You all remember the so-called "Nuclear Option" the last Republican congress wanted to put through? You rightees are still in favor of it, right?

...And I support shuting down Congress for the next 4 years while we sift throught and undo most of the endless assinine-legislation that has been enacted over the past 50+ years...

There is no way those guys are going to follow any law Congress passes.  They've already made that clear.  It's good to see that Pelosi and Reid are gradually escalating it giving Bush and Cheney a chance to back down.  It's not going to happen, though.  Those guys are going to the mat.

To think the unthinkable?  Protesters are in Washington and might continue to arrive. They might get rowdy as this continues. I hope troops aren't called in, then we'll have a full blown total crisis.  

-- Modified on 7/17/2007 10:25:25 PM

you surprise me Ben.... didnt think you'd be both in favor of eliminating the filbuster, as well as shutting down Congress.
At the risk of hijacking this thread... whats your view on a Constitutional Convention?

There is no way those guys are going to follow any law Congress passes.  They've already made that clear.  It's good to see that Pelosi and Reid are gradually escalating it giving Bush and Cheney a chance to back down.  It's not going to happen, though.  Those guys are going to the mat.

To think the unthinkable?  Protesters are in Washington and might continue to arrive. They might get rowdy as this continues. I hope troops aren't called in, then we'll have a full blown total crisis.  

I'd be all for a standing body of government that does that permanently, though.  Why not use the Electoral College?  It's not doing anything else.    

Fillibuster is important.  The Senate was conceived of as a club.  It stimulates debate and interests for cases like this.

Besides, if there were nothing procedurally different about the Senate, we might as well have one united house of Congress for efficiency.  

I seem to be more conservative than either of you.  I think the States should have their own means of choosing Senators, going back before we changed it to popular vote.  I think the Amendment doing that was a mistake.  

As for the house, I think the size of it should be increased 2 1/2 times.  Why did we limit it to 435?  That's not enough representation for a population this size.

I absolutely oppose it!!

It is my belief that the Constitution has already been too eroded over the years with amendments (often well-meaning, but short-sighted)

That Document is the anchor to this ship we sail on a sea of fluid-morality, every time we raise-anchor, we drift further into the abyss of tyranny and destruction... The Constitution by way of amendments and loose-inturpretations via liberal courts, has passed through the center of "zero-balance" long ago, and has now created absurd rulings where SOME classes of people are more equal than others, and cemented those extra privalages in a way that will never be able to be challenged!

There is no point in having "Constitutional Conventions" at this phase of our country's history, our destiny has already been set, and America will be unrecognizable in 20 years... MARK MY WORDS! WE ARE FUCKED!!

(Hey Doc, is THAT the type of "views" you were looking for? lol!)




-- Modified on 7/18/2007 9:59:38 AM

IMO Congress Can't decide to scratch its self in four years. I think that is the problem the lobbiest and political operatives have hidden in the congressional forest. For instance the war powers act was set up to keep in check the president from starting something he could not finish however even though congress designed it it has become worthless becouse a body of 435 pepole cant diside what time it is.

Don't worry about the protestors getting rowdy or a lack of troops to combat them. There are thousands of Militiamen on standby to protect and serve our President and Staff..

You mean of course, the "brownshirts".

The only people I see wearing brown shirts are libs....Drab... I have never owned a brown shirt but I can see you in one happily picking rice.

Not immediately anyway.  I was thinking more of Tineman Square. Looks like you were, too.  Except the crisis created by it would have been challenging to the Administration.

-- Modified on 7/18/2007 10:54:40 PM

Not immediately anyway.  I was thinking more of Tineman Square. Looks like you were, too.  

-- Modified on 7/18/2007 10:55:02 PM

No I meant these brownshirts. Only impotent dipwads such as yourself would threaten our republic with such brutal tactics.

The House of Representatives was never conceived of as the most efficient arm of government.

As is the President, and the Supreme Court for that matter... The entire Fed-oligarchy! The Federal Government has been steadly increasing it's power-hold over the states for generations, and it's to the point now that we are merely the subjects of the federal-kingdom!

Why even have states anymore? Everything we do is mandated by the feds anyway, either directly or inderectly...

How about a federal revolt? Sort of a tea-party protest... We as a people simply withhold all federal taxes and state payments to the federal gov until it starves into extinction, which should only take 90 days...

The only Tineman square type theatrics I have seen lately in the U.S. was Waco Texas and the Janet reno Posse.. Women and children massacred for no reason ... oh yeah Kuresh was a nut but to hold a place surrounded for how many days .. 51?? and then attack..Your thoughts of Tinneman square happening under this administration is fools play..Bush is a honorable man and he would not threaten his people.I would surely help President Bush  if he was ever threatened by unruly mobs..  I think your type is nuts to even insinuate such happenings ..                                            A little Waco History..After the February raid by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) of David Koresh's dissident religious community at Waco, Texas, the FBI and the U.S. Army took over, mounting a 51-day siege. This included such psy-war tactics as sleep deprivation of the inhabitants of the community by means of all-night broadcasts of recordings of the screams of rabbits being slaughtered.

Finally, despite David Koresh's pledge to surrender upon completion of his written explanation of the meaning of the Seven Seals, the FBI and the Army attacked. At dawn on April 19, 1993, and throughout the morning, tanks rammed holes in the main building and pumped (in the FBI's words) "massive amounts" of CS gas into the building, despite knowing that inside were more than a dozen children. The tanks demolished parts of the compound and created tunnels for the wind to blow through. The buildings at this point were saturated with inflammable CS gas and spilled kerosene.

