It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[martybegan]

It's not so much now, but what rights we will lose. So far we have lost the right to run a business the way we want to. We have lost the right to practice our religion. We are headed down the road to losing more. We needn't wait until they are gone before we act.

no doubt the loss of jim crow laws left you broken-hearted.

this is why normal people don't vote for your insanity.

Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but allowed by a wrong SC decision, and is a lesson on giving the courts the power to make crap up as they go along.

Yet- without the Supreme Court- there is no one to say that Jim Crows were unconstitutional or not. Each state can impose any Jim Crow laws as it pleases.

The Supreme Court gets some things wrong- but the alternative is unlimited State power.

The SC gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself..

Exactly how did the Supreme Court make stuff out of thin air regarding Jim Crow laws?

By letting them exist after plessey V Fergueson. (I assume you thought I meant striking them down, to me that was the RIGHT decision, government cannot deny equal protection under the law).

Let me clarify, Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, because separate but equal can never be equal when it comes to what the laws covered.

 

[jillian]

It's not so much now, but what rights we will lose. So far we have lost the right to run a business the way we want to. We have lost the right to practice our religion. We are headed down the road to losing more. We needn't wait until they are gone before we act.

no doubt the loss of jim crow laws left you broken-hearted.

this is why normal people don't vote for your insanity.

Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but allowed by a wrong SC decision, and is a lesson on giving the courts the power to make crap up as they go along.

Yet- without the Supreme Court- there is no one to say that Jim Crows were unconstitutional or not. Each state can impose any Jim Crow laws as it pleases.

The Supreme Court gets some things wrong- but the alternative is unlimited State power.

The SC gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself..

Exactly how did the Supreme Court make stuff out of thin air regarding Jim Crow laws?

they don't like that whole "equal protection under the law" thing and hate the whole "separate but equal is not equal" concept.

but they're not bigots or anything. I love the fauxrage about that.

 

[Syriusly]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

I think things have to get far far worse to consider it to be "do over" time.

That being said its usually something nobody sees coming that turns into the straw that breaks the camels back.

A liberal court overturning heller, and NY State banning all sorts of guns might be something along those lines. NYC doesn't care, but Upstate sure as hell does.

Well, you may be right, but I'd prefer not to wait until it gets that far. Even if we are small in number, it's time to start. I wouldn't be surprised if the tipping point comes this year. Like if the GOP caves on Obama's SCOTUS appointment. I'd say the odds are very high that they will.

Yeah- nothing would lead to revolution more than your outrage that the President of the United States follows his Constitutional requirement to nominate and appoint a Supreme Court Justice- and the Senate did their Constitutional duties to advise and consent.

Because of your love of the Constitution......

Ah, a lefty.

Dismissed.

Another Constitution hating idiot.

Making stupid posts. LOL.

 

[jillian]

Well, you may be right, but I'd prefer not to wait until it gets that far. Even if we are small in number, it's time to start. I wouldn't be surprised if the tipping point comes this year. Like if the GOP caves on Obama's SCOTUS appointment. I'd say the odds are very high that they will.

Again, anything without the support of at least 10-20% of the population isn't a revolution, it's a riot. Something really really bad would have to happen to reach that point.

But we have to start somewhere right? Better than doing nothing.

Tell us how what you are doing here is any different than you doing nothing?

You don't understand how this is better? Are you sincere or just trolling? I can't remember if you are a lefty or not.

You are anonymously calling for someone else to lead a revolution against some vague outrage you have, with no clear purpose or goal.

What you are accomplishing is virtually no different than if you never started the thread.

oh sure he's accomplishing something.... he's stamping his feet and throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[Syriusly]

no doubt the loss of jim crow laws left you broken-hearted.

this is why normal people don't vote for your insanity.

Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but allowed by a wrong SC decision, and is a lesson on giving the courts the power to make crap up as they go along.

Yet- without the Supreme Court- there is no one to say that Jim Crows were unconstitutional or not. Each state can impose any Jim Crow laws as it pleases.

The Supreme Court gets some things wrong- but the alternative is unlimited State power.

The SC gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself..

Exactly how did the Supreme Court make stuff out of thin air regarding Jim Crow laws?

Let me clarify, Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, because separate but equal can never be equal when it comes to what the laws covered.

Again- so how did the Supreme Court pull a decision out of thin air when it came to Jim Crow laws- something which you said was a wrong Supreme Court ruling- and which you said the SC
gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself.

 

[martybegan]

no doubt the loss of jim crow laws left you broken-hearted.

this is why normal people don't vote for your insanity.

Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but allowed by a wrong SC decision, and is a lesson on giving the courts the power to make crap up as they go along.

Yet- without the Supreme Court- there is no one to say that Jim Crows were unconstitutional or not. Each state can impose any Jim Crow laws as it pleases.

The Supreme Court gets some things wrong- but the alternative is unlimited State power.

The SC gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself..

