It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[flacaltenn]

That's brave of him. .He wouldn't be feeling intimidated or anything --- would he? He's the rare "uncommitted" super delegate..

See, this is what I'm talking about. The whole narrative you've built is ridiculous. Stop trying to make boogeymen, and let's stick to reality.

No one has "intimidated" him. No one has pressured him. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has never told him who to vote for, nor has anyone else at the DNC.

But you said correctly that the Supers were SELECTED by formula. And that formula is a good predictor of selecting the INSIDER. And probably the insider with the most mojo.. Don't NEED to intimidate a bias sample to start with. It was slanted by the formula. But I'm pretty sure it is enforced by peer pressure from all the other "insiders"..

Bernie doesn't even self-identify as a Dem. Is it any wonder to you his voters are being restrained???
If the Repubs had done that -- and tossed 7Mill equivalent votes to Jeb --- you'd be outraged..

I'm guessing........... Or you could care less -- you party animal..

I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, so yeah - I don't really care. Are you?

You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying that there's no inherent bias. But your narratives of conspiracy and "intimidation" are nonsense.

I care about ballot access and stopping the DNC/RNC from scripting elections. If you're gonna defuse a real resistance or revolt -- you need to offer more choices than these 2.. Coalition governments work fine in most of the world democracies.. People are rapidly catching on to where the tyranny starts..

I'm all for a Parliamentary system and coalition governments. But that's just not the system we have.

The system we have will always tend towards a two-party system.

I think any candidate and/or party that manages to qualify for ballot access in enough states to win a theoretical electoral majority -- ought to stand with the other 2 "chosen" candidates in FEC controlled national debates. THAT would be a great start to opening up the process to the outsiders.

THIS 2 party system is the principle cause of dysfunction and social warfare in the country right now. Repubs have learned that "tea parties" and "liberty caucuses" are no solution to the 4 party folks that determine every action of Congress. Even a SMALL representation of "outsiders" would have a huge effect on honesty, ethics and process. If you don't vent this rage against party control -- there WILL be ugly confrontations eventually.

 

[Contumacious]

SuperDelegates is blatant "voter disenfranchisement".. Those that SCREAM the loudest are usually guilty of it themselves...

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

"Sgt. Schultz" neither choses, nor has any power over superdelegates to influence their votes.

They how do almost every one of them end up being ardent Hillary supporters? She splits Missouri with Bernie and ends up with a 20% bonus? You believe all these coincidences are not by design.

Same shitty deal happened in 2008.. They ALL went to Hillary. Until Obama learned enough to move them,..

The Superdelegates went with Hillary....until Obama took the lead in pledged delegates. There has never been a Democratic nomination that the Super Delegates turned the nomination against the nominee with the most pledged delegates.

The purpose of the Super Delegates is to create the appearance of consensus and momentum. But since they're not actually pledged to a candidate formally until the actual vote......the Super Delegates can and do switch sides to follow the pledged delegate count.

As far as Waco and Malheur, that's good. Lunatic fringe righties git what they deserved. I have no problem if more of you righties want to thin your herd with such actions. There's room on that list for more of you.

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Exactly.


Racist, sexist bumblers at ATF botched Waco cult raid, agents charge

And who says that direct taxes can only be levied at times of emergency?

I've checked the constitution. You made that up.

Direct taxes, which were expected to be used only in emergencies, did not have the built-in protections characteristic of indirect taxes. Direct taxes were imposed directly on individuals, who, it was assumed, could not shift their liability to others. If a tax was not indirect, the Framers thought it should be apportioned. Capitation and land taxes were direct under this understanding, but so might other taxes be, whether known in 1787 or not. If nothing else, a broader understanding of "direct taxes" should require that the constitutional character of any proposed tax be studied before it is enacted in an unapportioned form.

 

[Contumacious]

Direct taxation is legal ONLY during emergencies.

The first direct tax - known as the Victory Tax or the withholding tax at source - - was levied in 1942 - they can only be levied for two years - nevertheless the Vicory Tax was NEVER REMOVED - the welfare/warfare police state loves extracting monies from us bty any means necessary.

.

My point is that it isn't taxes which are immoral, it's direct taxes. Taxing wages or property is aggression against the rightful owners, it is theft, armed robbery.

A tax on liquor though, is another matter. It is not against any person and we are free to avoid the tax by not buying the liquor.

