012)

paulitician said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli, Ron is a nice guy but a loser.  I don't know whether you are nice or not, but you are a loser, too.
> ...



In a true Ron Paul or Paul Ryan or Ayn Rand America, unless you right now have shitloads of money, and you dont, you would die in a very short amount of time unless you worked directly for one of the oligarchs

i wish that was just an opinion on a message board, sadly it is the truth

why dont you know that?


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You did not answer the question.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not you.  You are entitled to your opinion and to your vote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Answer the question.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

The question has been properly answered for you: the answer, is not you.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The question has been properly answered for you: the answer, is not you.



the question was who is (responsible for determining if the judicial branch is fullfilling its duties), not: who is not?

I can understand why that is difficult for you, it involves, consideration.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Your question has been properly answered.  So now I am asking you: who do you think should be making that decision.  Please do not tell us that it is you.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

logical4u said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Afraid I did

Try reading the Constitution


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Yup, RW did answer the question.  Read it again.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

logical4u said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The question has been properly answered for you: the answer, is not you.
> ...



Try reading the Constitution

We did not want judges to be subject to the whims of the voters in deciding what was right. That is why they are appointed and can serve for life. Courts may swing to the right and back to the left but they usually eventually get it right


----------



## logical4u (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your question has been properly answered.  So now I am asking you: who do you think should be making that decision.  Please do not tell us that it is you.



I think "eligible voters" should be able to make that decision.  And yes, as one (are you scared), that would be "me".


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

So you want a true lefty democracy.  OK, now we know.  You believe in popular opinion not the law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



As for one you who doesn't think the Constitution is law I suggest you read it.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



If you read the document you will find a framework for our government and restrictions on how government may treat it's citizens

There are no laws

But as I asked before.....you are free to point some out


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Article 6 is written as This Constitution shall be the law of the land, and yes what makes it law is because it's dictates to the government what it can and cannot not do.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Article 6 is not a law.  Name a part of the Constitution that can be enforced as a law

I know you can't because you have never read it


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

And RW thumps bigrebnc like a big drum: ka-boom.

bigreb, do you believe in popular lefty democracy to decide what the Constitution means?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Article 6 is law for the government

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

*This Constitution*, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme law of the land*; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, *shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution*; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

I neg repped bigreb for being an idiot who believes in popular lefty democracy to decide what the constitution means.  What an idiot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I neg repped bigreb for being an idiot who believes in popular lefty democracy to decide what the constitution means.  What an idiot.



 you'll always be an idiot, sad that you think you have to point that fact out all the time.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

you are a mere coward who runs away when confronted, you always have here, and I gather you always have run away in Lost Gap, NC   just a simple coward



bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I neg repped bigreb for being an idiot who believes in popular lefty democracy to decide what the constitution means.  What an idiot.
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Where is the law in what you posted?

Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enforceable law on Americans. It provides a broad framework of Government and restrictions on Government power

Laws must be constructed by Congress and meet the framework of the Constitution. But the Constitution itself does not contain laws

Read it some time


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Don't blame me for your stupidity and lack of comprehension skills. I posted the laws that the government must follow it's call the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land. Art. 6.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

bigreb has been drinking all day and now this evening and has forgot his question and does not even realize others have made him look like an idiot, yet again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

You prove my statement yet again.  You are spamming again, concerned troll.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Spamming yet again.  You do that when you drink, because you can't think anymore.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Spamming for the third time yet again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

Doan' mattah none, bigeb, doan' mattah none.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Doan' mattah none, bigeb, doan' mattah none.



What spam?  You're just too cowardly to answer the question so you call it spam.
Being a coward is what you do best being a coward is someone who will not answer a question.
Stop drinking


bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You rise up against the Constitution, bigrebnc, you will be put down.
> ...


Answer the question


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 17, 2012)

bigrebnc, have you thought of the answer yet?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc, have you thought of the answer yet?


Be a man and not a coward 


bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You rise up against the Constitution, bigrebnc, you will be put down.
> ...


Answer the question


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

You continue to spam.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You continue to spam.



And you continue to troll.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

Got spanked again, huh?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Got spanked again, huh?



I know you got spanked, glad too see you can own up too it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

Yup, you got spanked again.  reb, you can't spam.  Simple.  I understand you can't argue on your own engine but, hey, it tis what tis.


