Posted on 12/01/2002 1:23:55 PM PST by BraveMan
The funny thing about the founders is that one of their first acts when drafting the new constitution was to out the "militia" under governement control to fight future "minutemen" bent on revolution.
Interesting. Unfortunately they also wrote the Declaration which says in fairly plain language that when the government ceases to do that which you require of it, you may replace it.
Any chance that the new Homeland Security Act will 'out' those who may email or make on-line purchases that may be interrpreted as having a 'bent' towards revolution?
Good government will nullify revolution. Bad government just brings it on. I'm continually amazed that the people haven't flocked to the polls to replace the parties that continue to do to us that which the 'Tea-party'ers' would not have tolerated for a moment.
Perhaps it can all be explained by the difference between acts perpetrated upon us by a 'foreign' entity rather than a 'domestic' one.
I've got your six. Don't bail on the rest of us just yet.
He also says divorce and remarriage causes mutant kids. I don't think he means it literally, but I am not sure quite how he means that word to be understood if applied to both mixed marriages and families with a divorce record. I suspect he means something with the thought process of such people, which is rather a slur against any mixed race people.
When I first joined this group in (I think) 1999, I was amazed that there were so many people who cared, like I did, about the future of our republic, and who in so many ways agreed with me. It was as if I was home at last after a lifelong voyage.
When Bush was elected, all that seemed to change when many members seemed to favor party power over principle. It downright got on my nerves, and I saw no use in stressing myself out over an internet forum. I simply slowed my posts down here to a crawl.
While I've heard horror stories, I've never been banned or rebuked for expressing an opinion contrary to the administration. The debates I've had over, for instance, the military tribunals, were both civil and informative. In contrast, however, the debates I read dealing with Alan Keyes, were useless and filled with invective. They rarely had anything to do with the original topic, but dealt mostly with ratings, Alan's sweater, or his style.
As one who finds himself in more agreement with Alan Keyes than George Bush on issues such as Immigration, Israel, military intervention in areas such as Kosovo, abortion, embryonic research, tarrifs, taxes, military tribunals, campaign finance reform, education, church-state relationships, and just about every other Constitutional issue under the sun, I found myself more of an outsider--a fringe member of FR and the Republican Party--rather than a citizen of my own home.
The Party of the author of Slander which, among other things, accused Democrats of name-calling rather than intelligently debating the issues, did little more than just that here on FR, from my perspective. Even in this thread you can see much of that, starting with the whack at Buchanan who, for all his faults, still has much to offer this country by way of his exposure, insights, and ability to articulate them.
I remember a time when an ad hominem was made, you could simply point out the logical fallacy and ask for a real argument. Either the person bolted, knowing he was exposed, or he would calm down and make an argument. These days, those sorts of attacks (even on Democrats) are so widespread, to try to control them would be an exercise in futility.
There are plenty of people here on FR who still are cabable of rational discussion, and do it regularly. It is from them that a return to reason and civility must spring. If we are all, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, created equal, then no one is immune to criticism, properly done. We are either a party of ideas or a party of personalities. If a personality has an idea that is wrong, an appropriate refutation of that idea is justified, and it ought not be construed as an assault on the personality. I will not, as the RNC states, support Bush as he "leads" us if I don't think the direction he is "leading" us is good. To do so is not patriotism, but--if I may say so--fanaticism, and a sure step in the direction of tyranny.
Anyway, I've rambled enough for a post that will ne'er get read. I guess I just felt the need to vent.
As one who finds himself in more agreement with Alan Keyes than George Bush on issues such as Immigration, Israel, military intervention in areas such as Kosovo, abortion, embryonic research, tarrifs, taxes, military tribunals, campaign finance reform, education, church-state relationships, and just about every other Constitutional issue under the sun, I found myself more of an outsider--a fringe member of FR and the Republican Party--rather than a citizen of my own home...
I will not, as the RNC states, support Bush as he "leads" us if I don't think the direction he is "leading" us is good. To do so is not patriotism, but--if I may say so--fanaticism, and a sure step in the direction of tyranny...
Anyway, I've rambled enough for a post that will ne'er get read. I guess I just felt the need to vent."
Amen Brother. By ALL means do "vent" a bit more often...
Keyes' contribution to "our" cause is/was absolutely essential. And so is Pat Buchanan's. Neither do I quite understand the bitter invective against two giant perennial warriors for American conservatism. It is indeed that kind of elitism and robo-ism which we here at FR as you correctly infer, once accused the Democrats of engaging in. This monolithic and shrill voice which demands that we either fall in line unconditionally, "for" the GOP and George W. Bush OR "against" is completely absurd. The h*ll with that and the RNC my friend -- and there are plenty of Freepers and lurkers who would say "aye" to that.
Many of us WILL NOT march lock-step with ANY American "leader", GOP or otherwise, who fails to uphold the Constitution, reverses field or stalls on conservative issues which should be addressed ASAP, OR begin compromising with the Left in order to appear "Centrist"...
And another thing -- We are not the "fringe" -- they are :-)
There ya go getting all defensive again.
Let me ask -- is anyone allowed to disagree with Dubya at all? We support him. We support him. We really do. But ONLY when he does the "right" thing.
No, I am pointing out that the vast majority of threads about Bush or the GOP are critical of both. That is a matter of fact and all of this whining about lack of dissention on FR is either ignorance or plain dishonesty.
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The fact is that there is indeed an uneasy measure of enmity amongst Freepers who voice disapproval over some of Dubya's policies.
There are many, including myself, who have been declared 'GOP heretics' and worse for criticizing the President's position toward either illegal Mexican invaders; his Islam shilling ("Religion of Peace"), while rapping Christian leaders who voicing their ecclesiastic opinion; CFR; handing Teddy-the- Drunk money for the leftist NEA; etal...
Overall I would rate him a B- or C+ -- in other words, he could do much better. Can some of us help it if we have high expectation for an American President? For the record, I gave President Bubba an F-.
Still and all, the fact of the matter is in that most Freepers from the Buchanan/Keyes/Bauer/McCain/ camps still overwhelmingly support President Bush. But we, unlike the Democrats expect to have our voices heard, and "corrections" in policy and words when he is screwing up. Afterall, even you realize Dubya is only "human" ;-)
I am sure that you never countered with "BushBot", "party over principle", "sheeple" or any of the other dozen or so labels that are reserved for those that dare question the validity of your statements...have you?
The "enmity" is constant on both sides. The GOP supporters are only one of about 5 different factions on this site and the "enmity" is enough to go around. There will be no coming together of those factions and as the primary season begins for 2004 it will become even more intense.
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
You somehow equate "suppress insurrections" --- as being organized to --- "fight future 'minutemen' bent on revolution"?
Thanks tex. This comprehension problem you have may be beyond the help of your prozac type medications. - Best you look into early onset senile dementia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.