Tariffs and use fees are the proper way to fund a free state,

There are NO taxes imposed on wages - the taxes are imposed on "income".

What Is Constitutional Taxable Income ?


When a wage-earner finishes his year of labor and receives his W-2, it reflects his gross revenue, what he received, not his gross income, what he gained. It does not reflect what he gave up in exchange. He has over the year received the total shown on the W-2, and during the same year he had expended a great deal of energy and labor, he has given a year out of his work life a year out of his life expectancy to another in exchange for his wages. And, yet, the government contends that those wages were all profit, all gain, and that the basis for his earnings was $0.00. He contributed nothing to the exchange and was paid for nothing.

 

[Skylar]

No, it is not disenfranchisment. The two major parties which employ super delegates are private organizations which establish and enforce their own rules. Super delegates are in place to make sure the rank and file members (i.e., the electorate) can't easily hijack the party and nominate a candidate who could wreck the party. Much like Trump is positioning to do now.

That's Bullshit. SGT SCHULTZ decides on SuperDelegates within the Dem party to ENFORCE the "establishment" choice. That's how all the SuperDelegates start out as being Hildebeast supporters. It is a completely BIASED selection process.

Is wittle Bernie Sanders a danger to your party? Scared that if he gets delegates apportioned by THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE --- that will "hijack" Sgt Schultz job???

"Sgt. Schultz" neither choses, nor has any power over superdelegates to influence their votes.

They how do almost every one of them end up being ardent Hillary supporters? She splits Missouri with Bernie and ends up with a 20% bonus? You believe all these coincidences are not by design.

Same shitty deal happened in 2008.. They ALL went to Hillary. Until Obama learned enough to move them,..

The Superdelegates went with Hillary....until Obama took the lead in pledged delegates. There has never been a Democratic nomination that the Super Delegates turned the nomination against the nominee with the most pledged delegates.

The purpose of the Super Delegates is to create the appearance of consensus and momentum. But since they're not actually pledged to a candidate formally until the actual vote......the Super Delegates can and do switch sides to follow the pledged delegate count.

So you like gassing children hiding in bunkers? Shooting mothers holding their babies in their arms. Your sense of sense of "self-preservation" when it comes to abuse of government power is sorely lacking. I think you'd love an actual Tyranny if they were abusing and killing the proper people..

I said nothing about Ruby Ridge. As far as Waco, I hold the parents responsible for leaving their children inside a compound where they were hold up indefinitely in defiance of arrest warrants.

All warrants COULD HAVE been served either by the local Sheriff who had a great relationship with the Mt Carmel folks or by the BATF folks who had been to fucking BBQs at the "compound" just weeks before. They even shot with these guys on their range.

But an "example" needed to made and photo ops and news to manufacture. All that new gear and shit. Couldn't help themselves.

Exactly.


Racist, sexist bumblers at ATF botched Waco cult raid, agents charge

And who says that direct taxes can only be levied at times of emergency?

I've checked the constitution. You made that up.

Direct taxes, which were expected to be used only in emergencies, did not have the built-in protections characteristic of indirect taxes. Direct taxes were imposed directly on individuals, who, it was assumed, could not shift their liability to others. If a tax was not indirect, the Framers thought it should be apportioned. Capitation and land taxes were direct under this understanding, but so might other taxes be, whether known in 1787 or not. If nothing else, a broader understanding of "direct taxes" should require that the constitutional character of any proposed tax be studied before it is enacted in an unapportioned form.

Yeah, that's not the constitution. That's the Heritage Foundation. A right wing think tank. This is the constitution:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4

Where does the constitution or US law say that direct taxes are only legal during emergencies?

Because I'm pretty sure you just made that up. Either that.....or you're not quite clear on what the term 'legal' means.

 

[Skylar]

Direct taxation is legal ONLY during emergencies.

The first direct tax - known as the Victory Tax or the withholding tax at source - - was levied in 1942 - they can only be levied for two years - nevertheless the Vicory Tax was NEVER REMOVED - the welfare/warfare police state loves extracting monies from us bty any means necessary.

.

My point is that it isn't taxes which are immoral, it's direct taxes. Taxing wages or property is aggression against the rightful owners, it is theft, armed robbery.

A tax on liquor though, is another matter. It is not against any person and we are free to avoid the tax by not buying the liquor.