----------



## jack113 (Aug 18, 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Paul the racist, bigot, hypocrite that started collecting S.S. as soon as he was eligible and then campaigned on S.S. is a ponzi scheme.

Our foreign bases need to be closed.

The UN needs to be reorganized to get rid of the five country veto and make it a majority vote on all matters like it was designed to be.

America needs to start supporting international law most of it created by America instead of playing brain dead exceptionalism.

America needs to start supporting the treaties it signs with foreign countries instead of letting them blow in the wind.

The American voters ned to stop playing politically correct and stop voting for their own destruction.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I neg repped bigreb for being an idiot who believes in popular lefty democracy to decide what the constitution means.  What an idiot.



Ewwww, the power, the power


----------



## jack113 (Aug 18, 2012)

logical4u said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I neg repped bigreb for being an idiot who believes in popular lefty democracy to decide what the constitution means.  What an idiot.
> ...



Another tea twit heard from. Republican obstruction has been going on since the new deal created the middle class and got rid of the robber barons.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

Now, now, logical4u is GOP, just further right than me is all, without a good grasp of the American narrative, but is willing to learn.



jack113 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## logical4u (Aug 18, 2012)

jack113 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Your "dear leader" is one of the most blatant examples of chrony capitalism.  He is giving our tax dollars to his chosen favorites that declare bankrupcy and take our tax dollars to the bank.  Yet his Manson-like cult followers say, yeah he is for the little guy.

Newsflash!!!!
The middleclass is shrinking and the those living in poverty are increasing under your "dear leader".  There are more people on food stamps than ever.  He has told us "his plan" is "working".  If you want to see more of Obama's plan (more unemployment, more poverty, more food stamps, less prosperity, less small businesses, less choice, less freedom), then by all means vote for him.  Charles Manson will be proud of you!


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 18, 2012)

logical4u said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



As opposed to giving it to everyone who has money and waiting for it to trickle down


----------



## paulitician (Aug 18, 2012)

I can see this thread has devolved into a personal insult-fest. And that's regrettable. This issue effects all Citizens. The Tea Party is just one group who could be targeted. Once they're eliminated, they will move onto others. Everyone should be concerned with this.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, you got spanked again.  reb, you can't spam.  Simple.  I understand you can't argue on your own engine but, hey, it tis what tis.



That's not what was your proclamation was turd you posted, got spanked again, hug?



JakeStarkey said:


> Got spanked again, huh?



Usually when someone else get's spanked I'll say you got spanked again, as in this time you got spanked as usual.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 18, 2012)

logical4u said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I neg repped bigreb for being an idiot who believes in popular lefty democracy to decide what the constitution means.  What an idiot.
> ...


it's ok he's good at lying.


----------



## logical4u (Aug 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > jack113 said:
> ...



How is that "wealth redistribution" working out in Cuba and North Korea?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 18, 2012)

logical4u said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



The wealth redistribution system in effect in this country takes money from the working class and distributes it to the wealthy


----------



## logical4u (Aug 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Good dodge


----------



## bodecea (Aug 18, 2012)

paulitician said:


> I can see this thread has devolved into a personal insult-fest. And that's regrettable. This issue effects all Citizens. The Tea Party is just one group who could be targeted. Once they're eliminated, they will move onto others. Everyone should be concerned with this.



Liar.


----------



## paulitician (Aug 18, 2012)

bodecea said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I can see this thread has devolved into a personal insult-fest. And that's regrettable. This issue effects all Citizens. The Tea Party is just one group who could be targeted. Once they're eliminated, they will move onto others. Everyone should be concerned with this.
> ...



Don't stalk, it's beneath even you.


----------



## jack113 (Aug 18, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > jack113 said:
> ...



Their are more people on food stamps because the communist corporations are sending more and more jobs to China.

Your Nazi leader Bush created the depression and like dogs on a leash you followed him all the way.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 18, 2012)

jack113 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > logical4u said:
> ...



Yea..... I was a big Bush supporter


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 18, 2012)

paulitician said:


> I can see this thread has devolved into a personal insult-fest. And that's regrettable. This issue effects all Citizens. The Tea Party is just one group who could be targeted. Once they're eliminated, they will move onto others. Everyone should be concerned with this.