Exactly how did the Supreme Court make stuff out of thin air regarding Jim Crow laws?

they don't like that whole "equal protection under the law" thing and hate the whole "separate but equal is not equal" concept.

but they're not bigots or anything. I love the fauxrage about that.

See my response to Syriusly, I have always thought Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional. I see them as a result of Plessy, and Plessy as a result of a Court that thinks it can ignore the text of the constitution to impose its own viewpoints on the nation.

 

[PredFan]

I'm going to get started. I'll contact someone I know whom I haven't seen in a while but is even more right wing than I am. I'm sure he will be helpful.

I'll try to contact the person who organized the tea party rallie here in Orlando.

Hmmm...should I have a manifesto of some sort? Possibly.

 

[jillian]

Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but allowed by a wrong SC decision, and is a lesson on giving the courts the power to make crap up as they go along.

Yet- without the Supreme Court- there is no one to say that Jim Crows were unconstitutional or not. Each state can impose any Jim Crow laws as it pleases.

The Supreme Court gets some things wrong- but the alternative is unlimited State power.

The SC gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself..

Exactly how did the Supreme Court make stuff out of thin air regarding Jim Crow laws?

they don't like that whole "equal protection under the law" thing and hate the whole "separate but equal is not equal" concept.

but they're not bigots or anything. I love the fauxrage about that.

See my response to Syriusly, I have always thought Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional. I see them as a result of Plessy, and Plessy as a result of a Court that thinks it can ignore the text of the constitution to impose its own viewpoints on the nation.

jim crow preceded plessy v ferguson and goes back to slavery and reconstruction.

nice try though.

 

[martybegan]

Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, but allowed by a wrong SC decision, and is a lesson on giving the courts the power to make crap up as they go along.

Yet- without the Supreme Court- there is no one to say that Jim Crows were unconstitutional or not. Each state can impose any Jim Crow laws as it pleases.

The Supreme Court gets some things wrong- but the alternative is unlimited State power.

The SC gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself..

Exactly how did the Supreme Court make stuff out of thin air regarding Jim Crow laws?

Let me clarify, Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, because separate but equal can never be equal when it comes to what the laws covered.

Again- so how did the Supreme Court pull a decision out of thin air when it came to Jim Crow laws- something which you said was a wrong Supreme Court ruling- and which you said the SC
gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself.

Plessy wrongly concluded that equal protection as per the 14th amendment could be achieved through "separate but equal" accommodations and laws. It took the decision in Brown Vs Board of Ed to finally realize that separate government mandated accommodations could never be equal, particularly because of the lack of voting power due to the disenfranchisement of blacks in the south (taken care of and corrected by other laws).

 

[Timmy]

Right wingers are so fucking dramatic ! Really, what is going on in your life that is so horrible ? How are you being oppressed ?

 

[martybegan]

Yet- without the Supreme Court- there is no one to say that Jim Crows were unconstitutional or not. Each state can impose any Jim Crow laws as it pleases.

The Supreme Court gets some things wrong- but the alternative is unlimited State power.

The SC gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself..

Exactly how did the Supreme Court make stuff out of thin air regarding Jim Crow laws?

they don't like that whole "equal protection under the law" thing and hate the whole "separate but equal is not equal" concept.

but they're not bigots or anything. I love the fauxrage about that.

See my response to Syriusly, I have always thought Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional. I see them as a result of Plessy, and Plessy as a result of a Court that thinks it can ignore the text of the constitution to impose its own viewpoints on the nation.

jim crow preceded plessy v ferguson and goes back to slavery and reconstruction.

nice try though.

Of course it did, the laws had to exist to challenged in the first place. However they were cemented into place by Plessey, and expanded further due to the cover provided by the decision.

Also Jim Crow was not unconstitutional until the passing of the 14th amendment, requiring equal protection under the law by the States.

 

[jillian]

The SC gets things wrong when it makes crap up out if thin air, that don't even have a passing reference in the document itself..

Exactly how did the Supreme Court make stuff out of thin air regarding Jim Crow laws?

they don't like that whole "equal protection under the law" thing and hate the whole "separate but equal is not equal" concept.

but they're not bigots or anything. I love the fauxrage about that.

See my response to Syriusly, I have always thought Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional. I see them as a result of Plessy, and Plessy as a result of a Court that thinks it can ignore the text of the constitution to impose its own viewpoints on the nation.

jim crow preceded plessy v ferguson and goes back to slavery and reconstruction.

nice try though.

Of course it did, the laws had to exist to challenged in the first place. However they were cemented into place by Plessey, and expanded further due to the cover provided by the decision.

Also Jim Crow was not unconstitutional until the passing of the 14th amendment, requiring equal protection under the law by the States.

it always should have been. and equal protection, even if not formalized by the 14th, should have stopped it due to the supremacy clause

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

You start by posting this in Political Satire, because no one is taking this seriously.

 

[BlindBoo]

I wouldn't be surprised if the tipping point comes this year. Like if the GOP caves on Obama's SCOTUS appointment.

Following the rule of law you think is a tipping point? What if he appointed a new justice while the Senate is in recess? Would you call for your revolt then?