Tariffs and use fees are the proper way to fund a free state,

There are NO taxes imposed on wages - the taxes are imposed on "income".

What Is Constitutional Taxable Income ?


When a wage-earner finishes his year of labor and receives his W-2, it reflects his gross revenue, what he received, not his gross income, what he gained. It does not reflect what he gave up in exchange. He has over the year received the total shown on the W-2, and during the same year he had expended a great deal of energy and labor, he has given a year out of his work life a year out of his life expectancy to another in exchange for his wages. And, yet, the government contends that those wages were all profit, all gain, and that the basis for his earnings was $0.00. He contributed nothing to the exchange and was paid for nothing.

And wages are gains.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

First you need to find comrades who support your goals, you can find them by looking for people wearing tinfoil hats and by establishing a relationship with members of the Aryan Nations, both those in and out of prisons.

Next, you need to have a plan, it might not be a good idea to review how David Koresh planned his revolution or Timothy McVeigh his; and it will be next to impossible to speak to them anyway. You might be better off reading the Manifesto of the Unabomber.

Finally, make out your will. Decide who will get your Confederate Flag, your collection of empty Budweiser Cans and the keys to your '59 Ford P/U which you've not licensed in ten years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First you need to find comrades who support your goals, you can find them by looking for people wearing tinfoil hats and by establishing a relationship with members of the Aryan Nations, both those in and out of prisons.

Next, you need to have a plan, it might not be a good idea to review how David Koresh planned his revolution or Timothy McVeigh his; and it will be next to impossible to speak to them anyway. You might be better off reading the Manifesto of the Unabomber.

Finally, make out your will. Decide who will get your Confederate Flag, your collection of empty Budweiser Cans and the keys to your '59 Ford P/U which you've not licensed in ten years.

Wow, rambling stupidity without a hint of accuracy.

Let's look at what your vomited, Forest;

1. Opposing democrats is racist. That's right - Wry Fuckwad says that only the Aryan Nations opposes Hillary or Mao Tse Sanders.
2. Wry Fuckwad claims a "revolution: by David Koresh. Okay, leftist are supposed to be stupid - and Wry demonstrates this in spades. Yo shit fer brains, Koresh led a doomsday cult. No revolution, He was convinced the federal government was out to murder him and his followers, that they would burn the children of his cult alive. What a nutjob, right?
3. Wry Fuckwad thinks that anyone not obedient to the party is flying the Confederate Flag (which he wouldn't be able to recognize even if Barack Obama butt-fucked him for a week straight while wrapped in it.) and driving classic pickups....

 

[P@triot]

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?

Nothing says 'leadership' like asking other people how to start your revolution.....

In the United States we have a Constitution- and the way to 'prevent' things is by having the most voters.

If you don't have the most voters- and want to rebel against what the voters want- you are just bitter losers who despise our Constitution.

It's ironic to listen to people who have violated the U.S. Constitution because they have a deep contempt for its limitation on powers complain about other people "dispising" the Constitution.

If Democrats (and even most Republicans now) actually respected and adhered to the U.S. Constitution, you would never hear a single citizen talking about revolt.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Nothing says 'leadership' like asking other people how to start your revolution.....

In the United States we have a Constitution- and the way to 'prevent' things is by having the most voters.

If you don't have the most voters- and want to rebel against what the voters want- you are just bitter losers who despise our Constitution.

It's ironic to listen to people who have violated the U.S. Constitution because they have a deep contempt for its limitation on powers complain about other people "dispising" the Constitution.

If Democrats (and even most Republicans now) actually respected and adhered to the U.S. Constitution, you would never hear a single citizen talking about revolt.

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

 

[Faun]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Linking it is easy. Understanding it it is above your paygrade.

 

[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?

Nothing says 'leadership' like asking other people how to start your revolution.....

In the United States we have a Constitution- and the way to 'prevent' things is by having the most voters.

If you don't have the most voters- and want to rebel against what the voters want- you are just bitter losers who despise our Constitution.

It's ironic to listen to people who have violated the U.S. Constitution because they have a deep contempt for its limitation on powers complain about other people "dispising" the Constitution.

If Democrats (and even most Republicans now) actually respected and adhered to the U.S. Constitution, you would never hear a single citizen talking about revolt.

Citizens have been talking about revolt since the Whiskey Rebellion put down by George Washington.

Someone always believes that other people are not 'adhering to the U.S. Constitution'.