What did you expect you have the subjects defending the government against the citizen.
Subjects don't want to see that they may lose their spot at the trough


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

Poor rebby, you can lie if you can't spam.  You are a bad liar, too, but go for it.  



bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, you got spanked again.  reb, you can't spam.  Simple.  I understand you can't argue on your own engine but, hey, it tis what tis.
> ...


----------



## paulitician (Aug 18, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I can see this thread has devolved into a personal insult-fest. And that's regrettable. This issue effects all Citizens. The Tea Party is just one group who could be targeted. Once they're eliminated, they will move onto others. Everyone should be concerned with this.
> ...



Yeah, it's just rabid partisan lap dog stuff. They can't see the big picture. They cheer things like this when they feel it will only effect the other guys. They just don't realize that it will effect them too in the end. Anyway, don't waste anymore of your valuable time trying to reason with them. It's all just "Heil Big Brother!" and "Tinfoil Hat!" shite from them. You'll never get anywhere with them. It is sad, but it is what it is. Nice try though.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Poor rebby, you can lie if you can't spam.  You are a bad liar, too, but go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See jake here's your problem you ask questions and they get answered you are asked questions you never answer them her you deflect when you respond and make shit up.

So let's try this one more time.


If the government starts shooting live rounds into a protest what would your reaction be?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

You continue to get spanked and cry.

Your problem, not ours.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Poor rebby, you can lie if you can't spam.  You are a bad liar, too, but go for it.
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You continue to get spanked and cry.
> 
> Your problem, not ours.
> 
> ...



Wishful thinking does not make it true, nothing you have posted would dictate that you spanked anything but your little bitty pecker. How about being an adult for once man up that your wrong and move along. Other wise remain a troll.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

reb....stop for your sake.

Just go away and think you have not made an absolute fool of yourself.  I know you are not alone in how you think but you really do yourself no benefit in letting others know.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You continue to get spanked and cry.Your problem, not ours.
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> reb....stop for your sake.
> 
> Just go away and think you have not made an absolute fool of yourself.  I know you are not alone in how you think but you really do yourself no benefit in letting others know.
> 
> ...



So this is where we end it with you showing how badly you were pawned and unable to answer a simple question. back on ignore.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2012)

I knew I could count on you to blow yourself up.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > reb....stop for your sake.
> ...


----------



## Obamerican (Aug 19, 2012)

paulitician said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


And you think you're open minded, you little goose step robot?


----------



## jack113 (Aug 19, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> jack113 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



All the fascist Koch followers are big Bush traitors.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 19, 2012)

jack113 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jack113 said:
> ...



Hey......Thats why they call me Rightwinger


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 19, 2012)

Ponzi schemes need participants, perhaps this is why these nations are targeted as "axis of evil"

In the year of 2000 there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned Central Bank:

Afghanistan - COMPLETE
Iraq - COMPLETE
Sudan
Libya - COMPLETE
Cuba
North Korea
Syria?
Iran - NEXT UP

Desperately trying to prop up the US dollar and they know when it falls there will be massive riots and protests. That's what they're getting ready for, it's obvious and the lunatics calling for an Iran war don't give a shit how this and other forays will affect you.
We need folks like oath keepers to side with the citizens when SHTF.


----------



## AnonymousIV (Aug 20, 2012)

I think the right figured out how to kill people using public facilities.  I believe with the number of veterans that are dying in their early 50's and live near Lockheed-Martin, are being killed from within the establishment.  I think it has taken upon itself to rid targeted individuals to save the U.S. Government money.  Period.  Check This Breaking News Story http://www.arkansasonline.com/mailfriend/61/421755/ba8405e5b8/


----------



## AnonymousIV (Aug 20, 2012)

Job growth under Republican governors presents challenge for Romney, help for Obama | Deseret News

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/20120709-stateunemployment1.jpg


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 3, 2019)

paulitician said:


> Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
> 
> At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future. It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an extremist militia motivated by the goals of the tea party movement seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest. The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. Its a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
> 
> ...



Imagine had Hillary won.  This is why Jake has his spiffy black Hillary Waffen SS uniform


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 4, 2019)

oh look here,one troll crusader retard,bringing back and old dead buried thread to talk about another troll,one thats been banned no less,jake starkey.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 4, 2019)

Obamerican said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



thank god this sock puppet of candy asses is not here anymore.


----------