Around midday two U.S. military pyrotechnic devices were fired into the main building, igniting a fire which (because of the holes in the walls allowing the wind to gust through) spread rapidly through the complex of buildings and became an inferno. 74 men, women and children died — including twelve children younger than five years of age. Fire trucks were prevented by the FBI from approaching the inferno. After the compound had burned down the BATF flag was hoisted aloft to signify 'victory'. Subsequently the burned-out ruin was razed in an attempt to remove all evidence of this premeditated murder of innocent civilians by agents of the U.S. government. Thus occured an atrocity which many Americans believe could never happen in their country. A look at the evidence presented in the film Waco: Rules of Engagement (and in the BBC documentary broadcast in the U.K. on November 28, 1998) shows that it did happen.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think other people don't have Google?  No, I didn't look for it, you might say it was the second listing on my Google search.  Don't you think you should attribute your description?  

http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html

I think you should, even if it shows people just who you trust for information besides George Bush.  And that you do drag 'n' drop with impunity.  

You know what I remember about Waco?  I remember the news report the day after the raid showing ATF agents getting shot.  It didn't look like they were going in "with guns blazing" to me, it looked like they were being blazed by them.  

I had to look very hard through a lot of crazy sites even to find a mention that ATF agents took serious casualties. Four dead and twenty wounded in fact.  I had a hard time finding one which embellishes Koresh promising to surrender with an account of how many times he broke promises.  (It seemed he would have a lot of time to write after a peaceful surrender.)

Now, one big difference is that Tineman Square did not start with a gunfight where authorities took casualties.  Quite the opposite.  

Tineman square started with a citizen's protest; a demonstration.  Waco did not.  

Tineman Square didn't start with a search warrant, and the right to keep and bear arms wasn't even the question, much less infringed.  

Tineman Square hasn't been the cause of such neo-nazi freedom fighters as Timothy McVeigh-- who called the children he killed "collateral damage."

Waco was unfortunate and tragic, but it wasn't an event of reactionary force against protest that Tineman Square.

Now, as to the subject that your plagiarism interrupted: it would have been a crisis, a turning point, no matter who had done the shooting at who.  

Your source, BTW, seems to think that Bush is actually like Hitler, which would make you his brownshirt.  But I don't suppose you read enough of that idiot site to know that.

The point is Waco deaths were CAUSED by a overzealous Government who had no respect for women and children.. I agree Tineman Square was not a identical situation but once again a overzealous Government against its citizens.. Give me a source that shows the government did the right thing in Waco .. I would like to read a report that shows justification...   I will say once again President Bush would not do something as Naziesque as Waco or Tinneman Square.. President Bush only does what is best for all the citizens ofour country..   I know no one who has allegiance to Tim McVeigh nor have I ever read anything that showed he was PRO ANY POLITICAL PARTY..I think Mc Veigh was just out of mind.

You could clearly tell I copied the part about Waco...I wish a lot of the libs would also do the same .. I never open up links on the boards..

As much as Federal mandates must be curbed, the vision of the fifty states looks to be the clusterfuck I could imagine.  If Congress "frees" the States, the first thing the States will have to do is make a Congress, or a Parliament, or something.

I swear, I didn't hear Rush say a thing. Even G. Gordon Liddy didn't say a thing.

The government, of course, didn't do the right thing, but it was hard to overcome the wrong things David Koresh did from the very beginning of it, including killing four law enforcement officers.  That's the other thing Tinneman Square lacked in comparison: David Koresh.

No, instead, Bush gives us Iraq.  So much better.  And it looks to me, from what you've said, that he would give us a Tinneman Square, and you would support him on that.  

So, what do we compare Iraq to? Chechnya? That's too harsh from a moral point of view but not compared to the tragedy it has created.  It's becoming clearer and clearer that he either deceived or let himself be deceived on the reasons for going in there.  

Once again your reading comprehension got you way off base..I never said if Bush gave us a Tinneman Square I would support him on that. If you have the capabilities to read the entire thread you might understand that there were some  chatter about protestors getting out of hand in D.C...  From my viewpoint peaceful protests are fine but if anyone gets threatening or riot like anywhere near our President then nothing is barred to make sure our President stays safe..In My opinion!

"There are thousands of Militiamen on standby to protect and serve our President and Staff.." --Quadseasonal, this thread 7/18/2007 2:50:46 PM

"I would surely help President Bush  if he was ever threatened by unruly mobs." ibid. 7/19/2007 7:07:49 PM

Now, in the first are you talking about "militiamen" or National Guard?  Second, are you talking about being one of those "militia men" protecting the President as a volunteer?

You make none of that clear.  Would you consider a perpetual protest in Washington that sometimes gets unruly to be Tinneman Square-like?  It seemed you'd consider Waco to be like that first, so apparently, it would be okay with you if your National Guard/Militiamen went in there and busted some skulls.

You see, you're unclear about what you mean.  I could only guess that you didn't mean for any of those statements to be put together as a whole, and that you yourself are thinking of them in isolation from each other.  

Fact is, a protest that threatens a regime or a system is like Tinneman Square. The difference was Tinneman Square was peaceful.

In looking at what could have happened with the fillibuster and protest, I was more thinking about the French Revolution, which I had just read about.  Where things got totally, totally, utterly and unexpectedly out of hand.  I'm always thinking about the surprise, but shouldn't be distracted by the totally unlikely.  

More about your plagiarism: don't make us read something you haven't read yourself, which includes much more detail than is really needed for the argument, and with errors, omissions and lies.  If you're going to drag and drop, can't you just give the friggin' link?  

-- Modified on 7/21/2007 5:50:35 PM