The U.S. Constitution exactly explains the recourse available to all Constitution loving Americans.

Revolution is not one of them.

 

[Syriusly]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

The Constitution to you fascists is just something you like to wrap yourself up to excuse attacking others.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

 

[P@triot]

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?

Nothing says 'leadership' like asking other people how to start your revolution.....

In the United States we have a Constitution- and the way to 'prevent' things is by having the most voters.

If you don't have the most voters- and want to rebel against what the voters want- you are just bitter losers who despise our Constitution.

It's ironic to listen to people who have violated the U.S. Constitution because they have a deep contempt for its limitation on powers complain about other people "dispising" the Constitution.

If Democrats (and even most Republicans now) actually respected and adhered to the U.S. Constitution, you would never hear a single citizen talking about revolt.

Citizens have been talking about revolt since the Whiskey Rebellion put down by George Washington.

Someone always believes that other people are not 'adhering to the U.S. Constitution'.

The U.S. Constitution exactly explains the recourse available to all Constitution loving Americans.

Revolution is not one of them.

That is an unbelievably nonsensical response. If people in power are violating the U.S. Constitution, how can the U.S. Constitution be the "recourse"? Hint: it can't be.

 

[P@triot]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

"Unreasonable search & seizure" are searches or seizures without probable cause. So if a police officer pulls you over and sees a crack-pipe on your dashboard, that is reasonable cause. If he doesn't and he searches your automobile anyway, that is unreasonable.

Why do you liberals act like the U.S. Constitution is some mysterious ancient text? The shit is written in plain English, black & white, and couldn't be any more straight forward.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First you need to find comrades who support your goals, you can find them by looking for people wearing tinfoil hats and by establishing a relationship with members of the Aryan Nations, both those in and out of prisons.

Next, you need to have a plan, it might not be a good idea to review how David Koresh planned his revolution or Timothy McVeigh his; and it will be next to impossible to speak to them anyway. You might be better off reading the Manifesto of the Unabomber.

Finally, make out your will. Decide who will get your Confederate Flag, your collection of empty Budweiser Cans and the keys to your '59 Ford P/U which you've not licensed in ten years.

Wow, rambling stupidity without a hint of accuracy.

Let's look at what your vomited, Forest;

1. Opposing democrats is racist. That's right - Wry Fuckwad says that only the Aryan Nations opposes Hillary or Mao Tse Sanders.
2. Wry Fuckwad claims a "revolution: by David Koresh. Okay, leftist are supposed to be stupid - and Wry demonstrates this in spades. Yo shit fer brains, Koresh led a doomsday cult. No revolution, He was convinced the federal government was out to murder him and his followers, that they would burn the children of his cult alive. What a nutjob, right?
3. Wry Fuckwad thinks that anyone not obedient to the party is flying the Confederate Flag (which he wouldn't be able to recognize even if Barack Obama butt-fucked him for a week straight while wrapped in it.) and driving classic pickups....

LOL I do have questions, what is a"fuckwad" and why are RWers so fascinated with butt fucking?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

"Unreasonable search & seizure" are searches or seizures without probable cause. So if a police officer pulls you over and sees a crack-pipe on your dashboard, that is reasonable cause. If he doesn't and he searches your automobile anyway, that is unreasonable.

Why do you liberals act like the U.S. Constitution is some mysterious ancient text? The shit is written in plain English, black & white, and couldn't be any more straight forward.

If what you wrote were true, there wouldn't be dozens of cases heard by the SC every session, and there would be few 5-4 decisions. I hope this post is not too abstract for you.

 

[Skylar]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

"Unreasonable search & seizure" are searches or seizures without probable cause.

What constitutes probable cause? And please answer only with direct quotes from the constitution, as the constitution needs no intepretation per the folks I'm discussing this issue with.

Why do you liberals act like the U.S. Constitution is some mysterious ancient text? The shit is written in plain English, black & white, and couldn't be any more straight forward.

Then you're not going to have any problem with the 'probable cause' question. Or 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

Using only the words of the constitution to define them, please.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

its coming. and when it does the liberals will be exterminated.

Tell us more...

If they join up the American Spring protest and the domestic terrorists from the Oregon fiasco

AND

If they remember snacks and toilet paper,

Why that could give them oh, two dozen "patriots".

And if they didn't hafts leave to go cash their gubt checks ....

Scary, huh?