 

[martybegan]

Exactly how did the Supreme Court make stuff out of thin air regarding Jim Crow laws?

they don't like that whole "equal protection under the law" thing and hate the whole "separate but equal is not equal" concept.

but they're not bigots or anything. I love the fauxrage about that.

See my response to Syriusly, I have always thought Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional. I see them as a result of Plessy, and Plessy as a result of a Court that thinks it can ignore the text of the constitution to impose its own viewpoints on the nation.

jim crow preceded plessy v ferguson and goes back to slavery and reconstruction.

nice try though.

Of course it did, the laws had to exist to challenged in the first place. However they were cemented into place by Plessey, and expanded further due to the cover provided by the decision.

Also Jim Crow was not unconstitutional until the passing of the 14th amendment, requiring equal protection under the law by the States.

it always should have been. and equal protection, even if not formalized by the 14th, should have stopped it due to the supremacy clause

That's like saying slavery should never have existed. The fact is that without the 14th not even the amendments would have been incorporated to apply to the State Governments.

 

[koshergrl]

Step one I think is secrecy. No names, no public showings untill numbers are large enough. No blogs, no Facebook pages. Off the grid to get a solid core.

I could be mistaken, I'm not a community organizer, I'm just an American who recognizes the danger coming.

No, it's beyond that...now is the time to recruit public faces and go public. The militias are soldiers and roughly hewn and it's so easy to collect them and put them in jail when they're peaceful, and to make excuses for killing them. What America needs for people who have the gift of communication, and the willingness to stand peacefully in PROTEST, to step up to the plate...and they ARE. It's amazing how many mothers are really grabbing this bull by the horns. You don't see it because the feds and the media conspire to shut down the information, as happened in Burns.

There's a nationwide protest March 5, everybody is gathering to protest the overreach of our government which culminated in the death of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of DOZENS of people for nothing more than "conspiracy"...i.e., TALKING ABOUT GOVERNMENT OVERREACH in terms of the CONSTITUTION. I don't think people realize...the feds are putting people in jail for saying the feds are behaving illegally, and they are calling it "conspiracy to obstruct". I'll be conspiring to obstruct and protest the feds' illegal, unconstitutional actions at the courthouse in Portland on that day.

There are a lot of people showing flags over overpasses...because it's all so fluid you have to be tapped in to the activists to know when/where, but really, it's anywhere, any when.

There's a lot more going on, too.

Call representatives, call the press, call your sheriff, and make your concerns known and tell them what you expect from them. Campaign for and elect CONSTITUTIONAL judges, district attorneys, and sheriffs. It is THEIR JOB to abide by the constitution, and to DEFEND their constituents.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights."

Most conservatives are in no position to be "concerned" about the loss of basic rights, given conservative hostility toward the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of minorities.

 

[koshergrl]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

neoconfederate insurrectionists are funny. but please tell us how you're a patriot, loon.

The Constitution is based on the consent of the governed, when enough of the governed withdraw consent, what's to keep it (and more importantly the current government) in place?

Force?

Don't respond to them. They are simply trying to troll and trash this thread.

Block block block them.

So while this was all going down in Harney county, the feds were trolling MULTIPLE sites on facebook. They were giving out the personal phone numbers of the people involved (because remember, the occupiers had given all their contact information to the feds REPEATEDLY in an effort to establish communication with them...the feds communicated with them in a cursory manner only, there was no real attempt to negotiate...then they released the numbers to the public via TROLLS...agents online....in the hopes that the flood of attacks from online hackers and trolls would shut down the live feed that was going out and also all the lines that the feds hadn't already secured). If we're going to use the internet, we have to be savvy about shutting down trolls and distractions, and that means you block sites and posters religiously, and focus on networking amongst ourselves, getting the word out, putting a face to the movement against tyranny, and educating people.

 

[PredFan]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

You start by posting this in Political Satire, because no one is taking this seriously.

The very fact that the left has come here so hard and so fast is enough to tell me that you are all taking this very seriously. And we'll you should. I'm not fucking around anymore.

 

[koshergrl]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

I think things have to get far far worse to consider it to be "do over" time.

That being said its usually something nobody sees coming that turns into the straw that breaks the camels back.

A liberal court overturning heller, and NY State banning all sorts of guns might be something along those lines. NYC doesn't care, but Upstate sure as hell does.

Well, you may be right, but I'd prefer not to wait until it gets that far. Even if we are small in number, it's time to start. I wouldn't be surprised if the tipping point comes this year. Like if the GOP caves on Obama's SCOTUS appointment. I'd say the odds are very high that they will.

Again, anything without the support of at least 10-20% of the population isn't a revolution, it's a riot. Something really really bad would have to happen to reach that point.

But we have to start somewhere right? Better than doing nothing.

Absolutely.

Also, be very careful of statists who pose as constitutionalists...they do it all the time, and then they do nothing but declare there is no hope, that nothing can be done, that nobody is getting the word out, that the movement has failed bla bla blah. Block them too.