Abortion discussion is banned.
White House cuts off tours due to sequestration
edgeplay_cgo wrote:It's worse than not caring. It is deliberate punishment of the American People. The Treasonous Criminal Zerobama regime is waging war on the American People. This satisfies the Constitutional definition of Treason.
You serfs will be punished until you comply with the desires of Your Overlords. Get the Message. The Dictator and his Criminal Accomplices will inconvenience, will punish, and will terrorize the American People to enforce compliance. Meanwhile, Zerobama will enjoy his golf outings with celebrities, Empress Moo will dine and travel in fine style, and your Senators and Representatives will live in the lap of luxury.
The People will comply, or they will suffer.
Unless we Rise Up and put the Criminal Regime on a short leash. (And no, I'm not calling for barricades to arise in the streets. yet.) Otherwise, just shut up and eat your cake.
Μολὼν λαβέ
Rob Herrick wrote:Here's the thing. That kind of behavior inspires people to bring out the guillotine. It doesn't matter that Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake." What matters is the perception of her and Louis as living the life of luxury on other people's dime. Nobody cared that Louis was desperate to fix the fiscal mess he inherited from his grandfather - he was the oppressor of the people, so he got a revolutionary haircut.
Obama is gunning for the same metaphorical fall. His actions - causing pain to the people while retaining useless mouths on they payroll - will not make people fold and give him more money. It will convince people he's a lying SOB, who cannot be trusted with the nation's fisc (a conclusion, I might add, the United States Senate has already reached, since they unanimously rejected his 2011 and 2012 budget proposals).
The gambit might run if he didn't have the luxuries getting out - but they are and do. His sequestration scarefest is more laughing stock than reality, and he's making sufficient enemies that somebody will talk. We're already starting to see the fallout from the Bob Woodward debacle.
An article is posted about people buying media...edgeplay_cgo wrote:Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses. I think modern Liberalism has demonstrated that sex is the opiate of the masses. They promise sexual liberality, and people line up. If you promised everyone would be guaranteed to get laid, they would be crowding into the boxcars.
I've heard the argument, "I don't care if the Democrats are in my wallet. At least they're not in my pants."
It is the animal world's strongest drive. The Left has partially harnessed that.
edgeplay_cgo wrote:Take away their media, and you inhibit their ability to think and express themselves. This is not too different from the way the Nazis seized control of the Media. The Enemy, here, has the advantage that most of the media is already idealogically on board.Obama donor in process of buying up and ‘destroying’ America’s top pro-gun media outlets
We may get to see, this year, whether The Constitution is worth anything at all. We may get to see how many cops are willing to betray their country and become nothing more than jackbooted thugs deserving a bullet in the spine. Conversely, we may get to see with pride how many Patriot cops we have. We may get to see whether the American People are willing to kill and die for The Constitution, or whether they will lie down like sheep.
These are perilous times.
Μολὼν λαβέ
Old men discuss the minimum voting age. Predictability ensues.
The Admiral wrote:Which is what I've been saying for years. Cutting the minimum voting age to 18 was a catastrophic mistake and one that should be remedied as quickly as possible. Return the minimum voting age to 21 at least and preferably increase it to 30.Rob Herrick wrote: Frankly, it's almost to the point where we look at your demands to be treated as children - endless fun, endless free stuff, more somebody else paying for you, zero responsibility for your lives and actions - as proof you are children and raise the voting age to 30, and minimum ages for national political office to 45, 55 and 60.
The rest of that thread is gold, but it's all interwoven and a ton of work for me to post. The common argument was "old people have a stake in the establishment." So... yeah.The Admiral wrote:Ahh, so you support a poll tax then. Well, I can't say I disagree with you. So, by linking voting with paying tax, we can disenfranchise the unemployed and welfare recipients as well.Lord_Lieutenant wrote: Fine, as long as that's when I start to pay my taxes and can't be conscripted until.
Linking voting age and conscription also raises some interesting issues . . .
Sorry, Phil, but while your comment is emotive, its also irrelevent. We're not talking about fairness here, life isn't fair. We're talking about ability to execute the responsibility of voting in a proper manner. As Iskander has so ably and devastatingly demonstrated, the participation of "the youth vote" in elections has been an unmitigated, unqualified disaster. In fact, based on Iskander's comments I would consider increasing the voting age to 35 rather than 30.
Iskandar wrote:THE SYSTEM DID NOT WORK, STUART. The system you lovingly speak of gave us the First and Second World wars. The system gave us the Cold War. The system brought untold horror unto humanity just so a few at the top could play chess with others. The system gave us nuclear weapons and binders full of plans to wipe millions of people whose only crime was trying to experience the wonders of life out of existence for petty squabbles. The system did not tear down the Soviet Union, youthful idealism did. The system gave us Jim Crow. Youthful idealism tore down Pinochet, the Iron Curtain, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Suharto, started the Prague Spring and 20 years later got right back up and went back in with the Velvet revolution, it stopped the IFV's in the tunnel on the way to Moscow and is fighting Assad, it sacrificed a lot to fight Ahmadinejad and died in Tienanmen square. What did your system do?The Admiral wrote:The first part is beautiful-sounding nonsense devoid of any meaningful content, rhetorical poetry without substance. The only bit that actually means anything is the last twelve words. And they are completely and utterly wrong. The idea that children without experience of the real world and without a solid background to fall abck on is not an idea that has lasted for thousands of years. It is a fallacy that has been ridiculed for thousands of years. Only in the last five or six decades has anybody actually been insane enough to suggest that children who are unable to stand on their own feet should have a vote. We tried it; its failed. Scrap it. Go back to the system that works.
Maybe more later.NewGolconda wrote:Iskander in particular – seems to be arguing preposterously that WWI and WWII could have been avoided by lowering the voting age – and no I don’t think that is an exaggeration of his position based on his “the system” arguments. Imagine Hitler turning back from Poland in 1939, because they had just extended suffrage to 18 year olds, or the Japanese militarists electing not to attack the United States on this basis preposterous.
