Iowa Republican ready to take up arms against her country

[rightwinger]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

Then I expect you are actively resisting this President's continuation of his predecessor's policies of unilaterally deciding who is protected by the Constitution and who is not.

I'm going to have to insist on a reference for that

 

[Avorysuds]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

Then I expect you are actively resisting this President's continuation of his predecessor's policies of unilaterally deciding who is protected by the Constitution and who is not.

No, RW hates all of Bush's policies when Bush did them but defends them under Obama when Obama expanded them.... Right down to attacking Bush for ending the Iraq war and defending Obama for going back in.

 

[Dan Daly]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

You want her to use speech because you know it gets nothing done these days. You want a single person to have the same protesting power as millions of people back in the civil rights. You're just making an ass of yourself. It's two entirely different situations.

so again, what are the circumstances that she would fire on government officials? imminent domain foreclosure? being 'forced' to accomodate a gay marriage? not being allowed to carry a gun into a courtroom? having to have health insurance? being relegated to a 'free speech zone?'

where's the line?

saying ridiculous things doesn't really make you look smarter.
email her and ask her...or continue seeking attention and exposing your insecurity here.

it's not ridiculous. she needs to make that clear or she's providing justification for every yahoo that thinks his rights are violated when something they don't like happens.

Where in the Constitution does it state a requirement that a candidate for office must stifle his/her own freedom of expression to compensate for the idiocy of others?

If you take her statements to some wacky extreme, that is on you, not her.

 

[Avorysuds]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

Then I expect you are actively resisting this President's continuation of his predecessor's policies of unilaterally deciding who is protected by the Constitution and who is not.

I'm going to have to insist on a reference for that

What do you mean? Like you want us to find where Obama expanded the war on terror, or continued the Bush tax cuts, or continued and grew bailouts and stimulus... or continued Guantanamo, or expanded home;land security, or expanded the patriot act.... or or or or or or...

 

[RandallFlagg]

Candidate s gun remarks should scare us all Opinion - CNN.com

Joni Ernst, the Iowa candidate who has vaulted to within an inch of United States Senate due to her boasting of hog castration in this year's most inventive political ad, was speaking to the National Rifle Association in 2012.

"I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important."

Jesus - Shut the hell up you moron.

 

[Dan Daly]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

You want her to use speech because you know it gets nothing done these days. You want a single person to have the same protesting power as millions of people back in the civil rights. You're just making an ass of yourself. It's two entirely different situations.

so again, what are the circumstances that she would fire on government officials? imminent domain foreclosure? being 'forced' to accomodate a gay marriage? not being allowed to carry a gun into a courtroom? having to have health insurance? being relegated to a 'free speech zone?'

where's the line?

All have Constitutional regress available that does not involve taking up arms against your country

The term is "redress" my friend, and one of our other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, disagrees with you.

Do you support the Syrians rebelling against Assad's government? If so, how do you reconcile the fact that he was just elected with like 80ish percent of the vote?

 

[rightwinger]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

Then I expect you are actively resisting this President's continuation of his predecessor's policies of unilaterally deciding who is protected by the Constitution and who is not.

No, RW hates all of Bush's policies when Bush did them but defends them under Obama when Obama expanded them.... Right down to attacking Bush for ending the Iraq war and defending Obama for going back in.

Really now?

I would LOVE to see those examples

 

[rightwinger]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

You want her to use speech because you know it gets nothing done these days. You want a single person to have the same protesting power as millions of people back in the civil rights. You're just making an ass of yourself. It's two entirely different situations.

so again, what are the circumstances that she would fire on government officials? imminent domain foreclosure? being 'forced' to accomodate a gay marriage? not being allowed to carry a gun into a courtroom? having to have health insurance? being relegated to a 'free speech zone?'

where's the line?

All have Constitutional regress available that does not involve taking up arms against your country

The term is "redress" my friend, and one of our other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, disagrees with you.

Do you support the Syrians rebelling against Assad's government? If so, how do you reconcile the fact that he was just elected with like 80ish percent of the vote?

My bad....of course you are write

 

[Nosmo King]

Only a panty waste liberal would find her statement alarming.
I guess I can see why it would though.

So you believe that firearms have a place in American politics? Decisions made only by those packing heat? Where in the second amendment does it say you have the right to fire upon law enforcement officers or military personnel because you fear them?

Foreign or domestic...
You live under a rock?

The second amendment does not say you can fire upon law enforcement or military personnel. It does, however mention a well regulated militia. But NOTHING about shooting those with whom you politically disagree.

 

[Dan Daly]

Only a panty waste liberal would find her statement alarming.
I guess I can see why it would though.

So you believe that firearms have a place in American politics? Decisions made only by those packing heat? Where in the second amendment does it say you have the right to fire upon law enforcement officers or military personnel because you fear them?

Just because she is willing to protect her birthright does not disqualify her from holding office. If you will recall your history, our first Presidents and much of the early Congress were participants in an armed rebellion against their former government.

And they were so serious about it that they gave us our Constitution so that we would not have to go through what they went through

Their words during the ratification debate disagree with you, so please try again.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

You want her to use speech because you know it gets nothing done these days. You want a single person to have the same protesting power as millions of people back in the civil rights. You're just making an ass of yourself. It's two entirely different situations.

so again, what are the circumstances that she would fire on government officials? imminent domain foreclosure? being 'forced' to accomodate a gay marriage? not being allowed to carry a gun into a courtroom? having to have health insurance? being relegated to a 'free speech zone?'

where's the line?

All have Constitutional regress available that does not involve taking up arms against your country

The term is "redress" my friend, and one of our other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, disagrees with you.

Do you support the Syrians rebelling against Assad's government? If so, how do you reconcile the fact that he was just elected with like 80ish percent of the vote?

My bad....of course you are write

And, of course, you are rong.

 

[Rotagilla]

The way to reform government is at the ballot box.

The south tried that in 1861...the north wanted war instead.

Ahhh, the old "War of Northern Aggression" gambit.

Pretty funny. That's about all I need to know about you Mr. "Moderate".

the south tried to legally and peacefully withdraw from the union. The north started a war over it.

To be fair, the South fired the first shot. Granted, they may have been provoked into doing so and the resulting invasion and destruction may have been way overkill, but the fact remains that they could have negotiated further over the status of federal forts like Sumter rather than firing that first shot.

The north sent troops and ships into charleston harbor to reinforce a fort they no longer owned. That is called "invasion" and patriots will always oppose invaders.

lincoln knew if he did that it would provoke shooting and it would give him the casus belli (excuse) he needed to wage total, scorched earth war on fellow americans...allowing his generals to murder, steal personal belonings, wreck infrastructure, steal livestock, illegally seize and redistribute property, burn civilians homes and businesses..

At the time of the sending of the 8 war ships to Ft Sumter to resupply, reman, and to try to enforce the Morill tariff of 48%, the union still had 11 slave states, during the war they still had 7, and after the war New Jersey only ratified the 13th amendment after renaming their slaves to be lifetime indentured servants, plus they had nearly as many slaveholders in their army as we did.

The north is where before the war, there were laws to keep blacks out of the states, they had the first laws to prevent items to be sold to blacks well before the war, the north is where the prejudice was.


"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important."


Wrong.

The Second Amendment doesn't 'authorize' citizens to unilaterally 'take up arms' against the Federal government.

That would violate other citizens' First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the courts.

That a minority of extremists subjectively perceive the Federal government as 'tyrannical' doesn't mean the whole of the people perceive the Federal government as such, or that the First Amendment rights of other citizens should be ignored.

 

[Dan Daly]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

Then I expect you are actively resisting this President's continuation of his predecessor's policies of unilaterally deciding who is protected by the Constitution and who is not.

I'm going to have to insist on a reference for that

Anwar Al Awaki...or how ever the hell his name is spelled. Who decided that he was fair game for assassination without due process?

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm out after this, got thangs to do~

1) Obama: “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision [to end the war in Iraq],” said Obama on August 9, 2014.

2) Obama saying he ended it in 2012: Video for the simple minded.

3) And now here is Obama telling us we're headed back to war in Iraq: "I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," Obama said. "It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."

Obama Tells the Nation That America Is Going Back to War in Iraq VICE News

 

[bodecea]

Rightwingy...ponder for a moment or two, "...should they decide that my rights are no longer imporant."

But her rights to do what? As compared to the general welfare? Determined by who or what? The ballot box?

Would a person whose choices for elected office are never voted in....do they get to determine that their rights are no longer important and start shooting up the place?

 

[Avorysuds]

"I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important."


Wrong.

The Second Amendment doesn't 'authorize' citizens to unilaterally 'take up arms' against the Federal government.

That would violate other citizens' First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the courts.

That a minority of extremists subjectively perceive the Federal government as 'tyrannical' doesn't mean the whole of the people perceive the Federal government as such, or that the First Amendment rights of other citizens should be ignored.

Oh gawd, another mindless Obama-bot drone.

 

[Rotagilla]

When the Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
Clear enough?

no. who decides that? some people claim that public accommodation laws violate their first amendment rights. should they take up arms against the government?

How about when your Government is set to allow millions of immigrants into the country in order to flood your country with a certain type of voter that will make our fucked up job situation even worse?
Reason enough?

You really believe that crap about allowing immigrants only because they will all be Democrats don't you? I guess that once you give up your reasoning ability, rush can make you believe anything.......sad.

Why is the border open?

Because big business wants the cheap labor. Transient workers who cost little more than slave wages are what makes companies like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill multibillion dollar companies.

The left likes open borders for the reason you just said...they want illegals to displace american workers which will undercut fair wages, which will increase poverty, which will lead to more government dependency which will translate into votes.

Conservatives want the border closed. Now.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Only a panty waste liberal would find her statement alarming.
I guess I can see why it would though.

So you believe that firearms have a place in American politics? Decisions made only by those packing heat? Where in the second amendment does it say you have the right to fire upon law enforcement officers or military personnel because you fear them?

Foreign or domestic...
You live under a rock?

The second amendment does not say you can fire upon law enforcement or military personnel. It does, however mention a well regulated militia. But NOTHING about shooting those with whom you politically disagree.

So we didnt disagree with king george?

 

[rightwinger]

Leave it to RW to clearly make the case that he fully supports an oppressive Government...

Where did I say that?

I said I advocate citizens using their Constitutional freedoms to fight an oppressive Government. That is something I would expect a Senator to advocate

Then I expect you are actively resisting this President's continuation of his predecessor's policies of unilaterally deciding who is protected by the Constitution and who is not.

I'm going to have to insist on a reference for that

Anwar Al Awaki...or how ever the hell his name is spelled. Who decided that he was fair game for assassination without due process?

Man took up arms against his country and was fair game

He was free to turn himself in at any time and have his full Constitutional rights. Being an enemy combatant, you lose those rights